I'm not keen to start a thread on the drama-board, but this is probably the best place for it as it's not purely 3RR or purely socky... ClaudioSantos (talk·contribs) has a long history [1][2][3][4][5][6] of editwarring on subjects related to euthanasia, eugenics &c. Unfortunately, several blocks seem to have caused only one change to editing patterns; they now appear to be using an IP address in order to get around 3RR. For instance, compare thesetwo edits to thesetwo. And on talkpages, including the RfC on Talk:Planned Parenthood, 192.172.14.99 has turned up to provide one of the few voices in support of ClaudioSantos' mission to emphasise ties between Planned Parenthood and eugenics - right on the boundary of ClaudioSantos' topic ban from "Euthanasia and related topics, broadly construed". There are many more examples in Special:Contributions/192.172.14.99. This kind of socking, editwarring, and votestacking is very unhelpful. ClaudioSantos has surely been reminded of the rules many times, and been given many extra chances. What's the best way to deal with this? I fear that another week's block would merely allows other editors to be productive for a week before the disruption resumes again. bobrayner (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't this put him afoul of the community-placed 1RR general sanction on abortion? Between that and the apparent attempt at end-running the topic ban, it looks to me like ClaudioSantos is earning the heavy end of the hammer. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This is harassment and false accusations of bad faith on alleged use of a sockpuppet. I am not editing warring as I have constrained me to discuss the thing in the talk page about the inclution/exclution of a see-also link at Planned Parenthood linking to Eugenics in the United States. I was also commenting as a RfC was called. This is an abusive use of the ANI in order to force a point of view through excluding an user. It is proverbial the Jesanj efforts to imply that abortion is euthanasia, a point of view that surely he will not include at those articles, but solely in order to extend the ban for me. -- ClaudioSantos¿?
As I pointed out on my talk page, the only mention of abortion in our euthanasia article mentions that one definition of euthanasia "specifically discounts fetuses in order to distinguish between abortions and euthanasia". The mainstream doesn't equate the two, our articles don't either at this moment, and until ClaudioSantos expresses the same view or tries to modify our articles in an attempt to equate the two, I don't see that the topic ban is being violated. (Other admins can feel free to disagree with me on that point.) Eugenics has an even shakier tie to euthanasia, I see almost no connection between the two topics. On the other hand, if there is actual socking that is going on, regardless of any topic bans that shouldn't be allowed, though that should be proven before action is taken. As to the violation of 1RR, I haven't looked into that yet, that might also be sanctionable. -- Atama頭 17:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the RfC and underlying content dispute (I think both parties have made at least some valid points), but the edit warring on Eugenics in the United States in not tolerable. I have fully-protected the article for 3 days. I have also blocked (talk·contribs·block log) for edit warring (they were very specifically warned by me here). — Satori Son 17:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I do not believe that ClaudioSantos has edited using that 192.172.14.99 anon account. That address geolocates to Farmington, Michigan, US, whereas ClaudioSantos appears to be editing from South America. — Satori Son 17:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I already explicity sais that I am not that IP. And I am not using any sockpuppet to votestacking. Those are solely bad faith assumptions. And I also have to notice here that I am not involved in the claimed edit warring on Eugenics in the United States where I have not edited since days ago. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I looked at Planned Parenthood, I only see 1 revert in 24 hours, which is not a violation of the general sanction. -- Atama頭 17:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, 192.172.14.99 (talk) is a U.S. Army IP address, registered to the USAISC. It's likely shared by a number of users, although recent activity seems to focus on attacking Planned Parenthood. I suspect that blocks of this IP will involve collateral damage, as there are probably multiple users connecting through it, and so semiprotection of specific target pages might be a better approach if problems recur. Just my 2 cents, and to be clear, I am involved in the dispute at Planned Parenthood. MastCellTalk 19:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur that semi-protection of the article is likely the best approach. And I retract my earlier comments regarding ClaudioSantos; it appears that the episode is still too fresh in too many people's minds, mine included. I'll put the RFPP in now, unless someone else already has. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with semi-protection, and support the 72 hour block on the IP. The only active disruption caused by anonymous editors is from this single IP. I'm not worried about collateral damage because this IP has been consistent for the past 3 days, so I wouldn't be too concerned if it is blocked for the next 3 days. If another IP appears to continue where this last one left off, then semi-protection would be warranted, but we normally don't protect an article because of disruption from a single account. -- Atama頭 19:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, just block the disruptive user and move on. causa sui (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the IP-block, but a warning to ClaudioSantos to keep a bit more distance from his topic block seems appropriate to me. Just play it on the safe side, Claudio. Night of the Big Windtalk 23:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion on the admin's talk page who enacted the community sanction, in which he judged that abortion was not a related topic. I concur with that, and I was the author of the community sanction.
If he's being disruptive by article standards, that's actionable, but the sanction only covers so much. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
ClaudioSantos (talk) has been blocked for edit warring and is asking for a review of that block on their talk page. — Satori Son 18:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been trying to caution ClaudioSantos about his behavior, through dialog on my user talk page, but it hasn't been working very well. He continues to antagonize anyone who disagrees with him. -- Atama頭 16:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Two days ago they were blocked for seven days for violating 1RR restrictions at Planned Parenthood. (Though they are asking for a review of that block on their talk page.) Once that block expires (or is lifted), their behavior will need to be monitored. — Satori Son 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This user's user page looks like a clear violation of wp:user pages. However, I don't have experience dealing with user page issues, so I thought I'd bring this to the group's attention for further instruction. The user in question went so far as to add his user page to the "External links" section of the Sarcoidosis article. It's been removed, so it's not an issue, but it does help illustrate that the user is using his user page as a personal blog rather than to further the project. Rklawton (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed it looks like WP:UP#Excessive unrelated content, particularly WP:UP#PROMO. I'm paring it down and will inform the user of what I've done and why. I've already blanked the phone numbers and email addresses; I doubt it's worth oversighting them as the user put them there herself. TonywaltonTalk 14:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
@Rklawton: No offense, but your first edit to his her talk page was about this ANI thread; it should have been a note regarding WP:UPNOT and then wait for his her response. Sends a better "welcome to WP" vibe rather than what ANI offers. --64.85.217.47 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
::: Given that the user calls themselves "Susan Elizabeth" that's more than likely "her" talkpage and response TonywaltonTalk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the IP editor, here... Perhaps a kind note explaining that their userpage might just fall afoul of WP:UP or even a templated message (we have {{uw-userpage}}) would have been better courses of action. However, now it's done; let's see how and if Siouxsherat responds. The extrema ratio, in these cases, is WP:MFD...SalvioLet's talk about it! 14:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've now boldly removed most of it, with a fairly long and hopefully kind note on their talkpage explaining about WP:UP#PROMO and WP:UP#USERBIO and inviting them to become a contributor with due regard to WP:OR and WP:NPOV particularly with regard to their own medical condition. Please don't flag as resolved yet until we either hear nothing at all or get some feedback from User:Siouxsherat. TonywaltonTalk 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll add the uw-userpage template suggestion to wp:user pages where it would be most useful. Rklawton (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Communication is essential in situations like this. If there is no suitable template, write an appropriate message using your own words. If you can't think of how to explain your actions before you start acting, then it is probably best to either leave the action to someone else or (preferably) to seek assistance from a more experienced user before acting. That way everyone has an opportunity to learn. However, do not depend on templates for communication; think of how most people feel when receiving form letters and no actual specific personal message. Risker (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Depends what the infraction is, of course. If this had simply been the 17th attempt to use a userpage to promote Vic's Viagra Shack a simple "you have been blocked for spamming" would probably have sufficed. This wasn't... Cheers, TonywaltonTalk 18:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
When I revert edits of other users, I don't always template them; often I consider that the edit summary is enough, especially if there were only one or two instances. If they then repeat the behaviour, or have done it several times already, then I'll reach for the template box. In my experience, templating a user may provoke them, see WP:DNIV. In this case, there were 13 edits, but I considered it to be two instances because the user was clearly working out the link syntax on a trial-and-error basis (three of the 13 edits were self-reverts, which are always permitted, AFAIK). I suppose that I could have issued a {{subst:uw-test1}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
New users don't always know to look for the edit summaries. If there's been other intervening edits, it won't show up on a watchlist. If you need to say something, I find using the talkpage is mor reliable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Outside of the more general discussion Siouxsherat has asked for the original page to be provided to her as she's put a lot of work into it and it may be useful elsewhere within the Sarc community.
I've done so at User:Siouxsherat/Old User Page, effectively a sandbox. TonywaltonTalk 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure user page rules apply to sandboxes, too. What Siouxsherat created has nothing to do with Wikipedia and shouldn't be hosted by Wikipedia even if it's useful to some other group for some other reason - no matter how much work as put into it. I suggest giving Siouxsherat time to copy her work and removing the sandbox page, too). Rklawton (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Here I would agree with you. Since this user has 16 article edits in 2 years, and appears to be a (good intentioned) SPA, no leeway is available to her. WP:User pages#On others' user pages states "Users with a strong editing record and/or most of their contribution edits outside their user space should be given a little more leeway in this regard than users whose edits consist solely or mostly of user space edits or promotional-style activity," so that would not apply here. Also, she has stated the page is of use to people with similar disabilities; this suggests she may be using WP as a webhost. Since an admin has reinstated her userpage on a subpage, I would suggest giving her a week or so to transfer it to a Word document (or something) and then delete it. Ideally, the same admin would do this (Tonywalton), as is usually par for the course. That's just how I see it. (Same IP user as 64.85.xxx.xx above) --64.85.215.50 (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and I propose deleting that in a day week or so, when she's had chance to copy it offline. Sorry, I should have said that I've applied a trout to myself already). TonywaltonTalk 15:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please have a look at WP:AN3? Some of the reports there have been there for quite a while without action. Yes, including the one I filed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree. I have already been flamed by reported user 208.127.239.5 and no administrator action has been taken. ANDROS1337TALK 01:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Still nothing, NO ACTION on any of those recent reports and it's been the better part of a day. Gee, and I'd always heard that 3rr was supposed to be a bright line. You break it, you get blocked. I guess those edit warriors can see what a fucking joke that is. I suppose now the admin who finally deals with them will say he can't block now because the reports are too stale. Sure is a good thing we have these noticeboards so you can get some admin help when you need it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect Mr. Anderson and Andros, we're all volunteers here. There's no formal time limit for when actions will occur. I personally just spent a week 90% unplugged from my usual electronic leashes. In many parts of the world it's summer vacation. Snotty/snide remarks and sarcasm because a volunteer somewhere has not actionned something as quick as you like does not go far, nor does it solve the issue. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand. You're right, I was being snotty. I was frustrated. I apologize. Hugs and kudos to the entire admin corps and all the terrific work they do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There are hundreds if not thousands of admins. It sometimes seems like only a couple dozen of them are actually active. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Because admins more frequently get criticized when it comes to edit-warring blocks, and some admins don't want to end up on the "bad admin list". –MuZemike 17:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That's why I do AN3 blocks, I figure enough people already have me on their redlist because of my image work ;) Black Kite (t)(c) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could get on that list S.G.(GH)ping! 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
But he is not reverting. He should revert and put it into a regular deletion process. He even dives into "As it stood, it was a list of places" contradicting the summary that he left when deleting. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've notified Peridon. If he doesn't restore the material and list it at AfD, then you should open a deletion review, but I hope this will not be necessary.—S MarshallT/C 11:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Update; user now indeffed as a sock by ErrantX. Marking resolved, though an uninvolved admin should take a look at the DRV to figure out what to do with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Though frivolous DRVs by banned editors might be closed, this DRV looks to have substance, so I suggest it be allowed to run its course. There is already a lengthy comment there by DGG of a profound nature so, anyone who thinks they understand the issue can go and contribute. An objection by any editor (now DGG is the proponent) is enough reason to take a speedy to DRV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Stalking by User:JaGa
– boomerang --Errant(chat!) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see [7], [8][9], [10] ... and then he started a SPI case [11]. This looks like he wants to kick me out of the project. Maybe also because I pointed out bias regarding Indian topics and now it is a revenge or something like this. The non-consensus claims have also been brought up by SpacemanSpiff, so maybe he formed an alliance with him. See the links I provided on the SPI case that show that there was consensus. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
He even programmed a stalking tool: http://toolserver.org/~jason/mv/move_stats.php - that lets him view page moves and then attack users that move several pages. And note: He does distinguish moves of "normal" users from moves made by admins. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that tool; in fact, it seems very useful. Chzz ► 14:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's primarily used to nail Tobias Conradi socks; in this case, it seems to have achieved exactly what it was intended to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeedy - blocked the socks based on the SPI. Although it occurs to me I have earlier participated in an AFD with this person yesterday (I knew the name rang a bell). So might not have been the best person to do it - fairly uncontroversial matter though. --Errant(chat!) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Lots of deletions - right or wrong?
User:Nikkimaria (talk) (contributions) shows a series of "rm" and "rc" deletions of old and new {{trivia}} tagged sections, with no meaningful edit summaries, or generally following the suggestions in WP:TRIVIA and WP:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps, and with no discussion after being reverted. I noticed it at Dirty Work (1998 film)(talk)(history), where the deletions included cited content. I reverted with edit summary advice to reread WP:TRIVIA, was reverted; then I commented at the editor's Talk page, refreshed a 4-year-old old discussion at article Talk, and reverted. At this moment, no discussion response yet. I find such runs of deletions, as opposed to tagging with {{citation needed}} or discussion, to be against the spirit of the Five Pillars, and as such, undesirable. --Lexein (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Has the user failed to respond to an attempt to dialogue? While I share your concerns about wholesale deletion of likely salvageable (or even perfectly OK, just tagged...) material, the first obligation with any dispute is to try and solve it with the person you believe to be doing things incorrectly. Given the divergence in the backgrounds of the articles listed in the contributions, I would question whether the editor had the background in each topic to effectively judge the importance of "trivia" in those fields, but absent any failure to listen to community input, I don't see anything actionable here. Have you notified this editor you posted here? Jclemens (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
To answer in order, I'd say, yes the editor didn't respond, but perhaps they had already quit for the day. Yes, I notified on the user's Talk page of the ANI, and then I noticed that the user had stopped editing (perhaps for the day) about an hour before I compiled my concerns here. The volume of deletions had alarmed me to the point of wanting immediate admin review to slow things down a bit. One straight-up error was the editor's treatment of BRD as "boldlyrepeatdeletion", rather than "bold, revert, discuss, as I did state on their talk page before I reverted. The editor had, during their revert, integrated one unsourced part of one trivia item into the article's cast list ("Stern offered part").
But I guess I see your point about nothing actionable. I suppose it's up to me to march along behind and selectively review and revert dozens of deletions. Oh, wait, that would be stalking! It's bitterly disappointing that even now, while editors are leaving, deletionists still have free reign. --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
struckthrough for tone --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I now no longer think Nikkimaria's edits were naked deletionism. See my end remarks. --Lexein (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the (uncited) phrase "Contrary to popular belief, Artie Lange and Norm Macdonald had not met prior to the production of this film, however they have become close friends in the years since" doesn't need to be in that article, for example. Looking at Nikkimaria's removals of trivia section, most (and I say most, not all) appear to be correct to me. The first two I looked at, for example, were removing copyright violations, and another one moved cited information into other sections of the article. As Nikkimaria said, just because something can be cited doesn't mean it is important enough to be in an article (see, for example, what they removed from J. C. Bamford - that was just a case of editors adding anything with tangental connection to the subject into the article). Black Kite (t)(c) 12:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with sentence (1), and the deletion of the "dog-napping films" item. I still think the Rickles/Macdonald item has merit, and am trying to source it, as it is relevant to production. --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and leaving a note that says "As a non-contributor to the article, your undiscussed deletion is not welcome." on another editor's page would appear to me to be a bad idea, especially as it suggests some WP:OWN issues - I note this has come up before. Black Kite (t)(c) 12:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I try not to WP:OWN, but unhelpfully summarized deletions always seems to be the dang go to action, where, IMHO, other guidelines like "find sources", helpful edit summaries, trivia integration, and pillars like discussion should prevail. The 3RR issue was less about OWN than other quite obvious things, and I was cleared at 3RR. --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Lexein, the phrases "inclusionist" and "deletionist" usually refer to articles as a whole, not to disputes over article content. In this case, the content hasn't been deleted, as it is still there in the article history. The common sense approach when there is a dispute over article content is to copy the disputed content to the talk page and discuss it there. Whether this is done by the person removing it or the person wanting to add it doesn't matter. The important thing is that you take it to the talk page to discuss it. And if there are copyright violations, those should be removed in a separate edit as combining different types of edit can make it difficult for other editors to work out which bits are trivia and which are copyright violations. Personally, when I remove a large chunk of text that has been around for a long time I try and leave a note on the article talk page with a link to the diff showing the removal, so later editors can get an idea of the changes made. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
but sometimes they do refer to article content--those who are deletionist about separate trivia articles generally think just the same about trivia sections. And there has been the bad faith practice of merging an article to a section of another article, either as a result in AfD or just a simple merge, and then rapidly or slowly removing all the content. /This is effectively deleting the article. We have the safeguard of a community discussion before the deletion of an article, but the same effect can be achieved beneath the radar by destructive editing. There is also the practice of trying to delete an article or remove a section because one item in it is in error. That can be a very quiet operation. I think people regularly doing these things consistently do need to be looked at, and here is a good place to call attention to it. In my experience, at least a quarter of them are, at the least, careless. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with the broader definition of deletionism (both articles, and content). Long ago, in two unrelatedarticles, I experienced pretty gross content decimation with unhelpful or blank edit summaries and resentful "discussion." --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I now feel that Nikkimarias edits did not fall into the same behavioral camp. --Lexein (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that trivia sections vary from completely uncited dumping-grounds where people have thrown in random observations about anything vaguely to do with the subject, to well-researched cited sections with relevant information that is useful and educational. The latter shouldn't really be described as trivia sections, they're better than that; and the former just need ruthlessly pruning. This is why "useful" trivia is better moved into the relevant part of the body of the article. As I said above, I don't think all of Nikkimaria's removals were completely correct, but many (copyright problems, dubious uncited statements, and sections of the first type I mentioned above) were pretty much spot on. Some were arguable, and some were partly right; the section causing the particular disagreement above contained some useful information, but some uncited irrelvant stuff. Black Kite (t)(c) 17:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this, and prefer its tone, over mine (above). --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The irony of trivia sections is that they are precisely what drew me to Wikipedia as a resource, lo thee many years ago. Regardless of WP:NIME arguments, well-done trivia sections are something that attracts some readers, who may later become editors, and maybe even serve the community in some capacity. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I would restate your point without the word trivia - instead, I come to an encyclopedia for rich information, not only the raw, dull, recitation of the minimum facts, but some of the subtleties associated with the real world events or objects being discussed in the article. In Glass, I want to know that it's a common misconception that glass is viscous. As editors, IMHO, we can't presume to arbitrarily declare facts trivial without understanding the context in which they are not trivial. Put another way, all facts, out of context, are trivia.
Real encyclopedias tend not to use the word "trivia" - instead, the content is carefully integrated, hidden in plain sight. So I've gone through and integrated and sourced everything I thought significant. No dog-napping, or Lange/Macdonald friendship.
Though I still would like to see better edit summaries and distinct edits for distinct purposes, based on the comments above I see that I needn't have worried, and should have taken other amelioration steps first. --Lexein (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I applaud Nikkimaria's ambition to clean up our trivia sections. This is one of our weak points and we need more effort devoted to this sort of cross-article cleanup. As others above have said, the issue here is whether any of these points could be reincorporated into an article's text (perhaps even at a different article, rather than the one with the trivia section). Edits such as this are spot-on. This was mostly correct, although it might have been useful to create a section for famous residents and stick some of the people in there. From what I'm seeing, the ones that are most concerning are such as this. There, the material is improperly presented but the middle two points could help out the article in the future. Those points could have been incorporated into the article or moved to the talkpage for a future "Production" section. Even this last example is far from a deadly sin, but its still not the best editing practice. One last point of advice is the edit summaries... they should be more descriptive. Even "removing trivia" is better than just "remove" and even better is "moved some to the talkpage, removed the rest per WP:TRIVIA" or something of that matter. ThemFromSpace 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
This guy seems to vandalize in short bursts, 30-60 edits over a week or so each time. Check out this rangecontribs result. Unfortunately it will take a /18 to cover all his Algeria-based IPs. How about blocking 41.200.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) right now for two weeks, and doing that again each time he comes back? The range block would be anon-only so it would not bother any registered editors. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues
– For now, IP blocked, main article semi-protected
Ip user 94.2.38.154[16] keeps removing the SFL1 division from the list[17] which he has been advised not to do by User:DUCKISJAMMMY me and User:Adam4267 and continually advised to discuss on discussion page. He removes warning tags from his talk page. He is also started adding notability tags to articles of players relating to the league as per WP:Footy the division is notable. He also appears to be using ip's 94.2.51.78[18] & 94.14.78.108.[19] despite all attempts he fails to listen. Reading between the lines i suspect he may be a previous editor as he refers to issues involving notability of other leagues he has left messages on my talk page[20] and his accusing me of not consider consensus and policy which i have this is despite him being invited to take part in consensus discussion that is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. The consensus is that the league is notable this goes back a long way he is adamant that this isn't the case. his edits are becoming disruptive. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an issue for WP:DRN, it doesn't sound like there's anything an administrator can do for you. Give that noticeboard a try, it was created for situations just like yours. -- Atama頭 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
He fails to head warning given by users surely once given a final warning an administrator can take action and he is hoping ips trying to avoid detection. He has become disruptive to the goals of the project. I would also query that he may possibly be a banned user. that needs to be checked. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Go to WP:DRN. He may not be "hopping ips trying to avoid detection". We have no idea how he connects to the internet, some ISPs change a users IP address regularly, there are 1000 WP:AGF reasons why his IP address may change, which may also be why he isn't getting warnings. Don't jump to the "he's hopping ips just to screw with us" conclusion. 99% of all people connected to the internet don't know how IP addresses work, what one is, or how their own ISP deals with them, much less how to "change" them. Don't just jump straight to that conclusion without evidence. Instead, do as you were told to do: see resolution through calm discussion and get outside input on the situation, such as at WP:DRN, and don't immediately demonize a user merely because his IP address changes. Instead, try to work a peaceful solution to the problem out. My comments here do NOT indicate that any of this person's behavior is actually good, or that his position is correct (and my saying THAT statement doesn't mean that I think he is wrong either) however, please don't assume that everyone you run into conflict with is trying to game the system or something like that... --Jayron32 20:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
my one last point is i don't feel WP:DRN would be of help as there isn't really a dispute the majority of users are agreed on this. He is trying to change policy with disruptive edits through the back door rather than going into proper discussion. He may be using many more ips as this has been three different addresses in three days. I genuinely feel an adminstartor is needed i am not the only user to have been forced to revert his edits could you at very least look into the face he may be a banned user. How can someone who the majority of users are reverting his edits note none of his edits are current as all have been reverted by one user or another. It is not just me that has warned him. He has received two final warnings. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The League seems to have been removed from the list in 2010 until restored along with Divisions Two and Three last month. After appropriate use of the talk page it was re-removed on the basis that sources, particularly [21] and [22], did not support (or flatly contradicted) the League's inclusion. Discussion on talk is very much ongoing and - while my instinct is to remove the dubious inclusion altogether - leaving it tagged for the time being seemed a sensible middle ground.
This approach has been met by Warburton1368 with edit warring [23][24][25][26], canvassing [27][28] and attempts at intimidation through a misuse of "vandal" templates [29][30]. In the interests of WP:COI it should be noted that the other users noted above are also members of his "Scottish Football Taskforce". However, other longstanding Scottish Football contributors have been PRODing articles of Division One players, [31][32] etc., as they are not professional and unlikely to get the type of sustained WP:RS coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG.
I would advise that you are picking on me i am not the only user to warn you i am not also the only user to advise you to join discussion which you wont fully do as you are aware that for now the consensus is against you. i would be willing to drop any of this if you stop your edits to the pages until consensus has been reached. The first division as per consensus at WP:Footy is notable untill a new consensus has been reached you cant keep disrupting the project. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Also the players you have notified if i am correct wouldn't be notable unless the first division or spl second division which these players are in isnt notable. I will look into and if should be kept will be taken to AFD at full wikiproject. The scottish task force has nothing to do with you dont want to discuss. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I have in no way used the templates inappropriately you were advised not to change until consensus was reached you continued this is vandalism. Why ip hop you have used three in three days. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't want you to feel picked on, Warburton1368, and premature ANIs are unfortunate - but your prerogative. Please be assured I am contributing to all discussions as fully as WP:IRL will allow. But can you show me this consensus? My contributions are in line with policy and sources, they not disruptive or "vandalism" just because you happen to have a different view. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no consensus on the talk page or over at WT:FOOTY to remove the Scottish Football League Division 1 from the list - in fact, it's edging towards keeping it, but this IP insists on repeatedly removing it. I have also advised Warburton to go to DRN, but he's becoming increasingly disheartened, and has just posted on my talk page that he is retiring. Help needed here guys before we lose (yet another!) enthusiastic + knowledgeable editor. GiantSnowman 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on those wishing to include dubious material, not those objecting to its inclusion (or requiring for it to be sourced). 94.14.78.108 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there are ten sources confirming the professional nature of this league. Not enough for you?
One for each club—but two of them are failed verifications [33][34]. I clearly indicatated this reasonable objection on talk and on the page itself, only to be shouted down by the Scottish Football Taskforce. They apparently felt that their interpretation of WP:COMMONSENSE should trump inconvenient matters such as WP:V and consensus. The offending material was re-inserted without any attempt to discuss the sources and with some fairly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour thrown in for good measure. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Funny how you mention consensus when you have been conveniently ignoring it so far. GiantSnowman 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place, but please show me where this consensus is? 94.14.78.108 (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
On the talk page, as it should be. GiantSnowman 21:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
ADMIN HELP URGENTLY REQUIRED
He is now goading me on my talkpage and User:Adam4267 on his also see edits he has made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football this is goading users to get a reaction which he is now unfortunately getting one and on all three of his ip addresses there is warnings from a variety of users. If you think any of us have acted inappropriately as well then fine we will take that. His last statement of Unless the inclusion can be adequately sourced the list will revert to the previous stable version, per WP:BURDEN when he knows that the consensus does not agree with him he has no intent of stopping at all. I am seriously considering stopping editing wiki as this is ruining all the good work that editors at WP:Footy do. .Warburton1368 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The IP user needs to be stopped immediately he has been advised on his numerous talk pages to stop his disruptive actions but is still persisting. The IP user has gone against consensus, vandalised numerous pages & provoked editors. He has stopped the Scottish taskforce doing anything constructive in the last 2 days & its time some admin takes actions before we lose proactive members. (★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★) 23:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC))
If you are feeling so emotional then perhaps a WP:WB might benefit both you and the project. In respect of the facts, it is simple: find sources to support Ayr United and Queen of the South being full-time professional clubs, or see the League's place on the "fully professional" list challenged. This is quite reasonable and should be straight forward if you believe the League's place on the list is indeed merited. 94.14.78.108 (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
that is no longer the issue as snowy and adam and duckisjammy and everyone else is telling you that the consensus isnt agreeing with you you are goading us and vandalising pages. This is no longer a dispute you are basically attacking other editors and you know it. This is no longer need for further discussion with you and i certainly wont be doing that. An Admin is needed to look at your behaviour and sort this out as you clearly dont care about consensus just vandalising and attacking other editors. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
I have blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours (no reason for longer as it's dynamic) and have semi-protected the Ayr United article for a week. The range being used is too big for a rangeblock but if the editor re-appears under another IP I would suggest simply blocking as block evasion. Black Kite (t)(c) 00:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
I'm requesting that the conflict of interest matter at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zeitbyte Digital Media be looked into as soon as possible by an admin. Thanks, Nathan2055talk 22:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, I don't see the concern, since this editor is using the AFC process to get feedback and develop an article into compliance with WP:NPOV, and they are not editing a "live" article. Second, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a guideline, not a policy, and even as a guideline it doesn't prohibit it, only "strongly discourages" it. Third, is there any reason why this is posted here and not Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard? What admin action are you looking for? Avicennasis @ 00:06, 9 Av 5771 / 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Admin engaging in edit war, violates three revert rule, then locks page
– No action needed, this case was BLP related and exempt from 3RR. CycloneGU (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Admin Ronnotel engages in edit wars, reverts an article four times, then locks the page when he can't get his way. Great example of administrator bias and POV pushing. Repeatedly says inclusion is not sourced even though it is sourced. Using administrator status to cloak his own edit war. 208.83.63.222 (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the IP is referring to the Standard & Poor's article. ( Special:Contributions/Ronnotel ) Looking over the discussion at the Talk page there and what Ronnotel said at BLP/N, it appears to be a technical 3RR violation, with a BLP-oriented defense, but ultimately it is about removing material that isn't properly sourced. Technically, probably shouldn't have used tools per WP:INVOLVED, but honestly it was something another admin would likely have done for him, if asked. How do you handle a technical violation of protocol? Also, other editors, while not violating 3RR, were edit warring (IMHO). -- Avanu (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've left a notification to Ronnotel about this report anyway, as the IP who opened the thread did not notify him, though he did leave a less-than-civil message.[35] —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing material that violates WP:BLP is exempt from the edit warring rules. And judging by the material added, as well as the discussion on the talk page, I am inclined to support Ronnotel's actions. There is no explanation for why the donation history of the CEO of S&P's parent company is relevant to this page. The concern is doubled if Ronnotel's assertion that the president of S&P itself donates to the other party. It seems to me, as a complete outsider to this entire thing, that the material was added specifically to give the appearance of a partisan slant to recent decisions by S&P, and are using the actions of a living person to justify it. Thus, I believe the removals per BLP are appropriate. Resolute 23:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I also support Ronnotel's actions, per BLPPRIMARY. A team of anons have been trying to force this stuff into the article in violation of our BLP policy and R's done the right thing by removing and protecting. Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, Ronnotel brought it up here. Antandrus (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Ronnotel did nothing wrong here. Per WP:INVOLVED, taking escalating administrator actions to enforce Wikipedia policy does not count as involved. Given the WP:BLP concerns with the text, wikipedia policy CLEARLY states that that text MUST be removed, which Ronnotel rightly did, and when people refused to obey WP:BLP policy, and discuss the matter on the talk page, the page was rightly locked down. Good move by Ronnotel. --Jayron32 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Technically, it is a very mild BLP violation, if that. The editors did have a primary and reliable source for the statements. The problem is more that they didn't have a reliable secondary source to support the idea that these donations can be perceived as some kind of criticism. So if anything, wouldn't this be more of a sourcing and original research issue? -- Avanu (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Ronnotel's action. Fantastic section heading though. We never seem to get these titles like ZOMG ABUSIVE ADMIN ATE MY KITTEN any more. I miss them. --John (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The administrator acted correctly to revert a BLP violation and to take steps to prevent it from recurring. It was a BLP violation because it implies a partisan motive on the part of a living person not found in any sources. TFD (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence, all. I'm going to wrap this thread up and brandish it the very next time an anon POV pusher comes after me with an Admin Abuse cudgel. Ronnotel (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't even vote Republican, and yet I still support Ronmotel's semi-protection here. People are clearly trying to use primary sources to make partisan conclusions of Standard and Poor's motives, not to mention launch attacks against others via Wikipedia – a clear an unambiguous synthesis of sources. Moreover, I wonder if the talk page also needs to be semi-protected per this crap. –MuZemike 05:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Notified. IP seems pretty static: all contributions have been to subjects related to Puerto Rico, Latinos, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been linked to this fellow, and it's obviously the same user who's made all the contributions from the IP. He was just as charming back in April.[36][37]Doctalk 22:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. Hardblocked for 3 months. — Satori Son 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed the "resolved" tag. Can someone who is familiar with AFROdr look at the edits of User:65.8.153.6 to see if this is the same person? No profanity, but the same focus, and a near personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, seems to have been blocked already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of material for BLP reasons by Administrator who then protected the article
This is similar to the situation discussed above at WP:ANI#Admin engaging in edit war, violates three revert rule, then locks page except there was no 3RR. And in fact, I am that administrator, reporting myself. I saw a discussion at WP:BLPN#Paul Lendavai, went into the article and removed what looked like BLP violations, and semi'd the article as the BLP content invovles a current highly political issue. My removal was reverted, so I restored my 'cleansed' version and fully protected the article. I also put some comments on the talk page. The article was unprotected by another administrator (who agrees their edit summary was unfortunate), and I can understand that action but think it was wrong. I think that Administrators should be able to remove BLP violations and then protect the article and that this is quite different from simply changing content you don't like and protecting. I've never seen this article before and don't want to get involved in editing it. And of course I don't want to edit war and replace the protection, but I think the article needs full protection still. Was my protection "completely inappropriate protection by an involved user"? Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Actions: I believe, IIRC, carrying out solely administrative duties, including content changes/reversions for the purpose of removing BLP violations and/or copyvio do not meet the criteria to consider the admin in question "involved", even though in those instances I listed, it the administrator's actions may have required some form of article "editing". I am not familiar with the article subject, but, if your actions as deemed by others is considered removal of definite BLP violations (just as if it were copyvio), (1) I would not consider you involved, and (2) cannot see fault with your actions. In that vein, I have reviewed what edits you have made (at least in recent history) and see nothing more than BLP violation repairs. For that, I would not consider you involved. I suspect the other admin may have seen your earlier edits and not noted that they were correcting BLP issues. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I support your edit [38] and protection of the page to enforce discussion of non-compliant BLP content pending discussion, per WP:BLP. It may have been more advisable to ask someone else to protect it. Further edits would have been better handled via requests on the talk page; due to prot removal, some inappropriate content was reinstated [39] - however, I do note that editor is acting in good faith, and removing badly-sourced content subsequently [40].
I think Ironholds removal of prot was too hurried, and should have been discussed with you, and/or others, first. But, I'm sure that was a good-faith attempt to resolve things too - and, I see xe has since apologized [41].
I think the article should be protected again, in the near future but, only after a bit more discussion/opinions here. Chzz ► 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support actions Protection was called for and you chose to give priority to the BLP issue rather than guard your posterior. Putting in a request at WP:RFPP might have been politically prudent, but would also have caused a delay. I don's see your actions as violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Favonian (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your actions, since this is the second time today this has come up, should WP:INVOLVED be amended to make it clear that ( like WP:3RR) that "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons and protection of an article" by any administrator is a exception to WP:INVOLVED ? Mtking (edits) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that needs to be done and Ironholds (who acted in good faith but maybe hastily) and I discussed this yesterday and I've posted to his talk page about this thread (obviously) and amending WP:INVOLVED. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see a small caveat there - without wishing to get creepy, could it say something like, erm... I want to add a mention of BLP, but without removing the fact that it's best to ask others where possible. How about just this small addition to the example exceptions, in context, bolded? ;
In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism or blp violations), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.
Would that be enough? Maybe even with the link, "BLP violations" isn't clear enough; maybe "violations to the policy regarding living people". I don't know; I'm trying to KISS. Further ideas very welcome; this is a very rough draft/first thought. Chzz ► 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Dougweller's action and agree on some change in the wording to the policy if a form can be agreed on. I've been criticised for exactly the same thing once - reverted what I believed to be a troublesome IP adding unsourced information that might be contentious and which was being reverted by other editors, and locking article with note on talkpage, only to be told I was "involved" by virtue of the revert and note on the talkpage, and should not have locked the article. Never edited the article before, never edited it since.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Wording change would be nice and make sense. If I am reading it correctly, BLP violation reverts are not an issue... ad-inifinitum till another admin can be rounded up to do the protection because doing the revert may cause others to think the original admin was involved? Seems kinda silly. You all can drop me on the list of any such proposal there or on Village Pump (or wherever such would take place). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins! I said that above in my first (excessively verbose) post on the matter (right below my link clarification) - hence my support for a clarification of the guidelines so that other editors can't erroneously jump on the "he's involved" bandwagon. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think the policy is best left alone. Discretion is available to admins as to whether they exercise tools, whether in response to a perceived BLP violation, or in response to another admin who is perceived to have 'crossed the line'. Adding an explicit exemption for admins seems like it would discourage caution rather than the simple act of asking another of the 1,545 administrators for a hand. -- Avanu (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, the above 2-word addition isn't such an explicit exemption though; it just helps by mentioning that, in the case of BLPs, it might be more acceptable than usual for an admin to swiftly take action, such as protecting an article. I don't think admins will go crazy with it. So - do you actually object to that 2-word change, or can you accept it? Chzz ► 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bwilkins, exactly so; you said it better than I did. Chzz ► 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I keep thinking this over and over, and "blp violations" (or similar) is a lot more open to interpretation than "blatant vandalism". For example, if a person adds "John Smith is a cheeseball!!!" to the John Smith article, and nothing else, we can assume it is just a bit of vandalism, and any editor can safely remove it without concern. However, let's say it is sourced by a RS now. According to reports from the Mew Nork Bimes newspaper, "John Smith is a pasteurized-in-the-wool cheeseball." It now comes to an editor to discern whether it is a BLP violation. If you are 'involved', it only complicates the matter. The Standard and Poor's article in AN/I wasn't necessarily a BLP issue, but more of a primary source/secondary source issue, but the Admin who locked the article did so citing BLP, which was hovering nearby, but wasn't the primary concern. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm. You do have a good point. I think the real problem is, we have a clash-of-policies - or, at least, a clash of de jure accepted practice
Note: I do not consider this specific case to be problematic; I think we pretty much agree. But, in the larger scheme, I think this needs resolution;
The INVOLVED principles suggests admins who are - for wont of better terminology - significantly involved in an issue, should not use their admin-power in that arena. However, BLP concerns are often considered to supersede such niceties, and we always endeavour to err on the side of caution - for example, removing dubious material until there is agreement, instead of simply leaving whatever-version-happens-to-be-there whilst discussion takes place.
So, which is it? As I said, I don't want excess instruction - but, perhaps we do need this to be explicit. Should an involved admin shout here on AN about action required (beyond trivial/vandalism), even if it is a BLP concern, or should they take immediate action? Put another way, which is the greater concern in these cases - the chance of "admin abuse", or the change of BLP vio's? Chzz ► 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I just bring up the question of the Paul Lendvai article which is still unprotected? And being fairly heavily edited? Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we're all agreed that your original action was correct and does not make you involved. The current main editor seems keen to abide by policy and to discuss the matter with other editors, but suggest if you get a repeat, it can be protected again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we get someone who speaks Hungarian to help with that? http://www.utolag.com/ doesn't look like a reliable source. Thus, I'm not sure edits like this are appropriate. Chzz ► 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That site seems full of copyvio videos from television programs. I don't think in any case we can have a sentence reading "While Lendvai was never recruited as a spy, in a July 24, 1963 report, the archived documents refer to Lendvai as "one of the best contacts". The actual page seems to be from an article in Magyar Nemzet which (the article) is discussed in this blog [42] which of course has it's own political perspective. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's because the article was sourced almost exclusively to conservative to right-wing Hungarian sources that I suggested the use of this article On the March Hungary’s Ascendant Right Wing in the Boston Review which discussed Lendvai and Heti válasz. I think it needs to be sourced mainly from independent sources that don't have an obvious stake. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup; this is why I provided the editor with 147 pages of LexisNexis sourced news articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I nominated HarmonySEQ for deletion. It was previously deleted in an AfD. Can an admin check to see if this article can be speedily deleted as a recreated article? Joe Chill (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I just checked. The subject is the same, and the amount of text is similar, but the current version does have more references. It's a borderline case, but given the additional references, it may be worthwhile to just let it run a second time through AFD. --Jayron32 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
– No administrative action required. Jayjg (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas has repeatedly harassed me on my talk page. Firstly he has accused me of being a sockpuppet without providing any evidence to back up this claim. After I provided an extensive explanation of my time on Wikipedia he proceeded to question the value of my contributions to Wikipedia as a whole. I then proceeded to tell him that it was not his place to question whether my edits were valuable and I asked him to stop posting on my talk page unless he had anything further to say about sockpuppetry. Despite this request he has continued to post on my talk page and ask rhetorical questions about the value of my contributions on Wikipedia. This whole incident began after I expressed an opinion on the ongoing Requested Move at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Requested_Move . I have never had any contact with this user prior to my entrance into the discussion on the Requested Move, and it appears that he is posting on my talk page in an attempt to intimidate me out of making further contributions to said Requested Move. Vietminh (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Vietminh has not informed Viriditas of this report. Vietminh's editing history is slightly odd. There was an inital gap of several months between creating the account and making the first edit. These edits amongst others are odd.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] He has also admitted to editing as 174.114.87.236 (talk·contribs). The editing on the named account did suddenly change about three weeks ago.[53]Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Vietminh's account was created at 02:26, 26 September 2006. At 02:35, 26 September 2006 Vietminh edited Russell Hayne. That's an initial gap of 9 minutes, not several months. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 11:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Non-administrators cannot see the deleted edits. Mathsci (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
If he did, that edit is hidden or deleted. The first edit currently showing is in January of 2007. The most curious oddity is a gap of nearly 33 months, between March of 2007 and December of 2009. December of 2009 is also when 174.114.87.236 started editing. Its possible he had other IP's prior to that, and overall may just have a casual attitude about whether he's logged in or not. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A large number of users do not emerge as Minerva making large numbers of edits after springing from Jupiter's head. The gap of 33 months is pretty much meaningless as a result. It is moreover important that if a person believes that socking is occurring, that they post on appropriate boards and not post accusations of what appears to have been valid use of IPs as being some heinous violation (perhaps the fact that the IPs have zero temporal overlap is a clue? ). Have a cup of tea everyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, not everyone who has a username logs in every time he or she edits; my husband has a username (complete with a userpage and even a barnstar), yet seldom edits under his username because he doesn't have the "remember me" box checked on the login page. Only the really committed (or the anal-retentive) worry about logging in for every edit. Horologium(talk) 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The report doesn't require any administrative action. Vietminh (talk·contribs) has simultaneously requested an SPI. Best forgotten. Mathsci (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll respond to all in one paragraph: I informed Viriditas that I would initiate this action if he continued to harass me on my talk page, and I specifically asked him to cease posting on my talk page unless he had something to say in regard to his sockpuppet accusation. Despite this he continued to harass me without making any further mention of his sockpuppet accusation. In short: he was informed of what I would do if he continued, and he choose to continue despite knowing what would result. Also I provide an explanation of my use of my IP address on my IP's talk page, and I provide an explanation of why I started to use my account on my account user page. As for the SPI I initiated (which has since been closed without action), this has little to do with the action I have initiated here. That SPI has to do with the sockpuppet accusation which was made against my IP 1 year ago which was seemingly initiated by a sockpuppet account itself. The issue here is with Viriditas' accusation of sockpuppetry against my user account and his comments thereafter on my talk page. Vietminh (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you looking for the 'random rant at user' page? Because this isn't it.... (I'm being facetious of course. You're welcome to take this matter up at a more appropriate place like WP:WQA if you really feel it necessary. It's clear no admin action is warranted.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
User:68.194.239.60 needs a time out
– Sockpuppet IP account hardblocked. — Satori Son 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Notified. IP seems pretty static: all contributions have been to subjects related to Puerto Rico, Latinos, etc. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been linked to this fellow, and it's obviously the same user who's made all the contributions from the IP. He was just as charming back in April.[54][55]Doctalk 22:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly right. Hardblocked for 3 months. — Satori Son 22:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed the "resolved" tag. Can someone who is familiar with AFROdr look at the edits of User:65.8.153.6 to see if this is the same person? No profanity, but the same focus, and a near personal attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, seems to have been blocked already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I nominated HarmonySEQ for deletion. It was previously deleted in an AfD. Can an admin check to see if this article can be speedily deleted as a recreated article? Joe Chill (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I just checked. The subject is the same, and the amount of text is similar, but the current version does have more references. It's a borderline case, but given the additional references, it may be worthwhile to just let it run a second time through AFD. --Jayron32 17:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Thanks. Joe Chill (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
At the end of May, Alex, in his first acknowledged edits on the subject in three and a half years, posted an Arbcom case regarding the Falklands. It was rejected here. Since then, Alex has made threats to try and take us back to Arbcom - see here, and note that he was warned by an uninvolved admin here. Alex's communication, as can be seen throughout his edit history, consistently fails to assume good faith and is frequently uncivil, with personal attacks thrown in for good measure - see for example this, written today.
The IP, meanwhile, posted this on Tuesday. In it he says that "[w]e are documenting, everything you say, on every issue" and that "we're just going through the motions" in preparation for Arbcom. It is clear to me that the intention is to try to bully editors into letting him have his way with the article. I note also this comment, which I put out there for general information.
The uninvolved admin who warned Alex when he previously issued threats advised that ANI be the next step with any future issues. As such, I am now doing this. Pfainuktalk 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on the claims of the potential chilling effect of some of some of the ip's comments, I would note generally that it is entirely within the remit of WP:NPOV to include Argentinian sources addressing the pov of that nation - being the other party in the dispute of the sovereignity of the islands. What due weight such references should be given is a matter for discussion and consensus; however, denying the discussion of such matters is as non collegiate as threatening continued "disruption by process". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The point I would make is that this is intended to be a history of the islands, not a discussion of a dispute. It is is the nature of this dispute that what are claimed to be historical facts by one or other side often turn out to have little or no historical basis at all according to reliable sources. In some cases, indeed, they are directly contradicted by both historical evidence and reliable sources. While I have no issue with including Argentine sources, this is different from presenting an Argentine POV that has little apparent basis in history.
However, when it comes down to it, it is very difficult to have a collegiate discussion on any subject that involves Alex, simply because of the persistent incivility, personal attacks and accusations of bad faith. WP:BATTLEGROUND comes to mind. Pfainuktalk 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
T M F L - D R How 'bout a "Readers Digest" Version ?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I completely agree that an impasse has been reached in the discussion of the article such that Admin involvement is necessary. I welcome it with open arms and in this response I shall attempt to be as brief as I can in responding to the accusations made by Pfainuk, and will address them point by point so as to be concise.
1 - Regarding the accusation that I am the editor behind the posts made by :
I will bring to the attention of administrators the fact that a number of editors have been accused of being sock puppeteers, including Smackyrod, Mummy34; Mercy11, et.c. This appears to be a recurring accusation made by certain editors in the article (on whose activites I shall later expand upon), which curiously enough always seem to surface whenever the discussion's consensus lines up against what heretofore was the status quo as to the manner in which facts are presented. Pfainuk and Wee Curry Monster have numerous times stated they have evidence that backs up their accusations, yet they never seem to present them. I have denied these falsities and do so again here, and add that if they have any evidence it be submitted for examination.
2 - That Pfainuk is an "uninvolved admin":
I find that suggestion to be blatantly false. A cursory review of the article's discussion history will demonstrate that Pfainuk is very much an involved admin whose input and opinions consistently fall on the side of a certain group of editors, never with the editors who hold opposing viewpoints. Without delving into the countless examples of this since Pfainuk's initial involvement in the article, I will direct Admins to the Arbcom case linked above, and the large number of editors who in that forum expressed views that supported my complaints. The objection I and others have raised is that this article has a devoted cabal of editors who are consistently violating WP:NPOV by inserting a pro-British bias in the way that facts are presented. This can take many forms, sometimes subtle, sometimes overt, and includes the elimination of sources based on how they interpret or report historical events to have taken place; specific phrasing and punctuation, use of terms that WP guidelines say should be avoided (latest example: "claim" as a verb), et.c. Further, that this group of editors consistently over the years have engaged in countless violations of WP:GAMES in order to stiffle any opposition to their views, no matter how small the issue being discussed is - to the degree that there have been EW's over silly things like punctuation.
Such instances of violations of WP:GAMES involve accusations like the one now leveled against me. Other methods include:
-Playing "tag-team", or functioning as a block by coordinating their editing behavior to feign consensus or wear down editors who hold
opposing views, such that they will no longer desire to participate - thereby assuring their continued hegemony over the text;
-Taking turns to revert other editors' changes to avoid WP:3RR, while making it seem other editors are engaging in an EW;
-Framing opposing editors' viewpoints as "disruptive editing" so as to eliminate or stifle the discussion altogether;
-Dismissing other editors' academically-reliable sources (whose conclusions are different from the ones their chosen sources espouse);
-Giving arbitrary reasons for their rejection to the aforementioned sources' conclusions being included in the text
(examples: they're "simplistic", "irrelevant", or "not robust enough"), and so furthering their WP:NPOV violations;
-In the odd chance consensus does manage to line up against them, declaring the subject to be "irrelevant" to the article so they can
create a related article to relegate the information there, where slowly over time they use their methods to remove the content altogether;
-finally, when editors like me do challenge them regarding their behavior, they level accusations that we are not adhering to WP:AGF.
Indeed, I find it ironic that, given the large number of editors who have been so aggrieved over the years, they would accuse only little old me of disruption or sock puppetry, given that so many would ostensibly have similar motivations. The truth, however, is plain to see in the discussion history of the article, that certain editors (and I will specify exactly who, if asked of me by Admins, but I prefer not to level new accusations at this time) have collectively engaged in countless violations of WP:NPOV, WP:GAMES, WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:RFC, WP:3RR, and most every other WP rule there is at one point or another. I invite admins to peruse through the article's discussion history to examine for themselves whether this is true or not, suggesting special attention be paid to the following discussion threads:
"British bias and edit warring and POV pushing" June 2009
"UN Resolutions and more Argentinian references need to be included in this article" Feb 2010
"Nootka Sound Conventions vs. Argentine POV" September 2007 (MEDCAB, unresolved)
"Phrasing and Sourcing" Jan 2009
"Starting Over" April 2009
"Respecting while rejecting Argentine claims" Feb 2009
"CIA World Factbook" August 2009
Many users, not just me, have observed that just such a group of coordinated editors exists, as documented in the Arbcom page and discussion history by its numerous nicknames, i.e. "the cabal", "the law", etc. In that respect, I have before and continue to observe that Pfainuk's contributions continue to fall in line with that group's overall views on every single subject, without exception (that I've seen). It is my opinion that Pfainuk is very much an involved admin, who acts as 'muscle' for that group, and I personally believe that he has taken advantage of his Admin position for this purpose - a question which I will most graciously allow his fellow Admins to answer themselves.
3 - The definition of "Reliable Sources": I refer you to Pfainuk's post above:
"It is is the nature of this dispute that what are claimed to be historical facts by one or other side often turn out to have little or no historical basis at all according to reliable sources. In some cases, indeed, they are directly contradicted by both historical evidence and reliable sources."
What I object to is that it seems the aforementioned group are the only editors who decide what is a "reliable source". Going to the heart of the issue is the fact that the text is based on these sources, and there is a total exclusion of any source whose conclusions about historical events or their importance are not reflected in the text. If these sources were truly unreliable, I would not object. However, there is an arbitrary exclusion of sources by these editors, not because they're "unreliable", but because they present a POV that conflicts with the conclusions that support the British sovereignty claim - and this is true of sources not only from Argentina, but also from Britain and the United States.
Thus, the true determining factor for whether or not a source is reliable, and whether or not its conclusions should be reflected on the article's text, is whether or not the conclusion supports the British sovereignty claim and the facts that it is based upon. In almost all controversial and contentious issues, there are reputable academic sources whose conclusions are in direct contradiction with each other. Clearly, this does not necessarily mean one conclusion makes a source "reliable" while another conclusion makes a source "unreliable", or that it is "propaganda" by default, meriting exclusion. The very fact that this is brought up in an accusation against me discloses the underlying bias that I am referring to in Pfainuk's editing and Admin activities.
Lastly, let me repost my belief that such coordinated editing activity, along with the countless instances of WP policy which I and other editors believe these users have violated with total impunity over the years, has created a discussion environment that is poisonous, given these editors' behavior and consistently rude, dictatorial approach. There is no doubt in my mind that these actions have resulted in many editors abandoning their participation both in this article and all related articles. Surely, I admit that I was one of them.
However, my prolonged absence from WP bears no effect on these editors' actions - and indeed, part of my motivation for continuing to stay away long after the return of my interest, choosing instead to silently watch the discussion, was so that at this point I could provide examples of this behavior that did not personally include me, but a number of other editors. Since the renewal of my active participation, my position has been to consistently confront these individuals regarding their apparent activities. To that end, I reserve the right, as any other editor does, to utilize WP dispute resolution methods in the pursuit of fairness and neutrality of the Falkland Island article's contents. My statements and promises of doing as much are not threats, only courteous reminders that I retain and am quite willing to use those dispute resolution resources, just as every other WP editor has that right.
I believe in WP and I believe this method will ultimately result in the end of the repeated WP:NPOV violations to which I've referred in this article. Without a doubt, after this has been achieved in the primary article, my consistent and unwaivering efforts will spread to all other Falklands-related articles, until I and other aggrieved editors feel satisfied that at least a minimum level of neutrality has been achieved. I will not be dissuaded from my intent by any act of intimidation, of which this complaint is the latest manifestation. I certainly make no apology for using processes which clearly exist in WP for a reason and are equally available to all.
While the Arbcom case was rejected, I point to the fact that there was no factual decision taken, and that the rejection of the case was due to the fact that there had not been enough dispute resolution steps taken before the case was brought up to Arbcom, with committee members' explicit suggestion that such lower echelons be tried before proceeding upwards. My statements indicate my willingness to follow ARBCOM's suggestion on how to proceed, and I have not pursued any further dispute resolution procedures since the Arbcom case in order to give some detente to all editors, and attempt to reset discussion to try to put our personal accusations aside.
Clearly, this has not worked.
I therefore support Admin involvement in this and all related articles, exhorting them to carefully examine the discussion history of the Falkland Islands page and their unusually high rate of archival - especially the discussion threads I cited above - paying special attention to the effects of the coordinated actions of the group of WP:NPOV-violating editors, the reaction of users who proposed different opinions, their continued permanence or absence from further participation as a result of these exchanges, and in particular, Pfainuk's activities as an administrator during these occasions. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex79818 (talk • contribs)
Even though I'm not closely involved in the related articles as I once was, let me say a couple of things.
First, we are mixing two things. If there are reasons to believe a certain IP is a socket-puppy of a user, this can be easily checked by a checkuser, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be used.
Secondly, Alex79818 seams to be in a lone and long crusade to have more of the Argentina POV in the articles related to the Falkland Islands, which in principle is not a bad thing. I have to sadly concur with him when he says that Argentine POV is swiftly removed by a quick consent between pro-UK users. Two months ago I added a link to news of an event related to the article that involved the Argentine acting president which was removed without any comments on the talk page. When I brought up the issue to the talk page (I was careful not to revert the article not even once) I was told that it was just Argentine propaganda, and should thus be removed without more ado. But perhaps the worse part was that once they made their mind they didn't care explaining their point, giving references to what they claimed, answered sarcastically and cared not for maintaining the balance of the article. And this has systematically happened any time anyone brought anything pro-Argentine. Now I went further that I intended on this subject; I was just trying to illustrate how hard and frustrating it is to bring anything that doesn't appeal the overwhelming majority of pro-UK users.
But back to the issue; do a check user if you think this IP is really Alex79818 or not. But remember that consensus is something that should emerge from both sides, and not imposed unilaterally.
(I must admit I had always assumed that the editor you refer to as editing sarcastically was Latin American if not Argentine - though I note that there is no evidence for that on his/her user page. That doesn't say anything about his politics, of course, but does put some things in perspective.) Pfainuktalk 06:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Admins may wish to note that this discussion has now been WP:CANVASSed to multiple editors with no involvement in the recent discussion ([57][58][59][60][61][62]). This is not untypical of Alex's recent habit of slinging mud at any admin-related discussion to do with any kind of dispute that has happened on those articles over a period of years: his Arbcom case included most people who have posted to the article since 2007 as parties, even when those editors had not edited the article for years, had been indefinitely blocked, were sockpuppeteers and so on. It is also very long, and I suggest that it be collapsed. This is also not unusual - Wikipedia:FILIBUSTER, along with WP:BATTLEGROUND, is another point that comes to mind when thinking of my dealings with Alex.
The substance of the above is all fairly standard stuff that we've seen several times from Alex on the talk page and I do not propose to respond in detail. You're welcome, of course, to look through my record - and you will note that I have been more willing than most to discuss issues when they arise. In particular, I have stated that I have no objection to a change in text to remove the word "claim". The trouble comes when I am then promptly accused of things and when people start issuing threats. When Alex persistently engages in threats and personal attacks, outright refuses to assume good faith and will never allow discussion to remain on the topic of the article, it is very difficult to come to a consensus.
(Since he brings up the September 2007 Medcab - his only previous involvement at Falkland Islands - this refusal to assume good faith is not new. The discussions were here and continued here and here. It's worth mentioning in this context that his argument relied heavily on his own heavy interpretation of a primary source, and his refusal, demonstrated by this post to the mediator by an otherwise entirely uninvolved editor, to acknowledge sources that disagreed. As far as I'm concerned it's ancient history, but he apparently still bears a grudge.) Pfainuktalk 06:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This thread has "verbose" on maximum verbosity, apparently. Doctalk 06:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
My point, as an admin, is that there is no basis on removing cited content because the contributor might be the ip/sock of a vexatious pov warrior. You can remove content because it is unreferenced or fails to reach the standard for cited material, and you can ask for sanctions against an editor who consistently adds unsourced content to support a pov that ignores consensus; what you cannot do is remove cited content because the contributor advocates a pov that is outside of current consensus (and I would question the consensus of any article that seeks to exclude, as a matter of course, pov's that are not that of the other editors). I see a lot of how bad an editor and/or an ip is in attempting to add a particular viewpoint, but not a lot on why the sources are unreliable - even the claim that Argentinian sources may be biased propoganda is insufficient; it is still the viewpoint of that party. I do not think that this issue needs "admin action", I think it needs a RfC so outside opinion can be found on whether NPOV is being properly provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As an involved editor, I'd like to say a few things:
a) I don't fully understand the point for this ANI. Is it to take actions regarding the IP, or against the user? If the later, a checkuser should be conducted first;
b) I understand the feeling of Alex79818, tho I can't support his ways. Pfainuk, you say you have no objection to change the verb "claim" but you never help me bringing WCM back to reason. It has happened before, for example with the "Salem Gazette" passage or the word "although", IIRC. Even if me and Alex have expressed in favor of changing it, and you have said (no voting) that it could be benefical, we both know that WCM will fight like hell against this change. And that's how always the status quo prevails -- it's very frustrating. And silence/inaction is complicity.
For a quick understanding of how British POV subtly prevails, compare how the Antarctica region is treated in the Argentina and Chile article, and how it's treated as part of the UK here. In these months I've learned that trying to change any of them should be nearly impossible, specially if WCM is around, yet I still don't give up... for now.
Regards. --Langus (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
One final thought: NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of WP, and the reason why it doesn't have publicity, even being the 5th most popular website on the net. At the same time, for months I've been reading news about how WP is losing editors. Could it be that people is losing his faith in WP? Could it be that established editors tend to "bite" and disregard the new ones in favor of "their friends"? Just some thoughts, from a personal experience perspective. --Langus (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
When it comes down to it, in many of these cases, I simply don't care that much. I think "claim" is neutral here. In which case it can reasonably be replaced with any other word that is both neutral and accurate. Which means that I'm not really the one you need to persuade. I would note that some people - and I don't necessarily exclude myself here - are likely inclined to the view that Alex's tactics should not be allowed to prevail because that will encourage him to repeat them. It's not how we're supposed to think - I accept it's not what is supposed to happen or how editors am supposed to react - but when someone acts in the way Alex does I rather think it's inevitable. This is, in part, why we have rules against it. Pfainuktalk 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm complaining because I am being threatened by this editor and this IP. I'm complaining about being continually accused of bad faith by this editor and this IP. I'm complaining because of the total lack of civility that pervades this editor and this IP's comments on talk. I'm complaining because of the personal attacks that this editor and this IP have repeatedly subjected me to. I am complaining about the rants that this editor and this IP have repeatedly subjected myself and other readers of the talk page to. None of this should I have to put up with. If it is the opinion of admins that it acceptable to for an editor or an IP to break just about every behavioural rule the encyclopædia has, then it is a very sad day for the encyclopædia. Pfainuktalk 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, folks, I'm not any of the editors listed above. Pfainuk, understand that I & other editors are also complaining about you, as well as Wee Curry Monster and all the other editors who make up "the gang", "the cabal", "the law", whatever u want to call it. We think the things you do, that Alex79818 described above, are just as bad (even though I can't really say whether or not they're all true, but I have seen some instances of what he's talkin about). We think it's you people that show a 'total lack of civility'. We don't think we should have to put up with it. Our sources are "propaganda". Our discussion attempts are "rants". Our viewpoints are "not robust enough". We say "Enough!" and you ignore us. We can't make any progress and the status qup remains. It's true what Langus said, it's very frustrating when established editors tend to "bite". Well don't be surprised when some editors decide to use WP dispute resolution to "bite back". We think when someone acts in the way "the cabal" has been acting, such measure are...how did you put it?..."rather inevitable". I hope you read LessHeard vanU's post above. If you'd abide by that, we wouldn't have a problem.
There, now getting back to the main issue: I think the "unbalanced opinion" tags should restored, or the text changed to reflect both positions equally. If you want sources I will provide sources for each instance. If you challenge those sources for trivial or arbitrary reasons we'll all end up right back here. I prefer to discuss and compromise and follow the rules of WP. I would hope you do too.209.36.57.10 (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I invite editors to compare and contrast this message with Alex's collapsed one above. The tone here is basically the same the tone adopted by both Alex and the IP on the talk page. It does not change, regardless of the discussion topic. Posts that one would expect to be on content matters are generally no less ad-hominem and generally do not generally contain any significantly greater proportion of discussion related to content. If anything, the opposite is true in many cases. The threats there are more obvious, the accusations of bad faith more blatant, the personal attacks more objectionable.
And I would finally note that the "discussion attempts" the IP refers to earned him a three month block. Make of that what you will. Pfainuktalk 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And on that, I hope admins see I'm not trying to be disruptive anymore but instead trying to have conversation. So you tell me, this time, what did I do wrong, huh? Pfainuk's answer to that is that I had the audacity (!!!) to agree with another editor who wants balance in the article. How dare I agree with someone else?
So, yes admins, pls take a look at my short-lasting & fast-blocked disruptive activity and compare it to the years and years and years of WP:GAMES that Pfainuk and other "cabal" editors used with impunity in Falklands and related articles. Judge for yourselves how many editors along those years were so frustrated that they chose to give up. Judge which activity is worse, and whether or not the articles meet WP:NPOV. How long a ban should that earn "cabal" editors when what they did gets revealed? They prevent the discussion of content matters by suppressing sources they don't agree with, then when you call them on it they turn it around on you like you're just out to disrupt. Like you never brought up content issues for discussion to begin with. And they keep doing it, even here, to our faces!
Perfect example, above simply I asked for a review of the "unbalanced opinion" tags, and for discussion and compromise. And what's the response? Conspiracy theories, personal attacks, etc. It's very hard to have an honest discussion with people who behave this way, least of all if they're admins, when a call for discussion gets rebuffed like this. Pfainuk's response says volumes more than I or Alex79818 ever could.209.36.57.10 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
– All socks blocked by Elen of the Roads, and I've CSD'd the ones that were mis-attributed (I think I got them all). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 11:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I am reporting image copyright violations by Kenlukus (talk·contribs), at least a few of which are blatant. This seems to be an ongoing thing, continuing as of yesterday. This is a new account (07/28/2011). I have checked four images so far, and all four are copyvios. I have filed F9's on them already.
Here are the details:
Note this diff[63] where Kenlukus indicates "Originally took the photo in the 1950's, when I was younger, and made it into a drawing on Paint.net a cuple days ago. From there I added words to make it look more authentic, as if it was a postcard from the 50's." (emphasis mine). The picture, as noted in the CSD selection, was taken from a website that has had it online for at least 4 years. Blatant misrepresentation.
Note all four filed speedies here[64] - each are copyvios (possibly all blatant), attributed to Kenlukus in the image copyright info he posted here.
Additionally, he is trying to list a few as "entered into public domain" when he does not have the rights to do so.
I have not yet checked the last few images Kenlukus has uploaded, and do not have the time to at this moment. Kenlukus will be notified of this AN, as well as User:C.Fred (simply because, as noted in the first diff, and later conversations, he was at least indirectly involved and may wish to contribute to this). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 06:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment, Having had a look at the Burgess mills file's source. Many of those images are postcard that are sufficiently old that they are now PD images - {{PD-US-1923}} would apply IMHO. Just because they've been taken from a website that claims copyright doesn't necessarily mean that the website owns said copyright. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I've warned Kenlukus against claiming to be the author of images when he is not. Am willing to assist in getting licencing correct should he wish to work with the project and not commit copyvios. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, do you know that? Those images on those post cards are still sold (with copyrights I'd suspect). I happened to catch the first one as one of the places I spend a bunch of time has a few restaurants that are decorated with such images on the post cards, with numbers on the backs from where you can buy them. You may wish not to assume they are PD - especially as they are not the original images, but derivative works that are currently available for sale. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 10:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The original postcards would be PD, as is File:Upper Deal 1907.jpg. As there would appear to be no artistic creativity in creating a digital copy of a postcard, not copyright is assignable to the copy, is it? The difference here is that postcards from my collection are correctly attributed as to the original source (i.e. the card itself, and publisher if known) and I have not claimed to be the author of such images. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Concur that if someone has digitized a postcard from 1910 to make a new print run, they will not acquire copyright under US law. If Kenlukus had taken a photo from 1910 and photoshopped it to make it look like a postcard, he would hold the copyright in the new image (creative input). However, telling fibs about it is a poor way to go. Also concur that the copyright claim on many websites does not stand up under close scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)
Elen, you missed a few vital factors and may wish to check the deleted images. (1) He did not make them look like post cards (the images he grabbed from other sites already looked like that). (2) The pics online predate his uploads. (3) Some of the pics are brand new color images (such as the church one from the church's site no less). (4) see below - you of all people know we can't simply guess whether the new post cards (available to this day) are simply duplicates of the original photos, or if like most companies doing such for money, they modified them sufficiently for copyright status. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 11:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”." - which we would not be able to determine without access to the original picture. We cannot (without access to the original or verifiable copy) determine what modifications were or were not done. And of course, we all know that copyright claims and claims of public domain aren't "I think it is..." or "It probably is". That aside, while the date of the picture may be known, is the date of the postcard known? And is that site a suitable site for using as a reference for a public domain claim? Worse of course are the new images that Kenlukus tried claiming as his and tried "entering" into the public domain. The one picture that may be PD aside (which, due to the source it was taken from and no way of determining the veracity of that, I'd strongly advise against restoring), the real issue (which I thank you for offering to assist with) are the bogus copyright claims, especially the one linked to in the ref above. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 11:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not minded to restore any images at the moment. I am displeased when an editor attempts to fraudulent claim authorship of images that they have not taken themselves. I would suggest the Kenlukus asks at WP:MCQ and provides links to any images that he wishes to be uploaded. This would give those experienced in such matters chance to comment and a decision made on the merits and copyright status of the images in question. Mjroots (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Which addresses my far larger concern. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@RobertMfromLI - no I understand the issues. My remarks directed at Mjroots were of a general nature, however I believe I did observe that fibbing about the source of an image was a poor show. After that, I wouldn't be inclined to accept any of his explanations before checking thoroughly, at which point the generic comments do have some significance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm involved with this as I discovered one of the images on 5 August and asked Kenlukus where he acquired the image and whether he had just made a copy of a postcard.[File:St. Anne's Church.jpg] He replied that he had photographed the church in the 1950s. I had no evidence to disprove that claim, so I didn't pursue it any further. When RobertMfromLI found a source where the image already existed, then I deleted the image on two grounds: (1) the image was under copyright, as it existed on a postcard, and (2) Kenlukus had grossly misrepresented the nature of the image by claiming it as his own image that he manipulated to look like an old postcard.
It seems to not be an uncommon perception, either, that by photographing or scanning an old photograph, one gains a new license in the image. It seems pretty straightforward in this case what's going on; however, I think Mjroots is right that if Kenlukus wants to upload any further images, he should get advice from WP:MCQ first. —C.Fred (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposal:
As debating copyrights and such was never my intent, I'd like to suggest we move forward with Mjroots' proposal. So it's not open ended, I am suggesting a time frame (feel free to revise the proposal if any of you have better ideas)
Propose: for the next 3 months or 50 uploads (whichever occurs last) all future image uploads by User:Kenlukus are completed (including proper copyright attribution) with the assistance, review and approval of the gang at WP:MCQ. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support with the caveat that I may remove my support and/or ask for a modification of the proposal after Kenlukus responds (for either stiffer or lesser sanctions depending on the explanation and his understanding of the issue). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Side note: I'd be willing to assist if needed. Wouldn't be the first editor in a similar predicament I've done so with. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawing support due to multiple socks uncovered, which also (imo) evidences an ongoing pattern. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 05:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Guys, I'm quite certain I tried to give this guy another chance under a different account. I think this user needs mentorship if he's going to edit here at all. I'm assuming that he's another sockpuppet of User:1shields1/User:Berlinnh1 (who engaged in other copyvio edits). By their own admission, they live in the same area. They also edit the same low-traffic articles (including two that 1shields1 created, Brown Company and At the River's Edge), and share the same idiosyncratic misspelling of cousin, "cusin" (1shields1's, Kenlukus's). Kenlukus's account appeared shortly after Berlinnh1 was blocked and 1shields1 was given a final warning for pretty much everything, and he picked up right where they left off except for one thing:
The first two accounts actively pushed a few blogs on Weebly with clear personal investment (one of the blogs claims to be by a Delano descendant, which Kenlukus claims to be in the first version of his userpage). (Edit: Also, 1shields1 and Kenlukus advocated similar theories regarding the Delano family). Kenlukus asked for one to be relinked again on Talk:Berlin, New Hampshire where I explained for the "first" time that blogs are almost never accepted as sources or links, but that I would be willing to look the other way if "that other editor" had come back attempting to follow the guidelines. However, seeing how much continued copyright problems these three accounts have brought, I'm thinking it's time I say something.
If I am to assume good faith, I can only say that he has mistakenly made numerous statements which did not match reality, and has repeatedly made mistakes concerning the ownership of copyright. However, his continued sock activity makes it harder for me to not just say "he appears to be completely dishonest, assuming he's of a right mind." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Q: Do you think it enough for (and warranting an) SPI? If confirmed, it shows an intentional pattern. If not, I would be willing to mentor. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
If I'm correct, this is the third account to cause trouble of different sorts, but I acknowledge the possibility that he may only be trying to learn either way (as he has learned to back off on Weebly, and is otherwise useful except for the copyvio). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Kenlukus (talk·contribs) is aware of this conversation and has responded on his talk page[65]. I have left a suggestion[66] that he join the discussion here, which also included suggestions on what issues I thought were relevant for him to address. Additionally, Ian.thompson has already notified him that a claim of suspected SP has been made.[67]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Sock Puppetry Confirmed
Kenlukus has been confirmed as a sock[68], as has one additional account (Nova-Gnostic). After the last case under two weeks ago[69], I suspect it could be thought that the actions are entirely uncaring and intentional. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 04:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as he claims to be descended from Cathars, I regret missing the opportunity to say "Block them all, God will know his own." Ian.thomson (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
– User has been blocked. CycloneGU (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Simple Blue has repeatedly attempted to add the personal theory of one "Roni Kempler" that the Mona Lisa depicts Leonardo da Vinci's mother. The identity of Simple Blue with Roni Kemplar has been discussed elsewhere, as has the reliability of the source for Kempler's theory: see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_102#Mona_Lisa. Simple Blue has continued to edit war - slowly - over some months. Recently I attempted to rewrite the disputed paragraph, explaining my reasons in detail at Talk:Mona_Lisa#Changes. Simple Blue continues to revert, usually after adding a nonsensical reply which does not address any of the substantive issues. This, I presume, is to claim that there is an ongoing debate, which justifies his reversion to the "status quo ante". I do not think that any form of dispute resolution will work with this editor. Anyone who thinks the sentence I have bolded in the discussion section is acceptable English is impervious to reason. Yet Simple Blue continues to revert to it and to reassert his claims. One other editor has already left after losing his rag [70] I also feel myself entering the twilight zone. I think the time has come for administrators' intervention. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Blocked 24 hours. --John (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I was the one who started the RSN discussion on this, because I'd noted the issue cropping up several times. It's fairly obvious that Simple Blue and Relpmek (talk·contribs) are SPAs with this view; Relpmek self-identifies as Kempler. It appears there's not going to be much success in the way of sober discussion on this, and since I'm now somewhat involved using my tools is probably a bad idea. Further admin analysis would be appreciated. Tony Fox(arf!) 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of material for BLP reasons by Administrator who then protected the article
This is similar to the situation discussed above at WP:ANI#Admin engaging in edit war, violates three revert rule, then locks page except there was no 3RR. And in fact, I am that administrator, reporting myself. I saw a discussion at WP:BLPN#Paul Lendavai, went into the article and removed what looked like BLP violations, and semi'd the article as the BLP content invovles a current highly political issue. My removal was reverted, so I restored my 'cleansed' version and fully protected the article. I also put some comments on the talk page. The article was unprotected by another administrator (who agrees their edit summary was unfortunate), and I can understand that action but think it was wrong. I think that Administrators should be able to remove BLP violations and then protect the article and that this is quite different from simply changing content you don't like and protecting. I've never seen this article before and don't want to get involved in editing it. And of course I don't want to edit war and replace the protection, but I think the article needs full protection still. Was my protection "completely inappropriate protection by an involved user"? Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Actions: I believe, IIRC, carrying out solely administrative duties, including content changes/reversions for the purpose of removing BLP violations and/or copyvio do not meet the criteria to consider the admin in question "involved", even though in those instances I listed, it the administrator's actions may have required some form of article "editing". I am not familiar with the article subject, but, if your actions as deemed by others is considered removal of definite BLP violations (just as if it were copyvio), (1) I would not consider you involved, and (2) cannot see fault with your actions. In that vein, I have reviewed what edits you have made (at least in recent history) and see nothing more than BLP violation repairs. For that, I would not consider you involved. I suspect the other admin may have seen your earlier edits and not noted that they were correcting BLP issues. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I support your edit [71] and protection of the page to enforce discussion of non-compliant BLP content pending discussion, per WP:BLP. It may have been more advisable to ask someone else to protect it. Further edits would have been better handled via requests on the talk page; due to prot removal, some inappropriate content was reinstated [72] - however, I do note that editor is acting in good faith, and removing badly-sourced content subsequently [73].
I think Ironholds removal of prot was too hurried, and should have been discussed with you, and/or others, first. But, I'm sure that was a good-faith attempt to resolve things too - and, I see xe has since apologized [74].
I think the article should be protected again, in the near future but, only after a bit more discussion/opinions here. Chzz ► 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support actions Protection was called for and you chose to give priority to the BLP issue rather than guard your posterior. Putting in a request at WP:RFPP might have been politically prudent, but would also have caused a delay. I don's see your actions as violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Favonian (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your actions, since this is the second time today this has come up, should WP:INVOLVED be amended to make it clear that ( like WP:3RR) that "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons and protection of an article" by any administrator is a exception to WP:INVOLVED ? Mtking (edits) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that needs to be done and Ironholds (who acted in good faith but maybe hastily) and I discussed this yesterday and I've posted to his talk page about this thread (obviously) and amending WP:INVOLVED. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see a small caveat there - without wishing to get creepy, could it say something like, erm... I want to add a mention of BLP, but without removing the fact that it's best to ask others where possible. How about just this small addition to the example exceptions, in context, bolded? ;
In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism or blp violations), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.
Would that be enough? Maybe even with the link, "BLP violations" isn't clear enough; maybe "violations to the policy regarding living people". I don't know; I'm trying to KISS. Further ideas very welcome; this is a very rough draft/first thought. Chzz ► 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Dougweller's action and agree on some change in the wording to the policy if a form can be agreed on. I've been criticised for exactly the same thing once - reverted what I believed to be a troublesome IP adding unsourced information that might be contentious and which was being reverted by other editors, and locking article with note on talkpage, only to be told I was "involved" by virtue of the revert and note on the talkpage, and should not have locked the article. Never edited the article before, never edited it since.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Wording change would be nice and make sense. If I am reading it correctly, BLP violation reverts are not an issue... ad-inifinitum till another admin can be rounded up to do the protection because doing the revert may cause others to think the original admin was involved? Seems kinda silly. You all can drop me on the list of any such proposal there or on Village Pump (or wherever such would take place). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins! I said that above in my first (excessively verbose) post on the matter (right below my link clarification) - hence my support for a clarification of the guidelines so that other editors can't erroneously jump on the "he's involved" bandwagon. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think the policy is best left alone. Discretion is available to admins as to whether they exercise tools, whether in response to a perceived BLP violation, or in response to another admin who is perceived to have 'crossed the line'. Adding an explicit exemption for admins seems like it would discourage caution rather than the simple act of asking another of the 1,545 administrators for a hand. -- Avanu (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, the above 2-word addition isn't such an explicit exemption though; it just helps by mentioning that, in the case of BLPs, it might be more acceptable than usual for an admin to swiftly take action, such as protecting an article. I don't think admins will go crazy with it. So - do you actually object to that 2-word change, or can you accept it? Chzz ► 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bwilkins, exactly so; you said it better than I did. Chzz ► 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I keep thinking this over and over, and "blp violations" (or similar) is a lot more open to interpretation than "blatant vandalism". For example, if a person adds "John Smith is a cheeseball!!!" to the John Smith article, and nothing else, we can assume it is just a bit of vandalism, and any editor can safely remove it without concern. However, let's say it is sourced by a RS now. According to reports from the Mew Nork Bimes newspaper, "John Smith is a pasteurized-in-the-wool cheeseball." It now comes to an editor to discern whether it is a BLP violation. If you are 'involved', it only complicates the matter. The Standard and Poor's article in AN/I wasn't necessarily a BLP issue, but more of a primary source/secondary source issue, but the Admin who locked the article did so citing BLP, which was hovering nearby, but wasn't the primary concern. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm. You do have a good point. I think the real problem is, we have a clash-of-policies - or, at least, a clash of de jure accepted practice
Note: I do not consider this specific case to be problematic; I think we pretty much agree. But, in the larger scheme, I think this needs resolution;
The INVOLVED principles suggests admins who are - for wont of better terminology - significantly involved in an issue, should not use their admin-power in that arena. However, BLP concerns are often considered to supersede such niceties, and we always endeavour to err on the side of caution - for example, removing dubious material until there is agreement, instead of simply leaving whatever-version-happens-to-be-there whilst discussion takes place.
So, which is it? As I said, I don't want excess instruction - but, perhaps we do need this to be explicit. Should an involved admin shout here on AN about action required (beyond trivial/vandalism), even if it is a BLP concern, or should they take immediate action? Put another way, which is the greater concern in these cases - the chance of "admin abuse", or the change of BLP vio's? Chzz ► 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I just bring up the question of the Paul Lendvai article which is still unprotected? And being fairly heavily edited? Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we're all agreed that your original action was correct and does not make you involved. The current main editor seems keen to abide by policy and to discuss the matter with other editors, but suggest if you get a repeat, it can be protected again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we get someone who speaks Hungarian to help with that? http://www.utolag.com/ doesn't look like a reliable source. Thus, I'm not sure edits like this are appropriate. Chzz ► 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That site seems full of copyvio videos from television programs. I don't think in any case we can have a sentence reading "While Lendvai was never recruited as a spy, in a July 24, 1963 report, the archived documents refer to Lendvai as "one of the best contacts". The actual page seems to be from an article in Magyar Nemzet which (the article) is discussed in this blog [75] which of course has it's own political perspective. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's because the article was sourced almost exclusively to conservative to right-wing Hungarian sources that I suggested the use of this article On the March Hungary’s Ascendant Right Wing in the Boston Review which discussed Lendvai and Heti válasz. I think it needs to be sourced mainly from independent sources that don't have an obvious stake. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup; this is why I provided the editor with 147 pages of LexisNexis sourced news articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
CommentDear admins: it is not so hard to find another administrator to protect an article you have edited more than once. A significant amount of ANI grief would disappear if you worked in cooperation with other admins, getting their feedback etc, before engaging in what seems to other editors like edit wars. Another alternative in BLP edit-protects, if you completely must and feel righteous, is to protect after the first edit. But even if in good faith, the appearance (even if absent) of malfeasance that a protect-as-3RR-is-due (just like move protection while renaming wars are on) is highly disruptive in itself, and does nothing to increase encyclopedic quality and does everything to increase ANI drama. Another problem of going at it alone is that once edit-protected, edit requests in the talk page should be handled expeditiously by previously un-involved admins, and you going at it alone fails to notify anyone but yourself of it. Yes there is the category etc, but waiting for admins that are otherwise concerned with other issues can be exasperating to those wanting to make legit edits.--Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review the edits. They are BLP violation reverts/removals. I wouldn't exactly call an administrative-like action an article edit. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, my point is, that might not be the case for those engaged in the editing. As I said, it is the appearance that matters, not the reality. Admins should have velvet gloves when editing, even when doing admin actions. Also, even admins do mistakes and violate policy, if it weren't the case, we wouldn't need rules like WP:WHEEL. I just call for a little more common sense to reduce drama. And yes, admins should be held to higher standard than editors, if not, why not give the sysop tools to everyone? After all, unlike oversighting, sysop delete is completely reversible...--Cerejota (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Doug, what you did was fully justified--though the present state of the article remains in need of improvement. You were not an involved editor, in the sense we use it. It is not involved to go in to protect or remove material to for the purpose of dealing with major policy violation, and then to enforce that. If you had been an editor of the article expressing one side or another, then it would have been wrong, but that isn't the case. Suggesting material for addition isn't editing--even an involved person can do that for a protected article. If you had involved yourself in many related articles, it might be better to let someone else look at some of them. If your actual neutrality were questioned, then it is good to ask another admin to confirm it--or, of course, to come here so we all can confirm it. (Once my neutrality is questioned on something, I never take any further admin role in the matter because whatever needs to be done will be more effectively done by someone else--I can't help feeling a little annoyed at anyone questioning my neutrality, and after that, my actions might inadvertently be biased.) You did well, but since you felt necessary to come here, and indeed the BLP concern is sufficiently major that others should look at it also, I hope someone else will follow up on the article (I've already expressed my own opinion). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Serial IP Vandal
I have been monitoring an individual for over a year now who has been a serial vandal of Wikipedia operating on numerous different IP accounts. I am lead to believe he may of re-surfaced in the form of 86.31.216.175. Previous carnations include 81.109.92.88 which was dealt with in July, as well as 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81 and 81.109.94.184 which were all blocked IP accounts operated by this individual that have been dealth with over the last twelve months or so.
This vandal normally clings to Television related articles but has been known to wonder on to other pages related to association football, namely Grimsby Town F.C., Don't Scare the Hare, Coach Trip and Supernanny amongst many others. He has been involved in numerous edit wars, but often dumbs down articles, writes with poor spelling and grammar, adds incorrect infomation, or simply broadens the simplification of certain articles. He never contributes to any talk pages and simply ignores any message from other editors and admins, be it warnings or simply help and guidance in an attempt to tell him about the standard of his edits. He persists in trying to force his material onto articles. He appears to have a Dynamic IP, as this user has been dealt with and blocked on numerous occasions. Footballgy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Also I forgot to add, the current IP has yet to vandalise from what I have seen, but his editing habits are identical to his previous carnations, for example the amount of edits on one page at any one time such as Coach Trip and the fact he returns to edits the same articles he was under his previous account's. Footballgy (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an NTL (UK) dynamic pool IP, the ranges are far too large and busy for any type of rangeblock, and so if the articles attacked are always the same ones, it may be worth asking for semi-protection there. Blocking the IP for a short time is a quick fix, but won't solve the overall problem. Black Kite (t)(c) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contact the ISP and file a complaint with them over this?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that User:Dantherocker1 will never end his sock parade. From what I heard, he has been around since last January and much more recently, he has been harassing me on YouTube and went ahead and vandalized my page here on Wikipedia. Each time one of his accounts get blocked, a new one shows up, also to vandalize my page. Checkuser does not seem to work since he probably uses multiple IP ranges to create this sock farm. On top of this, when I request a Checkuser (since I am a little annoyed), User:HelloAnnyong sounds discouraging and closes the case immediately without anything being done.
It would be appreciated if someone can do something to end this seemingly endless sock parade on Wikipedia. I was able to block him and his sockpuppet on YouTube. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Harassment off-wiki is a very serious offensive from what I know. Also, his sock-farm is simply huge. Perhaps a ban discussion would be appropriate. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Do you know how I can start a ban discussion? Unlike most Wikipedian victims of Dantherocker1, I first encountered him on YouTube when he posted a retarded comment on one of my videos. Subsequently, it escalated and my notifications on YouTube would be flooded with more of his retarded comments so I decided to block him on YouTube. Furthermore, he continued his behavior via his sockpuppet account on YouTube and then once I blocked that sockpuppet, he went back to Wikipedia to harass me here by vandalizing my userpage and talk page, along with harassing other users including MuZemike and Favonian.
And I agree that off-wiki harassment is serious, I hope YouTube does something about his behavior there. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What this socker is doing right now is literally a criminal offense. You could press charges against him - if you can find his local police department and have them figure out who he is. CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I have an explanation of how his behavior is considered a criminal offense? Is creating massive sock farm a real world criminal offense? While he is indeed a troublemaker on Wikipedia, I still don't understand how it should be reported to his local police department. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"The use of electronic tools such as email or instant messaging to harass or abuse a person or persons. Can also include particularly intense and/or coordinated incidents of trolling, especially when they occur repeatedly and specifically target a single person or group."
I can see him as trolling. Since he does nothing but cyberbullying me, MuZemike, Favonian and others, it would be appropriate to discuss a ban on him. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, this, the final version of the page before the indef. tag, and with him suggesting he now wants to make constructive edits - that's a boldfaced lip-bitten lie. He was hoping to get in more harassment, no doubt. CycloneGU (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
And he does not sound like an honest person since he said "I'm really sorry...I really want to make constructive edits now" about six months ago and yet he continues trolling. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of material for BLP reasons by Administrator who then protected the article
This is similar to the situation discussed above at WP:ANI#Admin engaging in edit war, violates three revert rule, then locks page except there was no 3RR. And in fact, I am that administrator, reporting myself. I saw a discussion at WP:BLPN#Paul Lendavai, went into the article and removed what looked like BLP violations, and semi'd the article as the BLP content invovles a current highly political issue. My removal was reverted, so I restored my 'cleansed' version and fully protected the article. I also put some comments on the talk page. The article was unprotected by another administrator (who agrees their edit summary was unfortunate), and I can understand that action but think it was wrong. I think that Administrators should be able to remove BLP violations and then protect the article and that this is quite different from simply changing content you don't like and protecting. I've never seen this article before and don't want to get involved in editing it. And of course I don't want to edit war and replace the protection, but I think the article needs full protection still. Was my protection "completely inappropriate protection by an involved user"? Dougweller (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Actions: I believe, IIRC, carrying out solely administrative duties, including content changes/reversions for the purpose of removing BLP violations and/or copyvio do not meet the criteria to consider the admin in question "involved", even though in those instances I listed, it the administrator's actions may have required some form of article "editing". I am not familiar with the article subject, but, if your actions as deemed by others is considered removal of definite BLP violations (just as if it were copyvio), (1) I would not consider you involved, and (2) cannot see fault with your actions. In that vein, I have reviewed what edits you have made (at least in recent history) and see nothing more than BLP violation repairs. For that, I would not consider you involved. I suspect the other admin may have seen your earlier edits and not noted that they were correcting BLP issues. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I support your edit [76] and protection of the page to enforce discussion of non-compliant BLP content pending discussion, per WP:BLP. It may have been more advisable to ask someone else to protect it. Further edits would have been better handled via requests on the talk page; due to prot removal, some inappropriate content was reinstated [77] - however, I do note that editor is acting in good faith, and removing badly-sourced content subsequently [78].
I think Ironholds removal of prot was too hurried, and should have been discussed with you, and/or others, first. But, I'm sure that was a good-faith attempt to resolve things too - and, I see xe has since apologized [79].
I think the article should be protected again, in the near future but, only after a bit more discussion/opinions here. Chzz ► 09:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support actions Protection was called for and you chose to give priority to the BLP issue rather than guard your posterior. Putting in a request at WP:RFPP might have been politically prudent, but would also have caused a delay. I don's see your actions as violating the spirit of WP:INVOLVED. Favonian (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with your actions, since this is the second time today this has come up, should WP:INVOLVED be amended to make it clear that ( like WP:3RR) that "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons and protection of an article" by any administrator is a exception to WP:INVOLVED ? Mtking (edits) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that needs to be done and Ironholds (who acted in good faith but maybe hastily) and I discussed this yesterday and I've posted to his talk page about this thread (obviously) and amending WP:INVOLVED. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see a small caveat there - without wishing to get creepy, could it say something like, erm... I want to add a mention of BLP, but without removing the fact that it's best to ask others where possible. How about just this small addition to the example exceptions, in context, bolded? ;
In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism or blp violations), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.
Would that be enough? Maybe even with the link, "BLP violations" isn't clear enough; maybe "violations to the policy regarding living people". I don't know; I'm trying to KISS. Further ideas very welcome; this is a very rough draft/first thought. Chzz ► 10:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support Dougweller's action and agree on some change in the wording to the policy if a form can be agreed on. I've been criticised for exactly the same thing once - reverted what I believed to be a troublesome IP adding unsourced information that might be contentious and which was being reverted by other editors, and locking article with note on talkpage, only to be told I was "involved" by virtue of the revert and note on the talkpage, and should not have locked the article. Never edited the article before, never edited it since.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Wording change would be nice and make sense. If I am reading it correctly, BLP violation reverts are not an issue... ad-inifinitum till another admin can be rounded up to do the protection because doing the revert may cause others to think the original admin was involved? Seems kinda silly. You all can drop me on the list of any such proposal there or on Village Pump (or wherever such would take place). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 12:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi BWilkins! I said that above in my first (excessively verbose) post on the matter (right below my link clarification) - hence my support for a clarification of the guidelines so that other editors can't erroneously jump on the "he's involved" bandwagon. :-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think the policy is best left alone. Discretion is available to admins as to whether they exercise tools, whether in response to a perceived BLP violation, or in response to another admin who is perceived to have 'crossed the line'. Adding an explicit exemption for admins seems like it would discourage caution rather than the simple act of asking another of the 1,545 administrators for a hand. -- Avanu (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, the above 2-word addition isn't such an explicit exemption though; it just helps by mentioning that, in the case of BLPs, it might be more acceptable than usual for an admin to swiftly take action, such as protecting an article. I don't think admins will go crazy with it. So - do you actually object to that 2-word change, or can you accept it? Chzz ► 12:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
@Bwilkins, exactly so; you said it better than I did. Chzz ► 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I keep thinking this over and over, and "blp violations" (or similar) is a lot more open to interpretation than "blatant vandalism". For example, if a person adds "John Smith is a cheeseball!!!" to the John Smith article, and nothing else, we can assume it is just a bit of vandalism, and any editor can safely remove it without concern. However, let's say it is sourced by a RS now. According to reports from the Mew Nork Bimes newspaper, "John Smith is a pasteurized-in-the-wool cheeseball." It now comes to an editor to discern whether it is a BLP violation. If you are 'involved', it only complicates the matter. The Standard and Poor's article in AN/I wasn't necessarily a BLP issue, but more of a primary source/secondary source issue, but the Admin who locked the article did so citing BLP, which was hovering nearby, but wasn't the primary concern. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm. You do have a good point. I think the real problem is, we have a clash-of-policies - or, at least, a clash of de jure accepted practice
Note: I do not consider this specific case to be problematic; I think we pretty much agree. But, in the larger scheme, I think this needs resolution;
The INVOLVED principles suggests admins who are - for wont of better terminology - significantly involved in an issue, should not use their admin-power in that arena. However, BLP concerns are often considered to supersede such niceties, and we always endeavour to err on the side of caution - for example, removing dubious material until there is agreement, instead of simply leaving whatever-version-happens-to-be-there whilst discussion takes place.
So, which is it? As I said, I don't want excess instruction - but, perhaps we do need this to be explicit. Should an involved admin shout here on AN about action required (beyond trivial/vandalism), even if it is a BLP concern, or should they take immediate action? Put another way, which is the greater concern in these cases - the chance of "admin abuse", or the change of BLP vio's? Chzz ► 13:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I just bring up the question of the Paul Lendvai article which is still unprotected? And being fairly heavily edited? Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we're all agreed that your original action was correct and does not make you involved. The current main editor seems keen to abide by policy and to discuss the matter with other editors, but suggest if you get a repeat, it can be protected again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we get someone who speaks Hungarian to help with that? http://www.utolag.com/ doesn't look like a reliable source. Thus, I'm not sure edits like this are appropriate. Chzz ► 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
That site seems full of copyvio videos from television programs. I don't think in any case we can have a sentence reading "While Lendvai was never recruited as a spy, in a July 24, 1963 report, the archived documents refer to Lendvai as "one of the best contacts". The actual page seems to be from an article in Magyar Nemzet which (the article) is discussed in this blog [80] which of course has it's own political perspective. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's because the article was sourced almost exclusively to conservative to right-wing Hungarian sources that I suggested the use of this article On the March Hungary’s Ascendant Right Wing in the Boston Review which discussed Lendvai and Heti válasz. I think it needs to be sourced mainly from independent sources that don't have an obvious stake. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup; this is why I provided the editor with 147 pages of LexisNexis sourced news articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
CommentDear admins: it is not so hard to find another administrator to protect an article you have edited more than once. A significant amount of ANI grief would disappear if you worked in cooperation with other admins, getting their feedback etc, before engaging in what seems to other editors like edit wars. Another alternative in BLP edit-protects, if you completely must and feel righteous, is to protect after the first edit. But even if in good faith, the appearance (even if absent) of malfeasance that a protect-as-3RR-is-due (just like move protection while renaming wars are on) is highly disruptive in itself, and does nothing to increase encyclopedic quality and does everything to increase ANI drama. Another problem of going at it alone is that once edit-protected, edit requests in the talk page should be handled expeditiously by previously un-involved admins, and you going at it alone fails to notify anyone but yourself of it. Yes there is the category etc, but waiting for admins that are otherwise concerned with other issues can be exasperating to those wanting to make legit edits.--Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review the edits. They are BLP violation reverts/removals. I wouldn't exactly call an administrative-like action an article edit. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you, my point is, that might not be the case for those engaged in the editing. As I said, it is the appearance that matters, not the reality. Admins should have velvet gloves when editing, even when doing admin actions. Also, even admins do mistakes and violate policy, if it weren't the case, we wouldn't need rules like WP:WHEEL. I just call for a little more common sense to reduce drama. And yes, admins should be held to higher standard than editors, if not, why not give the sysop tools to everyone? After all, unlike oversighting, sysop delete is completely reversible...--Cerejota (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Doug, what you did was fully justified--though the present state of the article remains in need of improvement. You were not an involved editor, in the sense we use it. It is not involved to go in to protect or remove material to for the purpose of dealing with major policy violation, and then to enforce that. If you had been an editor of the article expressing one side or another, then it would have been wrong, but that isn't the case. Suggesting material for addition isn't editing--even an involved person can do that for a protected article. If you had involved yourself in many related articles, it might be better to let someone else look at some of them. If your actual neutrality were questioned, then it is good to ask another admin to confirm it--or, of course, to come here so we all can confirm it. (Once my neutrality is questioned on something, I never take any further admin role in the matter because whatever needs to be done will be more effectively done by someone else--I can't help feeling a little annoyed at anyone questioning my neutrality, and after that, my actions might inadvertently be biased.) You did well, but since you felt necessary to come here, and indeed the BLP concern is sufficiently major that others should look at it also, I hope someone else will follow up on the article (I've already expressed my own opinion). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Serial IP Vandal
I have been monitoring an individual for over a year now who has been a serial vandal of Wikipedia operating on numerous different IP accounts. I am lead to believe he may of re-surfaced in the form of 86.31.216.175. Previous carnations include 81.109.92.88 which was dealt with in July, as well as 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81 and 81.109.94.184 which were all blocked IP accounts operated by this individual that have been dealth with over the last twelve months or so.
This vandal normally clings to Television related articles but has been known to wonder on to other pages related to association football, namely Grimsby Town F.C., Don't Scare the Hare, Coach Trip and Supernanny amongst many others. He has been involved in numerous edit wars, but often dumbs down articles, writes with poor spelling and grammar, adds incorrect infomation, or simply broadens the simplification of certain articles. He never contributes to any talk pages and simply ignores any message from other editors and admins, be it warnings or simply help and guidance in an attempt to tell him about the standard of his edits. He persists in trying to force his material onto articles. He appears to have a Dynamic IP, as this user has been dealt with and blocked on numerous occasions. Footballgy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Also I forgot to add, the current IP has yet to vandalise from what I have seen, but his editing habits are identical to his previous carnations, for example the amount of edits on one page at any one time such as Coach Trip and the fact he returns to edits the same articles he was under his previous account's. Footballgy (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an NTL (UK) dynamic pool IP, the ranges are far too large and busy for any type of rangeblock, and so if the articles attacked are always the same ones, it may be worth asking for semi-protection there. Blocking the IP for a short time is a quick fix, but won't solve the overall problem. Black Kite (t)(c) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to contact the ISP and file a complaint with them over this?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that User:Dantherocker1 will never end his sock parade. From what I heard, he has been around since last January and much more recently, he has been harassing me on YouTube and went ahead and vandalized my page here on Wikipedia. Each time one of his accounts get blocked, a new one shows up, also to vandalize my page. Checkuser does not seem to work since he probably uses multiple IP ranges to create this sock farm. On top of this, when I request a Checkuser (since I am a little annoyed), User:HelloAnnyong sounds discouraging and closes the case immediately without anything being done.
It would be appreciated if someone can do something to end this seemingly endless sock parade on Wikipedia. I was able to block him and his sockpuppet on YouTube. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Harassment off-wiki is a very serious offensive from what I know. Also, his sock-farm is simply huge. Perhaps a ban discussion would be appropriate. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. Do you know how I can start a ban discussion? Unlike most Wikipedian victims of Dantherocker1, I first encountered him on YouTube when he posted a retarded comment on one of my videos. Subsequently, it escalated and my notifications on YouTube would be flooded with more of his retarded comments so I decided to block him on YouTube. Furthermore, he continued his behavior via his sockpuppet account on YouTube and then once I blocked that sockpuppet, he went back to Wikipedia to harass me here by vandalizing my userpage and talk page, along with harassing other users including MuZemike and Favonian.
And I agree that off-wiki harassment is serious, I hope YouTube does something about his behavior there. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What this socker is doing right now is literally a criminal offense. You could press charges against him - if you can find his local police department and have them figure out who he is. CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I have an explanation of how his behavior is considered a criminal offense? Is creating massive sock farm a real world criminal offense? While he is indeed a troublemaker on Wikipedia, I still don't understand how it should be reported to his local police department. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"The use of electronic tools such as email or instant messaging to harass or abuse a person or persons. Can also include particularly intense and/or coordinated incidents of trolling, especially when they occur repeatedly and specifically target a single person or group."
I can see him as trolling. Since he does nothing but cyberbullying me, MuZemike, Favonian and others, it would be appropriate to discuss a ban on him. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, this, the final version of the page before the indef. tag, and with him suggesting he now wants to make constructive edits - that's a boldfaced lip-bitten lie. He was hoping to get in more harassment, no doubt. CycloneGU (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
And he does not sound like an honest person since he said "I'm really sorry...I really want to make constructive edits now" about six months ago and yet he continues trolling. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malleus Faturom has said the personal attack "What I can see is that you can't tell your arse from your elbow." on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#You know DYK is dying, right? and repeatedly reverts editors that hid or removed his personal attack and is in an edit war on the same talk page. He made the comment on his talk page, "Demiurge, you've been asked several times not to post here. What does it take to make you understand what you're being told? Does "fuck off" do it for you?". There was an ANI about him earlier in the month. I would notify this member, but it's hard to feel like doing that when the member is such a blatant offender. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Sigh, again? Connormah (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So, to break it down:
Malleus has the temerity to use a fairly well-known British colloquialism when addressing someone, and;
After repeatedly telling someone not to comment on his talkpage, he reacts with annoyance when the person....posts on his talkpage.
And we're meant to tick off Malleus for this? If Demiurge has been asked not to comment and he has, Demiurge is the one who needs a talking to. If you can't understand colloquial phrasings and instead think they're a matter for ANI, there's a good chance that Malleus's evaluation was somewhere near the truth. Ironholds (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, Demiurge left a warning note on the talkpage of an editor who has asked him to stay off his page, repeatedly it seems. That's inflammatory behaviour at best, and nothing to chastise Malleus for. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably how I'd respond to someone who I'd told to stay off my talk posting a warning... Connormah (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Good. Can we close this? Joe, chill. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Malleus was already at 3RR - with one of his reverts purely to restore a personal attack (the one quoted above, in fact). Since he apparently had every intention of continuing his edit warring beyond 3RR, the next step would have been reporting him to the appropriate noticeboard. That noticeboard pretty much requires providing the person reported with a 3RR warning.
I guess WP:Personal attacks can be ignored at times. Oh well. This isn't the first time I failed in ANI. I reported a sockpuppet that was attacking me and members using personal attacks towards me when I didn't violate any policies. I had to deal with those on my own because I was in the wrong and I guess I'm in the wrong again. I would love to tell a disruptive member to fuck off, but I got reported to ANI for pointing someone to WP:DICK and repeatedly having members insult me (not admins at least). Joe Chill (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Your logic is impeccably faulty. There was no "personal attack", and unless you have an exceptionally reliable crystal ball you can have no idea what I was about to do. MalleusFatuorum 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Fuck off. Joe Chill (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This may just be rambling, but I had to create this account a long time ago because of admins not helping me. It happened again with this account. Sorry for rambling, but I just want the rules to be concise. Joe Chill (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
However, I personally don't have any problem with Malleus strewing obscenities around as he did in the second comment quoted above. He aims such things at me quite regularly, and I don't complain. In the other direction, of course, there are many lamentations and gnashings of teeth.
No problem with closing this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Trying to edit war over the removal of someone's talk page comment is never a good idea. Once Malleus objected and restored it, further reverts after that were just needlessly aggravating the situation. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not aware that anyone edit-warred over the removal of someone's talk page comment, Tarc, but I think this can be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Igomaa
Can an administrator please review the edits of User:Igomaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) please. I first encountered this user at Jon Toral, an article which had been deleted via AfD. A speedy deletion tag was added by a colleague at WP:FOOTBALL and it was removed by this user several times. I advised them what is and isn't acceptable but all I got in return was hostility. I don't think edits like this are acceptable in any way, shape or form, regardless of whether this user is a newcomer or not (I was as green as they come back in the day but never removed verifiable content, let alone categories, sorting, links to other languages, etc). I have become more involved than I would like to so I'm leaving it here for further discussion. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as I am the one being reported, I believe that I should say that what I did was an accident. Honestly, deleting the Jon Toral tags issue is true. But I only did it twice (not knowing what exactly that was) and with out so called "hostility".
For Jack Wilshere, I was simply trying to add information as it asked in the above tag, but due to some random computer error, I accidently deleted some information with it, which I did not under any circumstance mean to do. Igomaa (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
With reference to [81][82]; I've had a look, and I hope I have understood this correctly. Let me know if I'm wrong;
When you removed the edit the first time [83] - why didn't you tell the user? And, why did you use 'revert' - it wasn't really vandalism, and an edir summary of "Reverted edits by Igomaa" doesn't tell the user what they did wrong. WP:AGF. Second time [84] I see you did, but, we shouldn't expect a new user to understand, Unsourced. Poorly written. Overlinked. Crystal-balling. - or, really, to find an edit-summary.
It's good that you started to discuss it, but, that was after posting to ANI. I see, since, they've also had a 'final warning' (for this, incidentally - which seems a bit harsh) - so, really, probably nothing more needs to be done, until/unless they continue disruptive editing?
And, if someone disagrees with your edit, don't just repeat it - instead, talk about it on the talk page - in that case, Talk:Jack Wilshere. Or ask for help. Just, don't get into a battle over it. If you need help, ask. OK?
Both of you, please respond, below. And then we can get back to improving the articles. Thanks, Chzz ► 21:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok thank you Igomaa (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Understood. To answer your questions: My intial contact was to issue advice after the user removed a speedy deletion template, not once but twice. [85] I restored the article on Wilshere to how it was and gave an appropriate warning. In hindsight I should have done what I did in the first place and write directly instead of using a template. I reverted in the heat of the moment because I immediately saw that a third of the article had been removed. Blanking for no reason is considered vandalism. I will hold my hand up and say that I should have only undone the first edit. The final warning was harsh but I can't speak for that user. Igomaa has made constructive edits, [86] so if he/she sticks to policies and guidelines then there won't be any trouble. I apologise for not responding sooner. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you both for responding - and, Argyle 4 Life, thanks for that explanation; I understand; it's no big deal.
I believe this is resolved. Any further problem can be dealt with via normal channels. Chzz ► 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Which way forward?
I have concerns regarding the editing of editor User:Mackoy20 which may or may not be related to competence issues, or perhaps a language barrier. As can be viewed from their talk page, they are repeatedly creating poorly written and poorly referenced BLPs on individuals of questionable notability, and have a history uploading copyright violations which they attribute as their own work (deleted examples are viewable by admins here). In July I noted my concerns to Mackoy 20 and suggested that they seek a mentor in order to assist them with their editing and gave them a final warning regarding the copyright violations. This was disregarded entirely and the copyvios continued resulting in a 24 hour block. Since the block has expired the user has continued to create borderline BLPs and has now uploaded the logo File:School Seal of Santa Isabel College.jpg under fair use, but claiming it as their own property ("This is own property"). Note that Mackoy20 has not responded to a single editor's concern in the three months they have been editing. Given their enthusiasm for editing it would be fantastic if they could find a mentor to help them, however given their non-communicative editing style I don't see it as likely they will actually seek one out. At what point does the community decide that the amount of work required to monitor and clean-up an editor's good faith but often nonconstructive edits is too much? Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Exit stage left? FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with FuFoFuEd. I would support either issuing the ultimatum that they find a mentor and listen to them, or they will be indef blocked; or skip the Last, last, last, last chance and simply block. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
That would normally be a good suggestion but it's likely to be ignored. This editor has zero edits to any talk spaces. Also, I don't think there is a language problem as he seems to know English well enough to write borderline BLPs. He could have responded to some of those messages on his talk page (some of which were obviously from humans not bots) if he gave a toss. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Indefblocked. Communication (as I've written oh so many times in threads here!) is not an option but a necessity in a collaborative editing environment. We can assist them to improve their editing, but to do that we have to have something to work with. EyeSerenetalk 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Bot request for authorization and community input
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Bot has been approved, no administrator action requested or required, nothing more to discuss. WP:DENY. —SW—comment 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I expressed concern about a BRfA being fast-tracked. In return WP:BAG members called me a sock puppet,[87] without making a formal accusation to assign me to a puppetmaster, called me a troll,[88] basically called me an idiot for asking questions, then closed the nomination while calling me a troll again.[89]
BAG members will just particpants names and steamroll the nomination through, not just over objections, but over clarifications and questions.
In fact, why don't more people participate in all sorts of places on wikipedia? Because, if you don't have full knowledge of something you're basically called an idiot, while simultaneously other editors are saying you have too much knowledge to be anything but a troll or a sock puppet.
Really? Call someone a troll because you cannot answer their question, call someone a sock puppet for asking quesitons, then close the nomination to shut them up.
My objections were legitimate: the bot owner had no idea what he/she was doing, couldn't clearly state what he/she intended to tag, then tagged outside of stated intentions, BAG members refused to allow conversation by giving the discussion approval for a trial in 4 minutes and removing it from the "Current request for approval" area, BAG members ganged up on an IP asking questions (anyone can edit? not a chance), then closed the nomination when BAG members kept mumbling and contradicting themselves and the nomination.
Why does wikipedia do this over and over again? Maintain members and policies that allow and encourage editors to treat outsiders like pieces of shit when someone actually voices an opinion contradictory to theirs?
Is wikipedia an encyclopedia anyone can edit? No. It's a social network. Too bad it keeps showing up at the top of search engines as if it were an encyclopedia.
Why don't the long-term editors set a standard for civility? Because they don't have to. They can simply call anyone they disagree with a Troll, and that is a community standard: name calling.
ANI is not the place for rants about things you don't like. It's for specific incidents which require administrator attention. Suggest this be hatted immediately before we allow this user to create more drama than he/she already has. —SW—chatter 04:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
My rant is about a specific incident. The exclusion of an IP from a community discussion. Specifically I was excluded because I am an IP, so it seems. Call me a troll? Didn't add up since the troll-caller kept talking to me, and everyone knows you don't feed the trolls. Call me a sock puppet, Anomie, while you, Snottywong keep essentially calling me an idiot? Didn't add up because Anomie has access to properly post a sock puppet accusation but didn't bother, and while he was saying I knew too much you were busy contradicting him by pointing out I'm an idiot.
I had specific, legitimate concerns. I participated as a member of the wikipedia community. You and BAG members chose to not honor "anyone can edit." That's the incident. You're the one wanting drama. You could have answered my questions, if you knew the answers, without escalating the insults. You chose otherwise. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What specific administrator action are you looking for in this case? You might consider posting your rant at WP:WQA instead. —SW—prattle 05:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to guess that someone baiting someone else's ranting, isn't on track recommending they get assistance from WP:AQA, and a quick glance there shows that, once more, you don't know what you're quoting. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
For those just joining in, I'll save you all some reading: the BRFA was for a manually-run, javascript-based tool to allow people listing large numbers of same-subject tfds (or other *fD's) under one discussion thread to have the bot go around and tag the affected tfd's with the proper link back to the discussion—just like people have had to manually do by following the instructions on WP:BUNDLE for over 4 years now. See this archived TfD for an example of a TfD and way the bot correctly mass-tagged them under its trial. The overwhelming consensus among BAG is that such a script is in line with the deletion policy and was sound technologically. A handful of editors showed up at the BRFA to contest deletion policy and the concept of multi-listing under one *fd—not the technical merits of bot. Therefore, BAG ruled against the influx of ip addresses and told them to contest policy on policy pages. The ip addresses then started this thread to complain that they were treated like single-purpose accounts/meatpuppets. Hopefully that helps bring everyone up to speed. :P --slakr\ talk / 05:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It's only one IP, me. Now you adding other accusations in addition to the ones from Anomie and Headbomb? You want to back them up with a formal complaint? And, again, oh, how bad, I'm an idiot for not knowing all the answers to questions before I ask them, but I'm so obviously knowledgeable about wikipedia, that I must be a sock puppet, and now a meat puppet. Although, it's hard to be a meat puppet if I'm one person speaking only for myself, but, let the name-calling continue. And that brings everyone up to speed: more name calling and insults instead of answering the question. Troll, sock puppet you know too much, idiot who knows too little, and meat puppet.
And, if the closure was simply a ruling against IPs, then it was nasty, and this complaint is legitimate. Policies and guidelins should not be enforced on whims based on prejudices against IP editors.
If the ruling is against the IP instead of for the bot, what is it BAG does? --68.127.234.159 (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The "influx" of IP addresses? 2? That's an influx? Clearly I edit as one IP, then switched to the other IP address and make no attempts to pretend that I am not the first IP. Meat puppetry? Influx of IP addresses? This was a bat BAG closure based solely on bias against an IP editor participating in the discussion. Even the closure says it all, Headbomb had to call me a troll during the closure because there was no clean closure for the BRfA available. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW I reviewed the closure, and came to the same conclusion that slakr did. The bot itself was technically sound, working as intended, and operating well within current policy. I do not see an issue with the approval of this bot, but I would caution against calling other users 'trolls' in the future, especially when closing BRFA's. SQLQuery me! 06:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This "smells" just like the person who edited from 69.225.5.4, 69.225.5.183, 69.226.111.130, 69.226.106.109, 69.226.103.13, 69.225.3.198, 69.225.2.24, and other IP addresses back in 2009, and also used the account IP69.226.103.13: raising possibly-valid issues but often doing so in an extremely abrasive manner, flying off the handle with accusations of "ignoring IP input" and "name calling" at the slightest provocation, refusing to accept any alternative view of anything or the fact that anyone could possibly disagree with them, and so on. If this is indeed the same person, many examples of this behavior exist in Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 4. At any rate, AFAIK the valid issues raised have been or are being addressed, and the rest just needs to be ignored. Anomie⚔ 11:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least in this case I don't think him being an IP user is an issue. On his 7th edit he manages to somehow find Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/TTObot and cook up some drama. This is without any previous experience with bots (aside from 1 post to User talk:Harej about an unrelated bot), templates, or our deletion process. This would raise some eyebrows if he were a new registered account. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:The Teaching of the rapture and User:Vbsouthern
– Secondary account (User:The Teaching of the rapture) used to circumvent has been blocked and page content from that userpage has been removed by EyeSerene. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 10:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin please do whatever is appropriate to address the content at User:The Teaching of the rapture written by User:Vbsouthern (I assume the 2 users are the same person), and also Vbsouthern adding the user page essay as an external link to the here. The ext link was only spotted today after 10 days and removed. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This would seem to be recreation of material put into article space and previously submitted for deletion by User:DJ Clayworth (notified[90]) and subsequently deleted followed by the page being turned into a redirect to Rapture[91]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I've deleted the essay and left them a note (well, two in fact - thanks Robert for your additional information). EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Any time. Which begs a question... should the 2nd user account be blocked as it was apparently simply an attempt to use userspace to recreate his/her deleted article? I suspect they don't need two accounts anymore. :-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep, done. Thanks for the reminder (you'd think it was a Monday morning...) EyeSerenetalk 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
LoL, it feels that way over here. Thanks. Marking resolved. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 10:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That all went very smoothly. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
UNFAIR TREATMENTI am Vbsouthern and I am writing this because of EyeSerene's treatment of me and my article The Teaching of the Rapture has been completely unfair. Your reason You had created the essay using a second account named to draw attention to that essay. is false. I never did this or intended to to this.
I can only conclude that you disagree with the content of this article and removed it for that reason only.
Have you read the rest of the message I left you as well? You used a userpage to post your essay (which had been removed from Wikipedia before) and created that account to do it. There are all sorts of problems with doing this, some of which I've tried to explain on your talk page. You're welcome to conclude whatever you wish but Wikipedia policy is very clear about using our charitably donated resources as a vehicle for advocacy. Most of us see this as an abuse of both the money that's been given to the Wikimedia Foundation and of the time of the volunteers that have to clean it up. Instead of posting personal essays, have you considered contributing neutrally presented, reliably sourced content to the Rapture article as I suggested? EyeSerenetalk 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"Unfair treatment"?? It's a nice WP:ESSAY full of original research, and Wikipedia is not meant for that - it doesn't matter who the author is, or what the subject is. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
UNFAIR TREATMENT by EyeSerene removal of article (The Teaching of the Rapture)
I am Vbsouthern and I am writing this because of EyeSerene's treatment of me and my article The Teaching of the Rapture has been completely unfair. Your reason You had created the essay using a second account named to draw attention to that essay. is false. I never did this or intended to to this.
I can only conclude that you disagree with the content of this article and removed it for that reason only. this TYPE OF BEHAVIOR is BULLYING and should not be allow on Wikipedia.
My article on the Rapture are as valid as the theory of the Rapture itself. A valid counter-point on the subject should be available, if for no other reason to show that not all Christians believe the theory. Removing my article is tantamount to CENSORSHIP of other religious points of view!
I suggest you pursue the appropriate steps outlined on our dispute resolution page if you feel there is an issue. I would also suggest to you that a calmer tone and rational arguments will get you much farther than shouting and accusations. TNXMan 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Tnxman307. It is that EyeSerene removed the article that I object to instead of moving it or asking me to move it or change the necessary information. No notice of this was sent to me. I would have gladly fixed any problems if I had been told a problem existed.
I'm sorry Vbsouthern, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any shape or form. I (or possibly another admin) would be willing to email you a copy if you don't have it backed up somewhere, but only on the condition that it doesn't end up back on this site. Have you considered starting a blog or something, where you are in control of what gets published and you can post what you like? EyeSerenetalk 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
And by "it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any shape or form," that of course means to not try to create The Teaching of the rapture again.[92] —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
... and based on clear WP:CONSENSUS (one of the cornerstones of the Wikipedia project), I would bet that additional attempts to re-add the essay to Wikipedia might lead to an enforced Wikibreak (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
They just have, after the third recreation. 48 hours as a final shot across the bows, but if vbsouthern keeps this up when that expires I'd imagine the next will be quite bit longer. EyeSerenetalk 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
So, not only is it an essay, it's a partly-plagiarized essay because he fails to list his sources appropriately. (talk→BWilkins←track) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a thought: would it be a good idea to delete The Teaching of the rapture (now a redirect)? It's not a very likely search parameter and it would have the added advantage of getting rid of the disruptive edit history. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
That's a discussion best done at WP:RFD. I don't see anything at WP:CSD that would apply. -- Atama頭 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It's harmless as long as nobody sneakily reverts back to one of the copyvio versions. Which nobody can do because it has been indefinitely protected against moves and edits from any non-admins. Which is practically salting it. So if it's left as it is, yes it's probably harmless. -- Atama頭 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I hope this is the right place, multiple issues, I think admins needed.
Okay, starting here, Avery Watts, I am planning to depuff and list for deletion. Looking into contributors I noticed user:Michizane (who I believe to be his publicist working for Papillon Entertainment which I have just csd'd as blatant advertising), who also contributes heavily to articles about Kari Feinstein, Mike McGuiness and their company Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations amongst others.
As if by magic, both companies are based in LA, there seems to be a lot of COI, if someone has some free time to go and review Michizane's edits that would be revealing I believe, maybe the FMPR agency is notable, but I don't think the two founders reach WP notability standards, so this appears to be a lot of free self-promotion.
Also, JacklynFMPR is an spa, obviously working for the company, hasn't edited since October 2010, but that's a banned username if ever I saw one and a blatant COI.
A bit of a can of worms, I'm sure by digging deeper that you'll find a whole bunch of interesting 'stuff'. CaptainScreeboParley! 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Addendum Posting to JacklynFMPR's tp, I saw this, [95], which makes me believe that the user 'went underground' and has probably morphed into another username, should be able to identify POV, COI editors by checking the edit history of the articles concerned. CaptainScreeboParley! 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
ANI might be a better venue for this. However, the articles seem to be fairly typical puff-pieces though some effort has been made to adhere to WP policy. The sources are pretty low-quality and some of them don't support the article content. I've made some effort to tidy up Kari Feinstein, but as the FMPR agency is probably the most notable of the bunch per WP:CORP my gut feeling is that both Kari Feinstein and Mike McGuiness should be redirected to that.
I've blocked JacklynFMPR as a promotional username (procedural really as they haven't edited in a while). I note that there have been concerns about the promotional nature of Michizane's editing since Sept 2010. The more I look at the history of some of those articles the more uncomfortable I'm getting, but I'll dig around a bit more before posting anything else here. EyeSerenetalk 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Adding to the above the editing activities of Matsiltala (talk·contribs), Pvisi111 (talk·contribs) and Brandstrong (talk·contribs). Also, The Tax Club is the fourth incarnation of that article, the others having been deleted. EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
...and Coconutty13 (talk·contribs), and 70.187.191.18 (talk ·contribs·WHOIS) which geolocates to California (possibly also 76.91.116.25 (talk ·contribs·WHOIS)). They mostly look like single-use accounts that are created then abandoned, but I think it's clear that we're being targeted for PR reasons by someone(s) sockfarm. Would a checkuser prove useful? EyeSerenetalk 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks EyeSerene, I just got the feel that this was like a big can of worms, isn't the recreation of an article (3 times!) the grounds for a speedy? Guess not if the article is substantially different, but that I cannot see. I see OrangeMike is already on the case, if I see anything more connected to this I'll flag it here. Cheers! CaptainScreeboParley! 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do. To be honest I'm hoping someone else will pick this up because I'm going to busy until tomorrow afternoon, but I'll check back when I can. I see that OrangeMike has blocked Brandstrong and I'm leaning towards indeffing most of the other accounts including Michizane per WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK. I'd like to know that this isn't the tip of a bigger iceberg though, so checkuser input might be valuable. EyeSerenetalk 16:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the McGuiness article per G11 and closed the AfD, it had way too much in the way of promotional material for me (talking about how skilled he was, celebrity phenomena, etc.). -- Atama頭 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User:AndiCary has issued a legal threathere, which as I understand, should be reported in this space. FYI, she seems to be interchangeably using the IP User:69.132.171.231 for edits (see edit histories, especially this one). Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the GA reviewer on this article. My review is here. Originally I think User:Daniel Christensen assumed this article would breeze through GAC and when it did not he was upset and demonstrated his frustration here. I was called James Bottomtooth and accused of "pooping" on the article. His response to this question [98] is also indicative of incivility. I have a thick skin and name calling doesn't really bother me, but it is inappropriate for editors to display this behavior with no apparent provocation. I have never had a dispute come to this forum so I am unsure of how to proceed. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User should be given a warning for incivility, by the way. Probably not a template warning, but a cool reminder to lay off the attitude he seems to have a problem with. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, some was meant to be a joke, my incivilties were not pointed. I also said that I appreciated the extensive review for the better it would make the article in the long run. I see thatis not stated here. None the less, I think I've had enough. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, your appreciation wasn't stated because stuff like that doesn't generally get mentioned here, I guess. Anyway, your "incivilties" came across as mild, and not malicious or indeed pointed in anyway. It's probably best indeed to back off from it for now if it's getting you a bit worked up. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I did leave a warning, and a word to the wise, here. H1nkles, you may proceed as you like--if you want to stop the review, you can; if you want to continue (you strike me as a pretty friendly person), that would be appreciated, even if not always by the reviewee. For now, I would proceed, if I were you, by waiting a little while and see if there is any further commentary by the reviewee. BTW, I was looking at that GA review--great work, by you and Vessey. People who haven't reviewed something themselves usually don't really know how much effort it takes: thanks on behalf of all of them as well. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope a precedent doesn't get set to start calling me "Vessey" now . I think we can call this resolved because of your comment on his talk page. Thank youRyanVeseyReview me! 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Ooooops...sorry. Feel free to slap a templated warning on my talk page, and you can have one free insult. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with how things are going I'll continue the review and should have it finalized tomorrow. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I have had no problem with Dan. In the past, he has struck me as sometimes a little keen, but he has developed into a good editor who usually behaves in the manner expected. He did ask if I wanted to review Kingdom Tower - I declined because I am on holiday and probably unable to devote the necessary time to what would be my first article review. I was a little surprised at his response to my question yesterday, though it is nothing I cannot deal with in my own way - which will probably be to check the sources more thoroughly before commenting on that specific matter again. As for accusations of ownership, I think that is still a "maybe", and instead perhaps it is just Dan's slightly keen nature coming through. He has had a good go at bringing this article to the standard it is today, and has devoted a large amount of time to the article (for example: apart from a bot he was the sole editor between 7 Aug 14:00 and 8 Aug 05:55 and he spent little time doing other things on Wikipedia during that time). Perhaps it is time for him to step back for a short while and see how it develops. Astronaut (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Please block vandalism only account
Can someone please block the blatant vandalism-only account User:Unknown1118? They've made 2 edits, both the same and both clearly childish vandalism with no obvious intent to be productive. I reported to AIV, and received an "insufficiently warned" response. I see no point in spinning my wheels issuing 1,2,3,4 warnings to a clear vandal-only account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's that blatant, a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning might have been appropriate. Regardless, AIV is the correct venue for that report; this noticeboard is not for routine vandalism block requests. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
So the blatant vandal will continue due to bureaucracy. That's ok with me, I just want to know so I can stop reporting vandals. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced on two edits that the account is vandalism-only (though maybe my AGF threshold is different from other users'). That said, the warning should be escalated; if he comes back with a level 3 warning on his talk page and vandalizes again, then a block is justified. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Nobody said to stop reporting vandals, because it is appreciated. Simply that warn, then report WP:AIV tends to be more effective. ANI is better for editors with longer term/repeated issues. (talk→BWilkins←track) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If a user is blatantly, repeatedly and solely vandalistic, there's no need to issue 4 warnings - the folks who monitor AIV will take care of it. However, if a vandal gets reverted a couple of times and then stops, typically no action is taken. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about that Bugs ... I have had situations where vandal only accounts (and I'm not talking childish vandalism, I'm talking overtly racist/homophobic/insert other prejudice) got three graduated warnings, where the third was a level 4 "last time" ... when I took it to AIV, I was told that I hadn't used the proper graduation procedure. I have found AIV to be as frustrating as it is useful, depending on which admin swoops in. In this case you have two cases of overt homophobic vandalism ... stuff like this almost never leads to anything productive. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Admins are supposed to use their judgement in deciding how and when to issue blocks, and despite what others might think, we don't share a hive mind, so inconsistencies will occur. -- Atama頭 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
LonelyBeacon, if the edits are that severe, you can easily "graduate" it to level 4 by simply skipping other levels. It should be a rare occurrence (at least I hope it should only need to be rare), but it is allowed. I have filed numerous AIV reports, and none have ever been denied; and a few of them were direct escalation to Level 4. Again, only a few... but point being, with a variety of moppers reviewing them, the persons in question have always been blocked.
Burpelson AFB: what BWilkins said, with the addendums C.Fred and I added to the discussion. AIV is a much quicker method of dealing with vandalism. The gang who patrols there is there solely to deal with such issues, and there's usually at least one person there for solely that purpose at any given time. You can find more details on how to report, what to report, etc at WP:GAIV. On a side note, using an automated tool such as Twinkle makes doing so very easy. Failing someone handling that queue, there are other ways of getting something very serious dealt with immediately, such as IRC. You can find out how to find admins that are online at WP:IRC. Failing a speedy resolution of an AIV request for serious issues such as credible threats of violence or items that speedily need to be revdel'd, going to the appropriate IRC channel to find an active, online admin is probably suitable. For just regular vandalism, let AIV run it's course. And remember, reverting for blatant vandalism, blatant attacks, etc; is not covered as a WP:3RR violation. I've actually run into that myself once, while an admin and I were scrambling to delete things of that nature and he was putting the ban in place. As opposed to getting warned for 5 reverts, I got a thank you (as I hadn't violated 3RR which did not apply to the situation). But, as with all things vandalism, best make sure it's blatant first. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk page troll(s)
– Blocked by Tnxman. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
While eavesdropping on Jimbo's talk page, one talk page troll gets blocked, Special:Contributions/Randnotell, and a new one pops up, Special:Contributions/Robbie_Ottley. Very suspicious.... Please block the new one I guess, I wonder if a checkuser would produce any sleepers.... Never a dull moment, gotta love it. --64.85.216.175 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Tnxman blocked them. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Article disputes remain active, thus, disputes still require article improvement and impartial community involvement. Technically, no legal threats were made, such as "I will sue you," etc.; rather, integrity notification of reporting data and evidence to legal department was provided. Additional data and evidence have been submitted. That said, in accordance with WP:Legal threats, "If someone is blocked for legal threats it is important to ensure that any possible factual basis for such a threat is not ignored or obscured." Furthermore, the WP:OUTING violation mentioned on article talk page must also be addressed. 99.90.145.204 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The content dispute may very possibly remain, and it should be dealt with if possible via further discussion on the article's talk page. Proposing to block someone per WP:LEGAL does not mean the complaints are being suppressed — only that the complaints need to be dealt with in the proper forums. And I'm confused about the WP:OUTING comment, because as far as I'm aware, the only place "outing" was brought up was in a cautionary comment by me after the IP editor mentioned that he believed he knew the real-world identity of the person he has been accusing of being a sock. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
"That's so interesting that Richwales brought this point up. There are several pages on Wikipedia that cite a RW person as the contributor. The pages were not amended or deleted, nor was the user citing outed. 99.25.218.98 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"
The proper forum for article and edit disputes is disputes noticeboard, as stated by Markvs88. Since the dispute is active, and ought to remain active on board until resolved. Bringing forth WP:Legal threat appears, to me, to be a separate issue. Furthermore, openly referencing notifications to the Wikimedia Foundation legal department and WP:legal threats are hardly mutually inclusive. Principal dictates that one report activities found odious or otherwise prohibitive. So, if I understand correctly, I've addressed all matters through the proper channels. "Blocking," to my knowledge, hasn't even been proposed here, merely that policy dictates that data and evidence shall not be ignored or obscured. I also note that, per WP:Legal threats, any threats made on Wikipedia or other site are to be taken seriously and acted upon by Wikipedia. Action will thus be required regarding Wikipedia user's threats appearing on other web sites, in addition to WP:OUTING violations. 99.186.207.70 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The statement at the third link, above, saying: "The matter extends far beyond Wikipedia, articles and edit wars. It is also illegal activity in the real world." is, even without the mentions of material being provided to the Wikimedia legal department in the other links, far more than enough to be perceived as a legal threat and that's enough under WP:LEGAL to cause it to be treated the same as an actual threat. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. It is a factual statement, not a threat. 99.186.207.70 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have semi-protected ANI for 24 hours, and I have semi-protected Ralph Nader and Talk:Ralph Nader for 3 days. The Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is clear, in that if legal action has been taken, that person is not allowed to edit Wikipedia until legal proceedings are resolved or otherwise withdrawn. –MuZemike 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is it a really good idea to semi-protect this page when several IP editors come here to attempt to get help, when the IP editors are invited here to respond to challenges made against them? I'm sure we can apply WP:RBI to make this IP hopper be quiet.Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Not when he's persistently and willfully IP-hopping to continue disruption and threats, and rangeblocking will do no good. Currently, this is the only way to handle such disruption, such as from Vote (X) for Change (talk·contribs). –MuZemike 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Editor problem
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Situation seems to be resolved. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem with User:Orlady. It started with Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas where I nominated an article that I started for DYK where she said comments like "Now that it is clear that you consider DYK to something you are entitled to, I guess you aren't likely to get much more help or advice from other volunteers." and "You are giving me the distinct impression that your main interest is complaining." while also comparing the article to trivia. I repeatedly said that I wanted the DYK withdrawn not just because I gave up on the article, but because of other problems that have to do with DYK. Apparently closing the nomination is such as hard thing to do because Orlady just had to keep dragging the discussion along. Orlady posted on my User talk:Joe Chill#RE:How much has DYK changed? with "Joe Chill seems to have been concerned about Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas. And apparently I am not going to be added to his list of members he admires." On the DYK nomination and my talk page, I repeatedly tried to explain that the DYK nomination was not my only problem. The only thing that I want is for her to stop continuing a discussion that has already ended especially with false accusations. That is the only administrative action that I want taken. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems more context into this issue can be had by reading the DYK page and related talk pages. That aside, as you've withdrawn your nomination, and thus there's nothing to discuss about it, would you not think that contacting Orlady and simply asking Orlady to cease such discussions with you (and you doing the same) might have resolved this without going to AN/i?
On that note, you may wish to remember that you do need to notify people you mention at AN, especially one so directly involved. I have done that for you[102]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I was about to, but you got there first. Thank you. I'm not sure what will resolve it and admins seem more well versed in this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've had dealings with Orlady before (all pleasant), and have seen their work/comments elsewhere. I think either restarting the conversation on a pleasant note, or asking Orlady to cease conversing with you would work. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I left a message on her talk page. DYK is not the place for me like it use to be - there is so many changes, debates about changes, this incident, and a member said on the DYK talk page that I am an unproductive DYK creator because of one article that was too close to the sources that I was unable to fix because I took a break from Wikipedia. It's not just complaining like some members may believe, it is just that I'm tired of it and it is too frustrating. Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
This should be closed, it isn't really worthy of administrative attention. Atomician (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The funny thing is - it isn't clear what is worthy of administrative attention. Mass copyvios are not apparently. Telling a disruptive user to f off isn't apparently. Reporting personal attackers isn't allowed on here at times. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have a word of advice on the post you put before this one... if you are becoming tired or frustrated with Wikipedia, try staying away from editors for a while, stick to articles and stay off talk pages for a little, then come back when you're ready? And it's not as if the editor you've reported is not being responsive. Nothing will come of posting this here, you should probably leave it. Good luck with further editing though, Atomician (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I will leave this discussion and I will stay away from ANI also. If someone attacks me, I will let them at it or if they attack someone else. If someone comes across it and decides to report it, they can feel free too. I guess I'm not good at phrasing stuff since I had to create this account a long time ago in order to "protect" myself. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this discussion has resolved itself without my participation. It is probably best for me not to comment, as it seems that Mr. Chill does not to want to interact with me. --Orlady (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with interacting with you once this is settled and it appears to be. I would not mind working with you again, I just have a problem with the DYK discussion being continued. Many editors seem to look highly upon you which I really do respect. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hounded by an admin for the past six months
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)
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. RainbowDash!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". Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [103]. 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 [104], 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. RainbowDash!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:
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.
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.
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)
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 [105]. 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [106] 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.
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.
[107]. 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" [108], 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" [109], 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: [110] (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 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)
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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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: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 [111], 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: [112]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [113] 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 Windtalk 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'm having a problem with a disruptive editor. On Celtic F.C. supporters, Adam4267 (talk·contribs) keeps inserting information that is not reliably sourced or not notable, as a consensus on the talk page indicates. See the history: I made three individual edits ([114], [115], and [116]), edit summaries and all, removing mostly puffery based on company sources. Adam4267 reverts, without rhyme, reason, or explanation, here, I revert and explain why here, and so on, until he finally asks for an explanation on the talk page. Adam is apparently incapable of reading edit summaries, and does not write them gladly. Funny thing is, the talk page already had extensive discussion of the sources and statements involved.
Another point of contention, raised on the talk page by another editor, was some claim about Celtic having the third-largest fanbase in the UK, based on this link--which obviously says nothing of the kind. That also was removed, with a consensus on the talk page and no participation from Adam--and they reinstated it, together with all the Celtic fan puffery, in this edit--without edit summary, of course.
This pattern of not listening, not paying attention to consensus, not explaining, and not taking into account relevant policies on reliable sources and original research, he exercises also on Green Brigade, where he continues to remove sourced information (as he did again today, here), despite broad talk page agreement on most parts of the content--and also keeps inserting an image that violates our OR policy.
I'm tired of dealing with this person, who has managed to rub a lot of feathers, and I will notify those editors, as well as the editor who warned me for edit warring on Celtic F.C. supporters (just for fairness' sake). Possible administrative solutions I could conceive of are a temporary block, or an injunction to stay away from at the very least the aforementioned two articles. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
(ec with Warburton) Or maybe someone can tell him what the problem is--apparently I am incapable of doing so, and I have lost patience. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no need for any bans in this case they way forward on this matter is already laid out on the talkpage of the article in question the way forward is through discussion on that. Both users have there own points that they see as valid dispute resoloution would be a better way to deal with it a ban is not appropriate. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Warburton, and I appreciate your attempt at diplomacy, but that was laid out yesterday already, if not earlier, and today's edits suggested that it didn't help. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have time for a complete reply to Drmies as I am about to go, but one point I would like to make is with this why did you choose this edit for your example and not my next edit here In which I stated 2 edits per WP:BRD. I have given my opinion of your editing style here. I do not appreciate your editing style as I made clear and it seems I am not the only one. I appreciate you said this was a joke on your talk page but it was not nice. Your response to me may have been sarcasm if it was then it is an example of the style which I do not like. If it wasn't then I am glad you will consider my opinion. And while some of your jokes are funny there is a time and a place and serious discussions are not the place especially when tensions are already running high. Anyway as I have already stated (too many times) I am going to the Celtic match so I may be on later tonight to see what has happens. I will try and get some pictures and hopefully they will meet wiki standards. Adam4267 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I am dead serious about WP:OR (the image on Green Brigade, for instance) and WP:RS (the staff about Celtic's huge fan base in Kenya, for instance). That you don't like my editing style, well, that's neither here nor there. You should address the issues at hand. I am not the only one who's troubled by your editing. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Drmies here. Attempts at discussion have gone no where. Adam bluntly refuses to follow wiki guidelines about dispute resolution.
I think User Adam suffers from a serious case of COI in this subject. He states he is a Celtic fan and even leaves comments like this [117], reinforcing this COI. For quite a while now I have debated certain aspects with Adam on both Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters where by he bluntly refuses to get outside help for disagreements even after being pointed to the correct place to ask.
In the debate surrounding sources on Green Brigade it was left up to myself to go to the RS noticeboard and get some outside feedback, after Adam made this reply [118]. He has also left a reply like this to an extensive reason as to why some sources and other material is not suitable (especially an image which has been reinserted by adam about two dozen times)
On the Celtic F.C. supporters I attempted to alter some information that was not neutral and add some tags to show where the article was not up to standard but Adam continually removed them Stating that they were irrational and petty even though since then the tags have proved to be correct. For my trouble of adding tags I was reported for edit warring. Which has put me off editing the article. I also see Adams staunch views and editing has put others off even attempting to improve the articles.
It disappoints me that it has come to this but after going over and over the same points with Adam about where his general contributions and editing fail wiki standards it does not surprise me.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I suspect the underlying problem is that Adam is clearly very passionate about Celtic and sees Wikipedia as a way of promoting the club. This leads to a kind of spin doctoring approach whereby he vigorously pushes anything he sees as positive and vigorously challenges anything he sees negative. He pays scant attention to wikipolicies on areas such as reliable sources etc. The irony of this is that it leads to a one-sided approach that doesn't read well as people will see it isn't balanced. Hearing the other point of view makes both stronger. Puff pieces are simply not convincing.
The second problem, again probably because he has strong feelings on the matter, is that he isn't really taking on board what people are telling him, pretty much presuming that any critisism is some form of personal attack. Or, the alternative is that he really doesn't understand some of the core wiki policies.
The third problem is that he bears a grudge. A number of us, including Adam, Monkeyman and myself, have had disagreements in the past. Where as the rest of us have taken lessons onboard and are, i think, editing with more diplomacy and greater attention to wiki policies, Adam is still ploughing the same old fields. He has to learn to take olive branches when offered, compromise and accept sometimes things will not go his way.
He has, in my opinion beyond any doubt, become seriously disruptive. I would suggest some form of mentoring would be the way forwards, with an editor who knows the ins-and-outs of wiki policy, which seems few and far between TBH (I would have suggested Drmies!). Certainly we need to put a stop to this behaviour and move forward in a more constructive manner.
One exercise that taught me a lot abbout wikipedia was editing the page Vang Vieng where I was tasked with putting forward the positive side of the argument, even though my own opinions are more to the negative. These things really help to focus on making wikipedia better, rather than trying to turn it into a soapbox. Mattun0211 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Would WP:DRN not a be a better way of dealing with this. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The thing about that noticeboard Warburton is that it will likely redirect to other noticeboards that are relavent i.e. Reliable sources noticeboard, ANI etc. I myself alone have repeatedly asked Adam to go to these noticeboards if he disagrees (e.g. if sources are reliable). He has never done so, not once. It was left to others. The main problem raised here is Adams general editing, i.e. reverting numerous times when viable reasons have been given on discussion, reinserting material that has been justifiably disputed etc.Monkeymanman (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I hadn't thought of the COI being a real issue. Since I haven't plowed through Adam's other edits, I have no basis to judge, and as far as I'm concerned it's not the most important thing. For the record, Mattun has, in the past, come to my talk page to ask me to look at articles and edits (see my archive) ever since we butted heads on Green Brigade--I think I notified them about edit-warring, but I don't remember who the other involved editor was. I think Monkeymanman was involved in that dispute as well. But Mattun and others have clearly learned from the experience and are, in my opinion, helpful and productive editors.
Warburton, I considered DRN, or some other kind of resolution, and have urged involved editors to go that route, and they have--all but one. That means that dispute resolution in that fashion is not going to work. Now, I have tried, as Mattun suggests above, to mediate, and initially (on Green Brigade, a while ago), that seemed to have worked, but by now I am too involved to be independent, which is why I come to this board rather than continuing to warn and perhaps block for disruption. Surely there must be some seasoned editors who care for footy (what a silly word--just call it voetbal) and who are not fans of Celtic, or their rival, or the IRA, or whatever, and who can apply their knowledge of WP to come to judicious decisions--but those can only be attained if all participants are willing to play by the rules, the most important one of which is, in this case, to abide by consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Support topic ban per WP:COI. --John (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI warburton, Adam seems to shy away from the resolution noticeboards. But if he's reading, this from WP:COI is very relevant I think. "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.
If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously."
If he took that onboard, I think this issue would be resolved. Mattun0211 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
We would not normally refer to a fan as having a conflict of interest. That term is reserved for situations where the individual has a financial interest, a commercial or business interest, an interest concerning their academic reputation, a family relationship or similar. Which is not to say that a fan will edit neutrally, just that COI is not the problem you need to address - WP:NPOV is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: though claiming others are acting as if they WP:OWN the article, Adam seems to do just that here[119] where undoing others' changes, he claims he will continue to do so and is unwilling to discuss such - but that the other editors involved need to discuss undoing his changes. "No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board. You two do not own this page and have no right to attempt to make me do so. I will continue to make additions and if you have a problem with anything I add or any references I use feel free to bring it up here". That leaves, in my opinion, the (his) issues of "ownership" and unwillingness to collaborate the more important issues - issues that may indeed warrant the article/topic ban if they cannot be resolved. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The reason I said that is because when I made an addition it was removed then had to be discussed to be re-added. If one of the other three editors made an addition it was kept and had to be discussed to be removed. Which I think is unfair. Adam4267 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Someone employed WP:BRD. You were bold, someone reverted, then it's time to discuss. Perhaps this can be cleared up by you reading that link. And remember, if the article isn't perfect for a few days while you all hash it out, it's no big deal. As for another editor of the three, after having discussed the changes, implementing them... that's a bit different. Fact is, you may not get your way... or you may. But this is a collaborative effort. The only winner should be Wikipedia. Hopefully after you read up on WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY (via reliable sources, you'll have a better understanding of what's been happening. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Elen that this isn't really a COI issue. But we don't need a COI established to issue a topic ban. If Adam is being disruptive and is incapable of editing in a neutral manner on this topic, a ban from this topic might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
How long a topic ban would be appropriate, do we think? I propose six months in the first instance. --John (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think talk of a topic ban is a bit premature. It hasn't even been established whether I am being disruptive or not, (for the record I don't think I am) or if I am editing in a non-neutral manner. I will admit that a few of my edits might not be perfect, but on the whole I think I am acting in a neutral manner. Adam4267 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think this latest post demonstrates the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentioned in the header for this section. A number of people have discussed problems with your editing, and suggested ways forward, but no one thus far except yourself seems to think that the problem has not been clearly demonstrated. Perhaps you might want to read this section again, and rethink. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree. The fact that Adam is so blind to what he is doing further reinforces the claims being made here. "I will admit that a few of my edits might not be perfect, but on the whole I think I am acting in a neutral manner." That statement, contrasted with what Drmies illustrated above, seems to encapsulate the problem succinctly. -- Atama頭 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that their has been disruption, but I don't think I am much more responsible for this than anyone else. I disagree with people saying I am not neutral though. On occassion I have made edits which weren't completely neutral. But I think on the whole I have tried to act neutrally. If you wish I can find examples of other editors acting non-neutrally and being disruptive. I don't really want to do this but if a six month ban is the alternative, then I will. Adam4267 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
An appeal to WP:NOTTHEM is a poor strategy. At best, you'll find others sharing the ban. Your best bet is to acknowledge the problem, explain how you will change, and then demonstrate that change. I think it's clear that you think you've been editing neutrally, which is a large part of the problem, it's not necessary for you to repeat that claim. -- Atama頭 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
User seems immune to clue. I suggest a 3-month topic ban at this point; hopefully during that time Adam will re-examine his approach and come to understand that if everyone else is saying his edits are POV and disruptive, his opinion that they are wrong may well be in error; at the very least his view represents a vanishing minority view. I suggest that learning how to write for the enemy might be helpful, or perhaps writing for subjects he cares less about. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page you will see that consensus was moving towards keeping the sources I put in [120]. Are you seriously considering blocking me without even looking at my edits, which no-one appears to have done so far. It concerns me greatly that administrators would block someone without even looking at their edits. Adam4267 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Why on earth would you assume that we have not examined your contributions carefully before commenting here? That is standard practice for administrators, to the point that no one bothers to say "Having examined (user's) edits...." You are clearly unfamiliar with standard practice for admins commenting on ANI. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Three month topic ban, broadly construed, with recommendation to edit other articles and gain wider experience of how things work here before returning to Celtic-related articles. --John (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Support topic ban. And for the record, of course I reviewed Adam's edits, I did so before my first comment. I would not support any kind of sanction or editing restriction without doing so. -- Atama頭 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if you have examined my edits and are going to block me. I would at least like to see an example of the edits which are non-neutral, I would then be able to review them and work out how to change my editing style if I decide to return. As I pointed out above consensus is moving toward having those sources I wanted in the article. Although Mattun thinks none of them should be in. You are correct that I am unfamiliar with ANI but I don't believe you have examined my edits fully, seeing as I almost soley contribute to this topic you would have to review at least 1000 edits. And unless you are a super administrator I don't think you could have done that. If you like I will bring up a few of my edits that I beleive were non-neutral. Adam4267 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The remedy under discussion right now is a WP:TOPIC BAN not a WP:BLOCK. This is why we are suggesting you write for the enemy and gain wider experience of how Wikipedia works. Please read the linked pages; we do not link them for our own amusement. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this topic ban entails Football, Celtic, fans of Celtic, either of the first two would be a block for me as that is basically all I edit on. I have actually contributed to Rangers articles before, I have removed vandalism and helped update pages. So I'm not entirely sure why you are brining this up. I thought you had reviewed my edits? Adam4267 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Both John and myself are recommending that you edit articles on other subjects and learn more about how Wikipedia works during the 3 month topic ban. Are you saying you plan to ignore the recommendations and basically stay away from Wikipedia during that time, if the topic ban is enacted? This will not help your case. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
To be honest I don't really care about Wikipedia. I know how it works, I have been editing here for a long time, I think the proposal to ban me is based on a few edits which don't really show the full story, as I stated consensus was moving toward including the sources I proposed on the Celtic supporters page, but this entire discussion is mostly based around these edits. I do like editing on football articles and if you review my contributions you will see I edit quite a lot on articles which don't relate to Celtic. I also edit a lot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football participate in discussions there, and remove lots of vandalism, but it would be very hard/impossible to simply stop editing on Celtic articles but keep editing elsewhere. Again, I'm still not sure what this proposed ban is for, I agree that I have been disruptive but not to a considerable degree more than anyone else. If it is for my supposed non-neutrality I'm afraid disagree entirely. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I spent a short time trying to help some of these parties achieve some consensus. I think Adam is an extraordinarily passionate editor, and I think ultimately, he can be a good contributor to the project. As I myself have experienced in the past, it is very easy for something you feel passionate about to overrule all else, including building some consensus. In my opinion there were two issues: one was a failure to work within consensus, and in the case of a disagreement, to use the tools available to examine a broader consensus. The second issue was also extrapolating from information in sources (a few of which are noted above). I think that it would be a good idea for Adam to step away from editing about Celtic, and use that time to focus on editing other articles, and examine how his editing there can help his ore unbiased editing in Celtic articles when he comes back. Adam certainly has been an editor here for a while, however so have I, and I know that I don't always know everything there is to know. It might help to review procedures on how to handle disputes in the future. During this time, Adam could continue I would presume, to help with Celtic articles by continuing to find references and edit in a sandbox for later inclusion, or request edits based on references that he finds. I think this could be a tie to also examine how other editors approach editing, and I have found that to be educational in the past. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Adam asked me to comment here, which I appreciate and take as a good sign. Again, let me make clear that I am not too bothered by any allegiance to any club. I see some recognition of disruption, but I also see him claim that it's not considerably more than the disruption of others. That suggests to me that there is a lack of real recognition. Disruption here consists of (in no particular order, and perhaps not exclusively) combative editing, edit warring without seeking recourse to the talk page while accusing others of it, re-adding edits that are not supported by WP:RS and involve OR, etc--but most importantly, not caring for, listening to, or abiding by consensus. I've only glanced at his contributions to other articles--if he does good work there (and I don't see any evidence to the contrary) then a temporary ban for these two articles is not a death sentence. Moreover, such editing will perhaps make more clear that consensus is the only way to go.
In short, until I see more evidence that he realizes what others (not just me, evidently) find problematic in his editing and until he indicates that this will change, I am not ready to let this pass. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that I have been disruptive, but I think other users have also done the same things that Drmies listed above and that they should have to answer exactly the same questions I should. This dispute has been going on for a long, long time (before I joined wikipedia). And I think to pin this all on me is a bit unfair. Adam4267 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
We have three supporting a 3 month topic ban, of Celtics and related articles. I see no objections (other than the expected objection from Adam.) I'd prefer to see a bit more input; does anyone else wish to weigh in? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have already said my piece further up the page but i would like to ask Adam something here for the record. Adam has shown he can be a very constructive editor, and a topic ban of celtic and celtic related articles would probably be impossible for him to follow (due to the fact that he has really only edited from what i can see football articles mainly relating to celtic). Adam in the future would you be willing to use noticeboards and go through the relevant dispute resolution process to get other opinions on matters which editors cannot agree upon? (and abide by what the outside opinion is). Monkeymanman (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Killer, thanks for your call for input and closure. Like Monkeymanman, I am waiting on a better response than the one I got above (that the dispute preceded his coming to WP, and that "to pin this all on me is a bit unfair"). If that is not forthcoming (and I think it won't be--we have asked often enough, even in this very ANI thread), then I am supportive of a topic ban, though regretfully so (and yes, I know I started this thread...). Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course I am willing to use the appropriate boards when no consensus can be found through discussion, and abide by what the outside opinion is. I think me and Monkeymanman can agree on the majority of things, with a few exceptions. But most of our discussions can be worked out between us. To be honest I do find it hard to work with Mattun though. While I don't think he is a bad editor I feel that he has a very strong POV when it comes to certain things and it makes it hard for him to edit neutrally. I still don't think a three month topic ban on all things Celtic is a good idea. I contribute a huge amount to that area almost all being constructive (the exception being these articles), and if anything a three month ban on the two articles in question would seem more sensible. In any event I think dispute resolution is needed on certain areas and even if I am away for three months I can't see these issues being resolved when I return. I still think this topic ban is premature, [121], [122] at least several editors were stating that there was some merit to what I was saying. Adam4267 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
(I was asked to comment here by Adam, having previously commented as an uninvolved editor at Talk:Green Brigade) Adam's editing at Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade has been problematic. A topic ban from those may be useful. A topic ban from all articles with a connection to Celtic, however, would also remove his most productive edits, such as those to articles like Scott Brown (Scottish footballer). I see enough ability and potential in that side of his editing for a mentorship to be productive. If those commenting here (and of course Adam himself) also think it would be productive, I'm willing to put myself forward as a mentor, as football is my main editing area. The offer would be conditional on Adam agreeing to keep to 1RR. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate Oldelpaso's offer and I am sure he could teach me a lot. I don't really feel as if I need a mentor. However, I feel like there needs to be some sort of "higher power" with these two pages he could possibly act as an arbitrator to solve disputes. Maybe in conjunction with another editor (Drmies?). But I would be happy to keep my edits to 1RR on these pages. Adam4267 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Adam has been a very helpful contributor to football articles particularly in relation to scottish football and also at scott brown page in getting it up to a good article standard not easy to do and shows dedication. He means well and is a great help to wikipedia in general. I feel a topic ban to all football articles or all celtic articles would be unconstructive as the vast majority of those edits are very good and help full. The very nature of the article in question makes it difficult to source and why i appreciate some of the behaviour detailed above isnt great i feel a full topic ban would be unhelfull as he has a lot to contribute, A ban maybe on that page for a short time to let things cool down and the help offered above by Oldelpaso which should be taken and 1RR i feel would solve the issue with an agreement that if he fails to keep to that then a full topic ban will be imposed automatically. As i say its obvious that some things have been wrong but if adam is willing to change which i feel he is then i think a full topic ban at this time would be to heavy a ban for now. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
User:JordoCo
This user was reported here a few days for ago for possible disruptive editing ([123]) but still seems to be exhibiting the same behaviour. I have blocked this user to slow him down a bit and give us some time to look into this. I was just about to go to sleep so can someone look into this? Feel free to lift the block if I made an error of judgement here. Cheers, —Ruud 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User:ALifeOfVictory, Spider Ledesma, and Talk:Spider Ledesma
Ok this might be a bit complex, but by parts.I came upon this article via recent changes, Spider Ledesma. When I read it and saw the editing history, it was immediately clear there were major WP:OWN and WP:COI issues, as well as a number of content issues. I tagged the articlediff and explained briefly the reasons for the tagging in article talkdiff. During this process, I realized that User:ALifeOfVictory's latest edit was not a good one in my view, and I self-reverted the tagsdiff, undid his editdiff, and then restored the tagsdiff. I also proceed to notify him of WP:OWNdiff and possible WP:COIdiff in his talk page, and responded to his message on my talk pagediff and notified him of my responsediff. He removed the article tags and reverted contentdiff, and I rollbacked him (under reverting a 3RR violation)diff, I also notified him of the 3RRdiff.
What followed next is quite simply one of the worse violations of WP:NPA I recall seeing in Wikipediadiff.
Not only does this editor freely admit to WP:COI and WP:OWN, but sees no problem with it, and furthermore, disdains completely long-standing views on reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. I would have normally pursued different channels of DR before getting here, but the level of vitriol and unwarranted textual abuse is over the top, and out of the ordinary, making extremely difficult for me to continue to assume good faith with a straight face. This needs community attention ASAP, IMHO, as this is well beyond whatever editing dispute we might have and into the realm of the pure misbehavior. I see nothing in the way I approached this questions to warrant the response I got.
I am not clear, bu there might also be a WP:NLT violation, but I am not saying there is, I need a other eyes to tell me if there is. If he is making a legal threat, you know what has to be done.
I know I should notify him, but can someone un-involved please notify him of this thread, as I do not feel comfortable doing so at this time due to the threatening nature of his response in talk - me notifying might escalate rather than de-escalate the situation.--Cerejota (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Much appreciated!--Cerejota (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
The autobiography is dreadful, though I hope not quite as dreadful as it was before my recent edits. The autobiographer is indeed very excited. (So much so, that I begin to wonder whether it's really him, or perhaps instead somebody else's prank.) But certainly Cerejota's work can't be faulted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I warned the editor for uncivil comments...but I wasn't sure at first, it looks like a joke. If it is him, he isn't doing any credit to himself.--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
If you're actually feeling threatened, please disregard this, Cerejota, but I thought that was very funny. I wish I had ever had such a fine elaborate rant directed at me, over all these years — I'd treasure it. :-D Bishonen | talk 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC).
He's returned to the article and reverted it three times. I've warned him about 3RR. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I like how so much of his anger seems to be in response to a perceived questioning of his religious dedication. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, I think your response to the "Fuck you - you self-righteous creep." comment is gold. --Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't this user blocked for violating the username policy? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Tried but got this. Seems blocked accounts cannot be reported even if the report is for a different reason.--Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
User_talk:77.255.150.72
User_talk:77.255.150.72 Has broken 3RR rule - generally changing images without discussion then reverting without discussion (after having been reverted) even after having had reasons explained for revert of their edits. Is also removing references http:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Drogomy%C5%9Bl&action=history - no clear reason for behaviour - not talking to other editors. Please explain it to them. Thanks/
NB possibly good faith edits from a non-english speake (polish?) someone speak polish? Imgaril (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I speak Polish and I have to report, that this user uses various similar IPs to make pointy and disruptive edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for that on Polish Wikipedia and Commons. See e.g. these links: [124], [125], [126], [127]. - Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for repeated vandalism after several warnings and personal attacks on my talk page. - Darwinek (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A few self-professed "affiliates" of the company persist in adding company information to Roc Nation, claiming that various unencyclopedic edits (company fluff, but also MoS violations such as flags) are correct because that's what the company wants. I've reverted that info a few times already, but I'm up against two editors, User:LanbrinsonWorks and User:MarkMysoe, and will stop before edit-warring. Asking for protection is of no use: these are not new editors, and they have a track record of edits on articles associated with the company and its artists. Also, I may be too strict in my attempts to keep the article neutral and in my reading of MOS:FLAG, and would appreciate another opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure you're up against _two_ editors there -- SPI report filed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Sarek! I had my doubts, of course, but you know me--I see the glass as half full. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping you could help me resolve an issue with a deleted page
The page that was deleted was located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_J._Esposito. I was trying to work with the administrator Spartaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spartaz), who was very polite and professional. The page was credited by many sources including Microsoft, Hearst Publications, and was soon to have added a book that was published by Microsoft and the Small Business Association. Through my two companies we have accomplished so much, especially during tough economical times. The page listed major events and milestones, such as being listed as one of Inc 5000 fastest growing private companies in the US. I read over all of Spartaz recommendations, however I am not quite sure that the page was in any violation or what could be altered to change their opinion. I hope you can help and thank you very much for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjesposito (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the AfD and the article history, but this is the wrong place. You can file your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I have to warn you, I think your chances are pretty slim. The article was puffy, and even with an additional book (published by Microsoft? that's not very promising) as a source I don't see how it would stand up under scrutiny. I mean, "On June 29, 2011, Mr. Esposito announced AVEYOU.com[1] as one of the first companies to integrate the Facebook[2] Like ® button and comment Box within its product detail pages", sourced to this, that's not encyclopedic content. But good luck, and perhaps someone can close this, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Mobile and act accordingly? Quick summary: Polar Mobile was created by an employee of the company. It is a very spammy article - typical of most COI articles. There has been some activity both on the article and on the AfD from multiple accounts and IP address that are almost certainly connected to each other. I will stop short of saying they are sock puppets because it is feasible they are simply other employees of the company rather than the same person. But both the article creator and the IP address registered to Polar Mobile have both posted on the AfD stating that they would like to see the article deleted. The irony is that it turns out Polar Mobile probably does meet the notability guidelines for a company and so perhaps a solution, rather than completely delete the article would be to reduce it to a single paragraph stub taking out all the current COI/peacock/puffery content. Thanks. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks and vindictive/malicious edits by user Yworo
I have created article Desktop Cyber about 3.5 years ago. The article describes in a neutral point of view an open-source emulator for a historic Control Data mainframe called CYBER. The Control Data CYBER architecture has been developed by Seymour Cray famous for his work on supercomputers in the 60s and 70s. I am the author of the emulator and at the time did not realize that under Wikipedia's policy someone with a direct interest in the subject of the article should not contribute. Nevertheless the article has been unchallenged for 3.5 years and contributed useful information for anyone interested in CDC Cyber and its predecessor CDC_6600. Other editors have contributed small changes and added links to/from the article. In July 2011 user Yworo has discovered the article. He started by changing capitalisation of the mainframe from "CYBER" to "Cyber" which is incorrect as all Control Data literature refers to the mainframe as "CYBER". This (and all of Yworo's subsequent edits) occured without any discussion on the article's talk page. As at the time I was un-aware of Wikipedia's policy on capitalization, I undid Yworo's change and unleashed a barrage of personal attacks followed by vindictive and malicious edits from Yworo including being called "stupid" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yworo "CYBER" vs "Cyber"). His latest attack accuses me of "advertising non-notable products" when clearly the software has been open-source since December 2002 [[128]]. It is true that I have been trying to commercialise newer versions of the software between 2006 and January 2011, but the software remained open-source. Yworo has also undone my recent edit to List_of_computer_system_emulators claiming that it was "spam". It appears that Yworo is stalking me and interfers with all edits I do. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to contribute useful material and am keen to learn but feel hounded by Yworo.
Your sources are no good to be honest, they verify that the software exists but nobody is questioning that, there isn't anything in there that indicates any type of notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please intervene. Thanks Cdccyber (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Just now Yworo has removed links to Usenet articles hosted by Google announcing the open-source release of the emulator. Intervention is becoming quite urgent. Please help! Cdccyber (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me. You created the article 3 years ago, but you're new to Wikipedia? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am. Please have a look at the small number of edits I have made prior to August 4. Please see Cdccyber contribs. Cdccyber (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you please explain how it was appropriate. For example a few lines below there is an entry for SIMH which is a very similar emulator for DEC machines. Cdccyber (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You've edit-warred to add it, which is wrong, particularly when you acknowledge you have a conflict of interest.
So, let the AfD run its course. If you continue to make promotional edits, edit war, or make personal attacks, you'll be blocked from editing.-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to improve the article while at the same time Yworo is deleting edits a few minutes later. Cdccyber (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but there is nothing wrong with this edit or this one or this one or this one. Even while an AfD is going on, there's nothing that says that normal editing can't continue while that discussion is ongoing--you attempt to improve the article (in hopes of establishing notability) while Yworo is also attempting to improve the article (from what they perceive as improving the encyclopedia). BTW, there is also no requirement that Yworo discuss all their edits on the talk page (and they did discuss matters on the talk page): there are edit summaries there that are informative enough, and mutatis mutandis the same would apply to your edits--for the last three ([129], [130], [131]) you didn't provide an edit summary. I see nothing objectionable here on Yworo's part, and if I were you I'd leave this current thread die out, also considering your self-professed COI and the boomerang effect. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Being stalked and attacked by dynamic IP user with long history of belligerence
I've had to have my user talk page protected due to a belligerent IP address. It has been stalking me and making personal attacks against me on the pages of every user I attempt to communicate with. On researching the issue, I find that there have been several past AN/I reports complaining about the belligerence of this IP, but nothing has been done. From the knowledge of Wikipedia and from the IPs attitude, I am sure this is a blocked or banned user evading their block or ban, but I have no idea of their past user name so don't know how to file an SSI report about it. Therefore I am bringing the issue here with a request that any available checkuser look into it, but I am sure that the duck test will be sufficient to block the most recently used IPs or ranges for a while. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In this thread 65.41.234.70 (talk·contribs) self-identifies with 71.77.21.198 (talk·contribs): "I'm 71.77.21.198 editing from a different IP"
Geolocate data:
24.163.39.217 Raleigh, NC (Roadrunner)
65.41.234.70 Embarq Corporation
69.134.110.78 Chapel Hill, NC (Roadrunner)
71.49.56.15 Embarq Corporation; Raleigh, NC
71.77.20.26 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner) - has been blocked for vandalism
71.77.20.119 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner)
71.77.21.198 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner)
75.177.156.16 Elm City, NC (Roadrunner)
All edits come from the Raleigh-Durham areas of North Carolina. This appears to be an individual who works for Embarq Corporation and also edits from home as will as one or more internet cafes or access points.
69.134.110.78 stalks me to this article mentioning dispute with a different IP, 24.163.39.217, in the edit comment. 69.x.x.x also edits 24.x.x.x's talk page. See above under "Cross-edits".
The glaringly obvious omission by Yworo is that I have a dynamic IP beyond my control; look at the list of IPs. Except for one (which I have no knowledge of), there is no overlap in the times of editing; that's because I can turn my computer on tomorrow and never know if I will have the same IP. Look closely at Yworo's edit history. He also has accused me (on an admin's page) of being a sockpuppet of an IP located 3000 miles from me. He has a history of rather wild and paranoid false accusations about me, including working for Embarq Corporation. I've been a doctor for 35 year; I didn't realize that Embarq hires doctors. Yworo thinks if I edit the same page that he has edited, I'm stalking him. Besides the paranoia in such thinking, he omits the fact that he has followed me around editing articles that he has never edited before. One example off the top of my head is Pyxis (disambiguation); there are others if I had the time to go through with a fine-toothed comb (as he has my edits) and find them. He also has made personal attacks against me, calling me "unarmed in a battle of wits"; again, there are several others (check his edit history). He also several times has left me warnings about not leaving edit summaries; all you need to do is check the edit history of all the IPs he notes above. I could dig up numerous other evidence of his vendetta toward me if I took the time (time that I don't have;; I do minor edits to try to clean up articles because my real life is very busy). The source of the vendetta? I disagreed with him about a copyright issue in the article Salty Dog Blues; look at the article and talk page history. I also suspect (but can't prove) that he in general does not like IPs or new editors; look at his history of warnings for minor problems, and almost never with a word of encouragement. Oh and by the way, my most recent "infraction" was to try to help Yworo out by giving him my new IP which was changed today beyond my control; he was working tirelessly to build a case for sockpuppetry, so I thought I'd help him move this along a little and get this silliness over with. I don't have time for this harassment; my intentions here have only been to help. If my thanks for that is a block because a paranoid editor decided to whine a little, so be it. Fortunately, for me (as with most of us), I have many other wonderful things in my life away from Wikipedia. I think if someone would simply suggest to Yworo that he ignore my edits that have nothing to do with him, things might settle down; but that's just the opinion of someone who has edited anonymously for about six years. And BTW, thanks to the many wonderful admins and other editors here who make up for attitude amply demonstrated by Yworo. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yworo just followed me to another article: Ben Harper. If he does it, it's normal editing. If I did that to him, he would call it stalking. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, did you make this edit? If so, stop, and stay off Yworo's talk page like they asked you to. Simple. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Note also that I repeatedly asked Yworo to not leave me messages, which he ignored. Thanks for your comment Drmies and I don't have any issue with you, but don't fall into the double standard expemplified by Yworo that anon IPs deserve worse treatment than registered users. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
My only response to this diatribe is that I did indeed leave some canned warnings such as uw-delete1 on the talk pages of several IPs which I didn't know were related until they started to respond in a similar belligerent manner. Yes, the canned message does mention not leaving an edit comment, but the intent of my leaving the warnings was about the deletion of the material with an inadequate reason. Every warning I give has been given in good faith and refusing to understand that the messages are "canned" and not personal and sometimes not entirely accurate is simply part of the IPs belligerence. They have also repeatedly posted false warning on my talk page even after being asked not to post on my talk page at all, repeatedly restoring the bogus warnings when I removed them, that I finally had to have my talk page semi-protected. And of course, the user does have a solution to having a dynamic IP, and that is to create an account. And sure, when I see a bad edit by an IP, I check their recent contributions and sometimes find something that needs fixing, but unlike the IP, I've not made any edits to articles solely to harass, only to improve Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Beyond the personal attacks and false implications above, I'll simply respond with something that has been a long tradition in all of Wikipedia. IPs are permitted, and encouraged to edit. Yes, everyone is encouraged, but not required, to register. But anon IPs certainly are not required to register to avoid harassment by an editor who seems to dislike IPs and new editors. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the user warnings, go propose some changes. If you choose to edit as an IP, you are going to get templated occasionally, but responding with vicious harassment including badmouthing regular established editors to newbies doesn't get you any points in whatever game you think you are playing. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Take your own advice, Yworo. Things will go a lot smoother here and I suspect you'll be less stressed. Not that my opinion matters to you, but I'd like to suggest that you and I try to stay away from each other. That will require you to let go of some of the intense animosity that you have inexplicably invested so much energy in, but if you're willing I certainly am, as long as you understand that if I make a spelling correction to an article that you last edited six months ago, that's not stalking. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Only that's not what you've been doing. You've been reverting valid edits with perfectly adequate edit comments explaining why they were made. You're being purposely hostile and belligerent in the edits you make, the comments that accompany them, and on the talk pages of unrelated users. Anybody who looks through your edit history can see that you are intentionally provoking me and that you somehow want to make that my fault. You are acting like a child, not like somebody who has been a "doctor for 35 years". Most likely you're really a dog. :=0 Yworo (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, Yworo, that's the pot calling the kettle black. And please stop it with the personal attacks. Not only is it against policy, it doesn't help your case here in the least. I have presented as much evidence that I'm a doctor as you have that I work for Embarq. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You know, I edit and reedit articles because I have a watchlist. As an IP, you don't have a watchlist clearly you are going out of your way to view my contributions and then pick edits to revert maliciously. That's not a personal attack, that's an accurate description of what you're doing, as have all my other observations. Except for the lame attempt at humor, but I guess you're lacking in a sense of humor along with just plain having a bad attitude. So go ahead, just stop looking obsessively at my contribs and ignore me. Go ahead, I dare you. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yworo, do you honestly expect everyone here to believe that you have articles on your watchlist that I recently edited and that you have never edited before my edit (e.g., Pyxis (disambiguation), Ben Harper, Arizona Biltmore Hotel, The Golden Compass (film))? No offense, but you are your own worst enemy in this discussion because you're not helping your credibility at all. And at the risk of being repetitious, again I must tell you that IPs are not second class citizens here. We don't have watchlists, but we are allowed to edit despite that. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It's only stalking if the edit is not in good faith. My edits are good faith improvements not related to your edits. As an IP editor, you should simply get used to the fact that your edits may get more scrutiny than the edits of registered users. Please tell me, what exactly is wrong with the edits I'm making? What policy am I violating? I'm not reverting your edits, they have nothing to do with you. Get over it. You wouldn't even know I was making them except by looking obsessively at my contribs, as you are clearly editing many random articles you've never edited before. You don't own them just because you've made a single edit. Stop looking at my contribs and you'll have nothing to complain about. Surely you can exert that much self-control, "doctor". Yworo (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
That's my point. Nothing is wrong with your editing articles that I have edited, even if you follow me around to do it. And by the same token, nothing is wrong with my editing the same article that you edited, despite your accusations of stalking. I got over it a long time ago, Yworo. In fact, there was never an "it" for me to get over. I haven't developed the level of venomous animosity you have over a simple content dispute. The only reason I'm responding here is in the interest of truth and fairness to all IPs and new users. I know you don't believe me, Yworo, but the personal attacks have reached a level of silliness. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) May I step in here and suggest you both quit all this WP:POKING? The only thing this is accomplishing right now is heating things up even more than they already were. I'd strongly suggest that each of you step away from the keyboard for a while, before an admin decides one or both of you need an involuntary vacation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks, I'm out of here for a while. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If it's an exactly copy of the original article except, apparently for the name, how would this not fall under CSD G4? I realize some time has passed since the AfD, and I hold to the concept that WP:CONSENSUS can change, but the original discussions regarding deletion look to me to be fairly clear (if heated at times). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems I've placed in the wrong medium. Sorry about that. Kuebie (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily the wrong medium. My own first impulse would have been to tag it A4, but first impulses aren't always right. Since the previous AfD discussion was fairly heated, perhaps an admin or three should look the situation over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I deleted it. It wasn't an exact copy of the article that was deleted, the structure and content of the article was different. There was some wording that was clearly copied from one to the other, and the subject was obviously the same. I looked at that mess of an AfD, which despite the length and controversy had a fairly clear consensus to delete, and found that the main objection to the original article (the lack of reliable sources and reliance on internet rumors) was still a problem in the new article, so G4 did seem applicable. -- Atama頭 22:07, 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)
There doesn't appear to be any chance of admin action resulting from this thread and the rest is better taken elsewhere. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Depite warnings, Ohconfucius' continues to remove yyyy-mm-dd dates that are acceptable under the guidelines. Currently yyyy-mm-dd is allowed, and accessdates may be yyyy-mm-dd when publication dates are mdy or dmy.[137] Ohconfucius has a proposal pending on MOSDATE to change the guidance on date formats in references. Even under Ohconfucius' proposed change, date formats in references could still be uniformly yyyy-mm-dd.
Nevertheless:
In [138] and [139], the only date format in the references seems to have been yyyy-mm-dd
In [140] and [141], all accessdate(s) used seem to have been yyyy-mm-dd. They were changed. (In the last link a URL with an encoded date is also changed, presumably breaking the link.)
Request that Ohconfucius be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Would a topic ban not have been a better suggestion? Not that I'm condolning that path at all. Ohconfucius is a very important editor. Atomician (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Atomician, do you mean that, or is "condoning" what you had in mind? –Noetica ☺
You do realize he's using an automated cleanup script right? Sven ManguardWha? 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Gimmetoo: Do not confuse boldness with brazen disregard for proprieties. Your dispute with Ohconfucius does not belong here. He is a very serious and committed editor, acting in good faith, while you have seemed to prefer a laissez-faire approach that will allow all manner of inconsistencies, inconveniencing readers. I submit that there is no case for sanctions against Ohconfucius. I would advise both parties to slow down and back off a little, for a while.
I see very little wrong with Ohconfucius's actions and it doesn't seem to need other people to do anything about it. Atomician (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Atomician and Noetica. I note also Gimmetoo’s language: Depite warnings. Yet, looking at his contributions, I see precious little discussion and debate and interaction with Ohconfucious attempting to resolve differences on this issue. I found this post on Ohconfucius’s talk page, but it turned out to be nothing more than a notice that Gimmetoo filed this ANI. I see insufficient effort at resolving differences and too much knee-jerk ANI combined with some tar and feathers from ANI’s dredged up from rather old archives going back to #676. I suggest both editors discuss things on the relevant talk page(s). If the issue is more than a mere tempest in a teapot, other editors will weigh in. Once a consensus is established, I’m sure we can count on both parties to this dispute to abide by the consensus view. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Greg, I have asked Ohcon a few times to stop this. The actions are contrary to the result of a RfC that had considerable involvement, and contrary to the DATERET guideline to retain the existing format of articles. This is not an issue between parties as if the two of us are the only ones "involved". I am not the only editor who objects to Ohconfucius' edits, and I personally find the attempt to characterize it otherwise as disruptive. This is an issue of Ohconfucius' refusal to follow existing guidelines over a period extending at least months. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
1) I don't see a problem with it, in that it isn't making anythign worse.
2) He's using an automated script to clean up articles. It's not like he woke up and said "let's change everything everywhere", he's using a script that does good things like delink "U.S.", and that script also changed the date format.
3) That stuff about not running straight to AN/I also applies. Sven ManguardWha? 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"That stuff about not running straight to AN/I"? I'm going to remember that. So coming to ANI when a user refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines for months (at least) is "running straight to ANI". Asking an editor to comply with Wikipedia guidelines is a mere 'dispute' and apparently requires extensive discussion and debate. I and other editors have asked Ohconfucius to comply with Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly over a period of at least months. I would have to look up the first times I discussed this with Ohcon, it was probably more than a year ago. But apparently that's not enough before requesting censure? Good to know. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing said discussions, and I'm also not seeing said other editors who have had negative interactions with OConfucious. Produce evidence of previous attempts to resolve the issue in a sane matter (because let's face it, AN/I is almost never sane), and produce people that are willing to support your argument. Discussion is most effective when facts are brought to the table, and thus far your facts have utterly failed to impress. Sven ManguardWha? 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment – I checked the four problem links given; in each case, O changed the dates to be consistent with each other, when they were not before, and chose a format based on what was there already. Gimmetoo has missed a few subtleties in looking for what was there before, like in the infobox on the first one, which doesn't appear the way it is in the source. Yes, there were some errors, since fixed; and yes, maybe someone else would have done differently in one case, but basically he seems to be implementing the MOS call for consistency, with fairly high accuracy and not much questionable. If you want to question some, do that, rather than attacking the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
[142] is the reference section in the first link, before Ohcon's edit. There are three dates present there, all consistently in yyyy-mm-dd, which is an allowed format. After Ohcon's edit, the dates in the ref section are all Month dd, yyyy. This is an unnnecessary change, in violation of WP:DATERET. There was a lengthy RfC on date formats which - even according to Ohcon - resulted in "no consensus to eliminate .... yyyy-mm-dd date formats from articles, in particular the reference sections". Ohconfucius is, contrary to that, regularly and repeatedly removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from articles, even in articles where the reference section is already consistent, which is in violation of DATERET. This has been going on for months, and it is again at ANI because Ohconfucius refuses to follow DATERET, MOSDATE and the RFC. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
All this drama over such minor edits could have been avoided if Gimme contacted me in good faith. His previous message on my talk page was rather confrontational, saying he's going to take me to ANI without further warning. I counselled against being so aggressive. All of a sudden he explodes into this dramafest over such minor mistakes.
Of course there will be the occasional disagreement because our backgrounds and our baggage are different, but the ongoing RfC is not very relevant to this complaint against me. On reviewing some of my previous script edits, I now see that Gimme has boldly corrected errors without referring to me. I thank him for not troubling me in those cases. Such an eruption is unsettling to me, for through his actions following our disagreement at MOSNUM, I receive the impression that he wishes to impose yyyy-mm-dd date formats at all costs by complaining about any attempts I make to harmonise date formats as required by MOS. I focus on getting dates consistent and already I do try to avoid making 'the wrong edit' by choosing articles carefully. I never said I was perfect, and all the errors that are notified to me are always rapidly addressed. Same is the case of errors he points to above, which received immediate attention. We all work here for nothing, building the project, so a little less hostility goes a long way. I think it would be reasonable not to have to receive threats and intimidation, because such raises the temperature to little or no productive end. --Ohconfucius¡digame! 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
(1) Ohconfucius is a skilled, careful, and socially responsive editor of inconsistencies that most editors don't want to fix manually; (2) it makes us look unprofessional and sloppy to have inconsistent date formats in reference sections; (3) Gimmetoo is well-known for having a bee in her bonnet about these yyyy-mm-dd formats that are double-Dutch to most of our non-expert readers, although are common among experts in a few fields. sTony(talk) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at [143], I notice that there are two dates in the body of the article that are formatted as MMMM DD, YYYY, one directly after the name stating the DoB and the same date in the infobox. If MOS:DATEUNIFY is to be taken seriously, then all of the dates in the article, including those in the reference section, should be a consistent format. Ohconfucius's edit appears to do just that since the dates in the article's body cannot be changed to YYYY-MM-DD do to the last point in WP:DATESNO. If there were no other dates outside of the references, you may have a case. but in the examples you presented, you do not. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you actually read MOS:DATEUNIFY? When did references become "article body text"? – "Dates in article body text should all have the same format:". Quale (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you all kidding me? Any time an edit dispute-cum-ANI degenerates into debate that reads like this:
…I’m thinking this is an edit dispute where those who want to engage in finer points of date-debate ought to do so out the public eye. ANI isn’t the place. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Can we close this already? It was pointless to begin with and it's just getting more so as it goes on. Atomician (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I closed it. -- Atama頭 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we have any way to track AFDs that are still open? I notice that Category:AfD debates is supposed to be currently-open debates, but its subcategories apparently aren't, since this AFD is in two of them — as a result, I wonder if there are many entries that aren't open yet in a category for open ones. Is there perhaps a Toolserver thing that would let us look at the oldest nomination? It's rather silly on everyone's part for us to have missed this for nearly a month; if we had an easy way to track some statistics for AFDs day-by-day, it might make it harder for us to miss one by accident. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Could admins please return to the Falklands issue archived in 715?
The accusing involved admin opened up a SPI check on me and I came out clean. My objections to the NPOV violations in the article stand and I still think the article merits the "unbalanced opinion" tags and I am more than willing to provide citations. This admin, Pfainuk is part of a group of editors who, in my opinion, tag-team and play WP:GAMES to insert a POV bias into the Falkland Islands article and related secondary articles. Without admin involvement, they will continue to revert these tags. Thank you.Alex79818 (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note that User:Pfainuk and User:Night w are not admins. Also, you are required to notify any user you discuss here, so I have notified Pfainuk for you. —DoRD (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I opened up that SPI and I've never edited anything related to Falkland Islands issues. Two well-respected editors suspected you of socking and after comparing the contribution histories I was pretty convinced myself. Nightw 10:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Before going further, I would encourage admins to review the contribution histories of Alex and 209.36.57.10, as well as the evidence at SPI. Bear in mind that there are certain points that I consider to be convincing but that I prefer not to discuss publicly per WP:BEANS.
What Alex posts above is if anything rather more restrained in terms of personal remarks than what we have come to expect from him in content discussion on talk. Alex is very aggressive, and has a habit of posting reams of personal attacks and accusations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him. All in all, it is very difficult to come to consensus with someone who is continually accusing you of things and threatening you with Arbcom (and this applies to the IP and Alex individually as well as when taken together) even when they're not also socking. As I said in the previous ANI, there are reasons why these things are against the rules even if one doesn't take into account their intrinsic unpleasantness, and there's no reason why we should have to continue to put up with it. Pfainuktalk 17:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
A procedural note, the SPI did not state that Alex had "come out clean", rather the use of checkuser was declined due to the reluctance to connect an editor with IP addresses, and with the sole suspected account being too stale for checking since the last edit from that account was over a year ago. A similar result occurred in previous investigations. Alex has not been connected to any of the IPs, but neither has a connection been technically ruled out. Any connection would have to be established on behavioral grounds. -- Atama頭 19:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It is quite easy to connect Alex with the IP addresses, although doing so requires me to reveal a great deal of personal information about the editor. I did discuss this with User:HelloAnnyong by email and I left it that provided there was no further evidence of disruptive behaviour I wouldn't pursue the matter further. If it is continuing again User:HelloAnnyong is aware of it, if need be. I see that one of the IPs has been active, so if need be I am prepared to pass this information on again in private. Wee Curry Monstertalk 15:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Xwomanizerx & Ending-start
I've had several incidents with the users Xwomanizerx and Ending-start. First, on the Unusual You article, I added synthpop as a genre with a reasonable argument, and they kept disagreeing and reverting. It ended up becoming an edit war. I've come to the conclusion: Oh well, they don't agree with me, whatever.
However on the Circus (song) article, I found two reliable sources for the genres, and they keep reverting. I went over to Ending-starts talk page to discuss the reverts, and I found this on the page. This has gotten way out of hand and I'm tired of dealing with these two. I've told them nicely to stop reverting, because I have found a reliable source, however they continue to be ignorant and revert my edits, which have been reliably sourced twice. Has for the personal attack here, I am not happy about this at all and it proves that the user cannot solve editing disagreements maturely. Nickyp88 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You come back from being banned, and do the same thing that got you banned in the first place. Also, a radio isn't a source for a genre of a song. ℥nding·start 03:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Pandora radio is a reliable source because it's main focus is music. The same goes for Allmusic and Music Notes. Nickyp88 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Whilst I haven't actually looked at the sources to see if they contain the actual information that Nickyp88 is adding, the musicnotes.com and allmusic.com references that you removed [144] are definitely reliable sources. Can you explain why you removed them? Black Kite (t)(c) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I might as well reply to what is happening here... Well, it all started when Nickyp decided to change the genre on "Unusual You" from one to another, saying that it's pretty much the same thing, while the source states the first one. There was an edit war, and then the user got banned for a day. Then, the users comes back and does the EXACT same thing. Womanizer has a right to be pissed off. This isn't Nickyp's first encounter and edit wars over genres. Just check their talk page. And also to clear sometime up, Pandora radio isn't a reliable source for genres, and neither is Allmusic (as they list every song by an artist as the same genre). This has been explained to the user, but no, we get reported for reverting edits that the user was told time and time again were wrong. ℥nding·start 03:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
You took the words out of my mouth. All this situation is best exemplified in the Unusual You talk page. He refused to discuss the links, I asked other editors to weigh in per WP:DR; he still did not care and kept reverting. I took his edits at first as good faith, but I think it might have something to do with WP:PRIDE now. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
The genres that Nickyp88 is inserting in that article (Circus (song)) are sourced to at least two reliable sources (I'm unsure about Pandora), whereas the one you are reverting to is sourced only to popjustice.com (and that article doesn't really even back up one those genres - an electronic-sounding production does not mean "electropop"). This sounds to me like you are rejecting sources just because they disagree with your opinion. Genres are one of the most difficult things to source on Wikipedia because two different writers writing in two different reliable sources can differ in their opinion of what genre a song is. Yet technically they're both still reliable sources. Frankly, if you have conflicting reliable sources, the best idea is to either put all the disputed genres in, or leave them all out. Black Kite (t)(c) 03:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Womanizer and Ending-Start, it seems Nicky just simply does not know how to follow consensus or rules. He edit-wars, forgive my language, like a raging bitch, and doesn't learn his lesson.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where does this site list the song as pop and dance-pop? And I already explained Allmusic. There has been CONSENSUS that Allmusic should not be used for genres. As for the dispute, the user said him/herself: "It doesn't matter if an agreement was made or not", so obviously the user DID NOT want to discuss it, and went on to say: "I properly sourced the genres, twice infact. There is no reason for this." Womanizer wanted to discuss it, Nickyp did not. ℥nding·start 03:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a note to all to clear this up (move or reformat this notice as you please), Pandora is not a reliable source. No author credits, no purpose other than listening to music online. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
On the musicnotes.com website, you have to click "Arrangememnt details" and it will tell you the genres. And Allmusic has been used on countless albums and single articles. And you were right, I didn't want to discuss it because I felt there was no reason to because I found reliable sources. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
It says: Pop, Club/Dance, Dance-Pop and Pop Rock. Ooh, even better - you didn't list them all, you picked and choose ones you liked. ℥nding·start 04:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I think everyone could agree the song is not pop-rock. Club/Dance is not a genre. I picked those because they made sense. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Xwomanizerx even agreed the song was not pop-rock in the talk page. We came to a consensus with that. I had only been edit warring because there was no reason for the revisions, when I listed soruces. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Right, STOP - this isn't the place to carry on a content dispute. More generally, it takes two (or in this case three or more) to edit-war, remember. All editors here should be going straight to the talkpage after the WP:BRD cycle (I am aware a discussion was taking place, but a revert war was still going on during it!). Incidentally and ironically, that musicnotes.com source says the song is electropop - you could've used that as a source for your own version of the article! Black Kite (t)(c) 04:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Not my fault the user reported us before even leaving a single message on our talk pages about it. The user brought the discussion here, and if we didn't explain it in more detail, a block would have been placed on both of us, probably. ℥nding·start 04:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No-one is getting blocked here. If the conversation does one thing, can it be that all editors explain fully on the talkpage why they're changing genres (or for that matter anything else contentious). OK, sometimes we're never going to get agreement, but that's what we have WP:DR for. Black Kite (t)(c) 04:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yet, the user reverts Womanizer and Circus, again. ℥nding·start 04:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay I'm tired of arguing, I want this to end. Black Kite, after reading the above arguments, Is Allmusic and Music notes reliable or not? If they are reliable, then the content I added stays without any further discussion. If not, then I will remove the content. Nickyp88 (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
In lieu of blocking the 3 of you for ridiculous edit-warring, I have fully protected the page - probably at the WP:WRONGVERSION, but to make an edit "based on discussion at ANI" is wrong, wrong, wrong - we don't do content disputes here. You WILL all find WP:CONSENSUS on the talkpage of the article. Once consensus is reached, don't you dare change it unless NEW consensus is reached on the talkpage first. Reality on this project is that sometimes consensus to not include/include trumps everything - get used to it. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I would have blocked everyone involved rather than exclude other, non-disruptive editors from contributing. Please follow Bwilkins' advice so that that does not become necessary when page protection expires. causa sui (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for what? Reverting badly sourced genres and original research? Nobody even went over four reverts, so that couldn't be a reason. That would be outrageous to say the least! By the way, we actually came up with a comprise not to use any of the genres in dispute on the talk page, so I don't find the page being protected necessary. And besides, it look place on more than one page. ℥nding·start 02:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You (and indeed everyone on the project) need to understand that an edit war can be only 1 revert, and indeed, anyone can be blocked for a single revert. Everyone currently involved in this ridiculous lack of consensus-finding should realize that they are pretty much all under WP:1RR on song articles at the moment. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at user:PANONIAN's actions here [145] On the talk page he tries to feign "discussion" but this time the "discussion" makes it clear he is not even looking at what he is reverting, for example talking about info "4. Some of the mentioned regions (like Baranya, Partium) are today also part of Hungary, so why you removed this info?" that wasn't removed. look under Baranya, Partium Or in the present version as well. How can I discuss issues with someone who will revert me without even looking at the version I edited (and thus failing to even notice that I didn't revert him fully and preserved a large part of his changes). The only admin action I want here is a mild suggestion to him to stop doing this. Hobartimus (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This is false accusation. I answered this issue here: [146]. I posted my comment on talk page before I saw what user Hobartimus reverted (in 14:23), and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit. When I later checked what he actually reverted, I saw that he did not reverted my whole edit, but I reverted him (in 14:26) because he did not provided any explanation on talk page even for that partial revert. Please look at his explanation why he reverted my edit: [147] - this user actually thinks that templates are files and that they should not be edited by anybody else instead their "original uploader". Can some administrator please mediate this issue? I elaborated on talk page why "original version" of the template is inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_%281920%29#HobartimusPANONIAN 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
"and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit." That seems like an Immediate assumption of bad faith. Can someone warn this user that this is inappropriate? He shouldn't immediately assume bad things about other editors the very least he should look at their contributions. Btw this was only revealed by accident because he extensively wrote about (two separate listed points) on issues that didn't happen by the time he wrote them. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This really doesn't belong here. Both of you, please take a deep breath and start discussing the individual issues on the talk page. Running off to this forum after 1 or 2 commens is really too early. Admins are not babysitters or police agents. If you both agree with dispute resolution, try here (WP:dispute resolution). For the record, Panonian is right that he should change this template (and not make his own, which would be a WP:content fork) if he doesn't agree with it. Now he is reverted, it is time to find consensus on talk (per WP:BRD), which is what you both should now be doing. I suggest to close this as premature. L.tak (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I realize this is a minor issue I didn't want anything drastic, I just want my edits read before reverted / evaluated / complained about. I went out of my way to make sure the constructive parts of his edit were preserved, and yet within a few minutes I was also threatened as well. My only wish is that my edits are read hopefully this will happen in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I usually do not assume bad faith about other users but I know Hobartimus for long time, and due to his current and past behavior it is not hard that somebody assume that he edit articles in bad faith. Anyway, regarding the "WP:dispute resolution" issue, I do not know how can I resolve dispute with user who revert my edits without explanation why my version of the title is wrong (that is at least rude, if not something else). I at least elaborated on talk page why I changed this template and why I reverted him. Also, the accusation of Hobartimus that I sent "threat" to him by saying that I will ask administrators for help is not quite example of nice behavior. I certainly will ask (and I am asking) administrators for help and mediation regarding dispute about this template. Is anybody interested to participate? Also, it is obvious that Hobartimus opened this thread about me to prevent that I ask administrators for mediation.PANONIAN 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I did not said that one "should" but that one "might" assume bad faith when Hobartimus is in question. So, Hobartimus, please do not twist my words. PANONIAN 16:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately user:PANONIAN is continuing with his assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. If he got a warning the first time I guess this could have been avoided but it seems that he now feels he can continue down this path. For example making up lies about me, "This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody.", notice how he didn't support the accusation with anything but weasel words like "well known". Can someone deal with this issue? Within a day he also 1. First he blindly reverted (citing "rv per talk") where he complained about his "improvements being lost". He thought this because he didn't actually read the edits. 2. Realizing that "his improvements" were never actually lost, pretended to discuss on the talk page. 3. I say pretended because soon he nominates the template for deletion making all the "improvements and discussions" irrelevant. This seems like clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality because going from "Revert"rv per talk at 14:26 to "discuss"14:11-16:04-last content discussing edit on talk to "nominate it for deletion" 17:02. It doesn't seem like user:PANONIAN is really providing enough time for events to make their course. Also interesting that now 80% of his changes to the template are accepted he still wants to delete the template, so what was the point of these changes then? Hobartimus (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, my statement that "user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users" is certainly not a lie. I have no time to search for old diffs that would prove that, but user Hobartimus is the one who harassing me and who trying to discredit me by all possible means so that he can keep POV template unchanged. Just look this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_12#Template:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_.281920.29 Instead to comment disputed issue with template user:Hobartimus mostly discussing me and trying to discredit me personally instead to discuss problems with disputed template. He also trying to make impression that my behavior is bad, claiming that "I could have changed the template instead that I proposed it for deletion". How I am supposed to change the template when Hobartimus is reverting my edit and not allowing me to change incorrect things? Also, it was him who proposed that "I should request deletion". He also repeat that I "blindly revert" and that after I explained that I did not done such thing. PANONIAN 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was a lie, now a proven lie. "I don't have time to search for old diffs" is not a valid support for statements. Being called out on lying PANONIAN just repeats the lie verbatem as if that somehow makes his lie true. I will respond to other parts once this is settled and PANONIAN is warned not to lie on ANI. Hobartimus (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
How I am supposed to find these diffs when this noticeboard is changed very often? I would have to spend several days to search for your older posts here. I recall from my memory that you used this noticeboard in the past to "trash" other users with whom you have POV disagreement. Besides that, I do not see that I insulted you personally or that I officially accused you for anything. And about what exactly I should be warned? That I do not speak about things from my memory? Please... PANONIAN 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And besides that, you opened this whole thread lying that I "blindly revert articles" and you did not provided any evidence that would support such claim. PANONIAN 11:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
And just for the record, I reverted that article only once, while Hobartimus reverted it twice and it is clear that his behavior is much closer to be described as "revert warring" than mine. All in all, this whole thread was opened because I had one single revert in one article and that is clear evidence that user Hobartimus is harassing me and trying to discredit me and push me away from discussion about disputed template. PANONIAN 11:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users" was an outright lie against me. You can't support it with diffs because they can't make a lie suddenly true. You should be warned about this yes, it's way over the line to lie then say "I don't have time" when asked to provide proof, meanwhile you have time to post dozens of times each day. It is not correct to say that you made a single revert because you moved the template as well, without ANY preceding discussion. [148][149] Moving something is considered a much larger action then changing a few words. Hobartimus (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No. Your claim that "I blindly revert warring" is an outright lie against me which was clearly disapproved by presented diffs (I do not need any additional evidence aside from this thread started by you to prove that you posting threads with false accusations against other users). As for reverts, an original edit cannot be counted as revert. I changed name of the template in good faith and I did not had idea that you will react like this to my edits. PANONIAN 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hahaha that's rich. Except I backed up with ample evidence everything I said in this thread and with diffs. I also explained it in detail on the template talk page and the deletion discussion. I can even quote evidence from you from this very same thread "I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit." You just "assumed" you didn't "see" you "assumed" that is what I called (correctly) an action taken "blindly". Fortunately we have ample evidence in this case, you may disagree but I did provide the diffs I did provide the evidence. You provided no evidence and diffs for your lie. First the reason is that you "don't have time" then you repeated the lie and said "I would have to spend days" also the "notice board is changed very often" "then you say "you don't need any additional evidence aside from this thread". So which is it? This suggests to me that you are caught in a lie and will literally say anything to try to distract admins from this fact. Hobartimus (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You bored me, you know. If you think that admins "should take some actions" against me as you proposing, I would like to know what would be basis for these actions. I never denied that I "blindly posted my comment on talk page", but I certainly did not "blindly reverted", for what you accusing me. As far as I know, there is no an Wiki rule against "blindly posted talk page comments", but I am pretty sure that there is one against harassment that you committing against me. PANONIAN 13:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Question to uninvolved editors: Because PANONIAN is notfied of the Digwuren sanctions can these matters with other issues be possibly raised on AE or is this not covered? (not asking about the merits of the case here, just "jurisdiction" so to say.) Hobartimus (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
PANONIAN has now accused me of opening this thread after "a single revert" this was already demonstrated as false, but I will have to debunk it again. PANONIAN other than editing the content also made two undiscussed page moves diffs([150][151]) showing him to be engaging in a Page move war. His actions were not limited to content but to renaming as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is nice how Hobartimus pulled my words out of context. This is full quote of my words: "Also, claim of user:Hobartimus that I opened this thread as "retaliation for his ANI thread" is ridiculous. This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody. I firstly tried to correct template and to make it more NPOV, but since my changes were reverted by user:Hobartimus who trying to keep this template in its current form, I saw no other option but to propose it for deletion"[152]. Also, I said that as a responce to his post where he actually accused me for "nominating template for deletion as a retaliation for his ANI thread about me". I simply tried to say that I am not concerned about his ANI thread so much that I would "retaliate". As for the question whether my statement about his past behavior is correct or not, I might be wrong about that and I maybe confused Hobartimus with one other user. If that is true, then I apologize to Hobartimus because of my statement. However, it is not disputed that he opened this thread with false accusations against me, so it would be nice that he apologize to me as well. PANONIAN 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, regarding "Page move war", I repeat that I reverted that only once, while Hobartimus reverted it twice. How one user with more reverts can accuse user with less reverts for "revert warring"? PANONIAN 15:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am asking admins for protection from this person. This thread is clear evidence that this user is harassing me and that he trying to discredit me by all possible means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:PANONIAN_blindly_revert_warring (he opened a thread about me because of one single revert in a single article, accusing me for "blind revert warring" without evidence and then he inventing new reasons why admins should "take some action against me"). Obviously this user want to push me away from editing of POV template that I tried to correct. I am now stopping any correspondence with that person in this page and I will talk only with admins. PANONIAN 13:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"then he inventing new reasons why admins should "take some action against me" Far from inventing anything, the main issue in that thread is that PANONIAN lied during discussions, repeatedly as demonstrated in the thread with ample evidence. Hobartimus (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The main issue of the thread was false accusation for "blind revert warring" after my single revert in a single article. When Hobartimus saw that his accusation will not pass, he started to invent other accusations such is the one that I "lied during discussions", while any evidence for such accusations was not provided. PANONIAN 14:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The way forward
There's 3 ways this can end, with topic bans, with an interaction ban (and I am starting to feel that's might be necessary, but I am not an admin) or by the two of you discussing individual content. You both keep repeating the same arguments about AGF, the blind/non blind character of a revert and revert warring. Again, per BRD, the moves and certain changes were reverted (twice actually, but that is not the problem). Then it is time to discuss the content and only when that does not work (after days of trying), anyone can claim that the other makes editing impossible. No-one's in a hurry; it doesn't hurt to have a "wrong" template for some time; or to have a "deletion notice" for some time; just split the content up in different subsection on the talk page, determine where the real content problems are, be the smarter/maturer one in not taking offence in anyting+don't make personal qualifications anymore. If not, then we should move to one of the other options. Simple! L.tak (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I get bored by all of this, so I will try this solution: I proposed disputed template for deletion, so I will wait to see what other users will decide that should be done with that template. If it is not deleted, then I will let Hobartimus to keep his POV for sometime and I will not touch that template, but I will keep it on my watchlist and if other concerned users raise the question of POV nature in that template in near future, I will support them. I wasted too much of my time on this subject already and there are certainly more important and more constructive things that I should do. PANONIAN 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Could an admin take a look at the history of edits, particularly by User:Ønography, at 2011 Norway attacks?
I am univolved (the page is on my watchlist because I contributed to an AfD about a sub-article and have not edited there myself other than to remove the link to that sub-article when it was deleted); I have no opinion about the subject matter but it is clear that edit warring, and just possibly sock-puppetry, going on. There is a contentious paragraph about Muslim bystanders which is being repeatedly added and removed from there; it was initially placed by new user User:BustingInflatedEgos but since then has been repeatedly re-added by another new user Ønography:
20:12, 7 August 2011 add BustingInflatedEgos [153]
Clearly Ønography is edit warring. The fact that Ønography and BustingInflatedEgos have both placed the same text, are both new users and have similar editsummaries leads me to think there may be some form of puppetry going on here as well.
There is a discussion going on at Talk:2011_Norway_attacks#Attacks_on_Muslims_section about this but Ønography has not joined in. I placed an edit warring warning on Ønography's talk page but they have not stopped - indeed their response there was dismissive - so I think admin intervention is required. Thanks! RichardOSmith (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems to have stopped for the moment, at least since you warned the user. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? I warned the user at 12:49, 12 August 2011; they have re-added the text twice since then, most recently less than an hour before I raised the issue here. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"Muslim bystanders" has seemingly not been mentioned in the text or references. References need to be found to if the word "bystander" is to make its way into the text.--Ønography (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why it is a problem to mention that a few handful of hotheads transferred spit onto Muslim persons. (Even on the Norwegian page the word "spit"/"spytt" is not being used, only general categorization of behaviour, [171]). Do we want this to be an encyclopedia, or do we want a "Potemkin Village"-pedia — similar to the Norwegian article?--Ønography (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The place to make those points is on the article talk page, and I would encourage you to do that. With discussion, you may gain support for your position. At present, consensus seems to be very much against you and edit warring will only lead to sanctions against you. At this venue you are best advised to address the issues of edit warring and possible sock puppetry, rather than the article content itself. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Major IP rollback
As per this diff, User:77.49.154.248 has added a box listing "alleged Grand Masters of the Priory of Sion" to a whole ton of articles (namely, every edit from 14:08 to 14:16 on 13 August 2011). That whole escapade was irrefutably proven to be a hoax, and was admitted to be so by the hoaxer, Pierre Plantard. Therefore, those individual aren't "alleged" anything. More so than that, we simply don't need "alleged" boxes on Wikipedia. Could someone clear the whole stack of edits? MSJapan (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Reverted and warned. --John (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
original text (the slovak text)Mozes sa podakovat picke Bubamare a "superslovak" Brontovi, ze odviedli spinavu pracu za teba. Skoda, ze su taki sprostucki, ze nevedia po anglicky. Potom by som im to povedal do oci. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
in translation
You can say thanks pussy Bubamara and "superslovak" Bronto, that did the dirty work for you. They are so stupid they do not know English. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on Fethullah Gulen biography for about a month. I mainly modified the lede section by examining earlier versions of the article and added a few new information with references. Due to a content dispute, an editor Arnoutf filed a sockpuppet case against me and it had immediately approved by someone even without allowing me to respond as I was blocked. While trying to understand the case I had to read through the earlier discussion pages. I realized that Arnoutf did the same for many other editors and forced them quit. There are also very serious accusations from vandalism and page blanking to falsifying info sources and adding racist remarks against Arnoutf as listed by some editors far ago and the claims are justified using Arnoutf's own edits. Here the previous accusations are:
Frankly his racial comments about Turks reminded me Brevik's manifest in Norway.
I listed a few more comments below I have been observing during my editing experience to the page so that someone can stop Arnoutf doing more harm to the page. I tried to avoid repeating the same arguments although I agree most of the points listed before.
Arnoutf's is presenting content disputes as violation of Wikipedia rules and NPOV policy to have other editors blocked and quit. He is very successful in that which needs to be addressed by administrative body. He declares his version as the consensus version after pushing everybody away from the page 1.
A striking evidence of his strong POV binding is the main dispute over the descriptive word: "philosopher" I have been using for Gulen. Although the statement is verified by reliable sources 1, and although he had to admit propriety of the word 1, 2, he still cannot stop himself removing that statement 1 without any discussion. He even change the whole article just because his POV is not shared with other editors solely on this issue as the other parts of the lede section are mostly agreed upon 1.
It looks Arnoutf is already blocked Arnoutf(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) over edit war on this page but still violating 3RR as can be seen here: 1, 2, 3 using nonsense edit summaries. When he cannot continue to discuss using reasonable arguments, he starts an edit war using Wikirules as pretexts.
During my edit period, the page was vandalized by some Gulen enemies differently from how Arnoutf has been doing; mainly by adding insulting statements. Although Arnoutf is very quick in reverting my edits, he has never, ever reverted any such vandalism in his edit history. This seems to be an indication of his motivation.
It is important to see that rating of the page after my edits and organization at the end of the page was highest: it was above 4/5 in all aspects of the article with 23 participants. After his massive reverts and removal of tens of reliable, scientific sources, the rating is now about 2/5 in objectivity and about 2.5/5 overall ratings. This is a clear evidence that Arnoutf, his aggressive POV pushing and owning the article harm the article and reduce its quality.
He also does not assume good faith attacks personally. In his last personal attack Arnoutf has added my personnel information (location) to the discussion page to justify his accusations.
Thank you for considering the case in advance. 107.10.147.174 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, aren't you just off a block for being a sock of an indef'd user? Ravensfire (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed the anon is just off a sockblock. And indeed my one and only block on Wikipedia ever in over 5 yrs of editing was over an edit war on this page when the sockpuppet administration had a backlog of over 3 weeks (and an admin blocked all involved for 24 hr hours without looking into the case in detail). The sockpuppet was subsequently indeffed. And indeed user:Philscirel has in his previous incarnations exhibited accusatory behaviour against me (including calling me a racist) Arnoutf (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
PS I have refiled a sockpuppetry case as the remarks here and remarks and behaviour on Fethullah Gulen are typical of Philscirel socks. see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI: The sockpuppetry case resulted in a 1 month block for the IP. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism
OK, I don't think this thread is helping anyone. Editors from both sides are trying to get each other blocked, that's not the way we work here.
Note Closed by Black Kite;
Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I filed this report on User:Roscelese at the Wikiquette noticeboard. As you can see, the discussion has quickly devolved into personal attacks. I won't point out all the straw men and baseless assertions contained there, but there is one particularly egregious one I will point out:
I take exception to being accused of anti-Semitism. I would never have thought that a user as experienced as Roscelese would go that far over content disputes in a few articles. I wonder what evidence she has to back that up; is it my pro-Israel userbox? This is despicable. I won't stand for being slandered. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Ros also accused me of having a paranoid "wealthy Jewish businessmen undermining Christian values" fantasy in this edit summary. User needs to learn to comment on content, rather than saying foul things about users. - Haymaker (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't mean to condone some of Roscelese's comments, but are we now going to play out this gay/straight/Christian/Jewish/atheist/left/right melodrama in two forums?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, I don't see the personal attack in Roscelese's response at WQA. What I see is a pointed list of non-neutral activist edits that you placed in articles. No wonder you are squirming. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I take exception to that, Binksternet. I also note that you have a bizarre idea that Assume Good Faith can be forgotten, and the user can therefore be attacked, if you are sure the user has no good faith. This effectively turns Assume Good Faith into "Assume good faith, unless the user has bad faith", which is moot. Everyone who assumes bad faith can say "but he did indeed have bad faith!" -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know anything about NY's history, but I don't see how the first point on Roscelese's list can be construed as anything but accusing him of antisemitism. I mean, come on, she uses the word "antisemitic". If she felt that NY's addition of the phrase about Soros and the source were POV, she could have just said: "inserting POV BLP violations" and left out the antisemitic and the "wealthy Jewish businessmen" phrase. In other words, part of her point was gratuitous and inflammatory. Just saying that NY has been whatever in the past doesn't justify it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. I know nothing of NY's alleged past, but I strongly disagree with the logic "we can forget about civility when dealing with users we deem biased. If he brings a knife, we bring a gun". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Just so it's clear, I'm not saying that WP:BOOMERANG never applies and that one has to assume good faith even in the face of bad faith. However, I don't think it applies here because it's not immediate or similar enough. Hypothetically, if I accuse someone of being antisemitic and then they accuse me of being anti-Christian, it would be hypocritical of me to report the other editor. However, as I understand it, what Binksternet is talking about is a more generalized history of political activism by NY. Even assuming it's true, I don't see how that history justifies Roscelese's comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is an editor with at least six confirmed socks who uses Wikipedia as a battleground still editing here? Can anyone give me an answer, before I block them indef? Black Kite (t)(c) 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, there's actually more than six. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of NYyankees51. But the question is why wasn't he blocked? I assume there was a reason at the time, and barring continuing socketpuppetry, should he be blocked now without an investigation?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No. It appears that NY51 was given something of a last chance in the diff given above. I am not going to block someone unless evidence is shown of continuing disruption; however having said that I would suggest to NY51 that staying out of some of the areas he/she is currently involved in might be a very good idea. Black Kite (t)(c) 18:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Shortly before opening this section, NY51 effectively outed (in the wikipedia sense!) Roscelese by linking to an external site on WP:WQA. That edit has now been rev-delled at her request. But the edit itself was disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting back on track, a user has tarred at least two other editors with the ugly label of anti-semitism in stead of discussing content. - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. From the linked archive, he was punished already. This has nothing to do with what happened here. It is not because of something in the past that other users can declare open season on him. That would be outrageous. In fact, I think people are using this to intimidate NY never to complain again, even if he is attacked. This tatic makes a joke of Wikipedia's admin process. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Uh, no. Equally, accusing editor X of anti-semitism when they introduce an edit saying "according to source Y...." isn't going to fly either. It's the same issue as NY51 above. Frankly, I wonder if just locking the article (in the Wrong Version of course) might be the best idea. Black Kite (t)(c) 18:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know or care what the users' motivations were in inserting the material. Accidents happen, and sometimes people pass on a rumor without realizing that it's biased. But antisemitic stereotypes are antisemitic stereotypes, and there is no benefit to anyone in pretending that adding these kinds of rumors to articles is acceptable or in defending them as only POV. NYyankees51 should be ashamed of himself for using his attempts to insert this material as justification for blocking me, and with his recent attempt to out my identity at WQA, an unpleasant pattern is starting to emerge. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
76.125.58.198
76.125.58.198 (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) This IP's contribution history consists almost entirely of edit warring, POV and vandalism. This IP received a 24 hour block on the 2nd August 2011 for edit warring on the American Revolutionary War article but immediately resumed the very same edit warring for which it had been blocked. This IP is intent on edit warring and vandalism. Quite vivid blur (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
For whatever reason, it was archived [174], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week; Chzz ► Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011
Impolite behavior
I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[175] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[176]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[177]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.
I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[178] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).
I also asked the user to calm down as he/she has made 5 reverts on Raheel Raza in 24 hours. (Although I think I've made the same amount). I think if we both calmed down and Epeefleche was more polite, things would go better.Wheatsing (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if Wheat believes it impolite, and hope he won't take it that way, as I don't intend to make him feel anything other than a civil suggestion that he follow wp's rules, and to alert him to the possible consequences of continued violations of them. If I've suggested anything other, please take this as an explanation, and understand that I intend no impoliteness.
I've seen repeated deletions by Wheat of RS-supported material, and other similar problems, which I've brought to his attention both in edit summaries, on the article talk page, and on his talk page. I now see that this problem has been taking place elsewhere, such as in the second article at the edit he points to. Deletions by Wheat of rs-supported material without any reason is not appropriate (though significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal is readily apparent by examination of the content, or where a non-frivolous explanation is provided). Here, Wheat (again, as he has done elsewhere, as I have pointed out to him) deleted RS-supported material without any legitimate reason. It may be that at some point someone should check how widespread this practice has been. I've not done so, but my experience on just two articles is troubling. I apologize if there was some reason for deleting the RS-supported material that I'm not aware of that is not frivolous; but at the moment, I don't see any. Whether its a variant of vandalism, as described above, or just run-of-the mill unacceptable disruptive editing, we can't build a project with editors willy nilly deleting RS-supported material that does not match their POV. Just because. If Wheat prefers, I'll change my description of it to simply call it actionable disruptive editing. The fact that this is happening (again) with a BLP is troubling, especially as the hint of pov against the subject of the article is similar in both cases.
As to the 3RR rule, he misconstrues it. Neither of us have reverted the same material 4 (or even 3) times in a 24-hour period. Perhaps he is being confused by the fact that we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections.
As far as him having edited under a different identity, that is of course fine -- the only point there is that to the extent that he is seasoned, I would suggest that he use his knowledge of the rules to better comply with them. There is nothing at all wrong with having edited under a different name or ip.
In any event, if someone want to -- if not roll this up -- move it to the civility board, that would be fine. The only reason to bring this matter here, if at all, is to explore whether on the boomerang Wheat's edits -- marked by his continued deletion of RS-supported material, among other things, rises to an AN/I level. While I agree they may approach that if they continue, I personally don't think the matter necessarily AN/I-ripe, as of yet. My hope is that warnings will suffice (which is why I gave him another final warning, even though he already had one, rather than bring the problem here).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely dispute that I have removed sourced content without reason. I have removed content, and I have explained why. Epeefleche is free to disagree with my reasoning. Epeefleche is free to revert my edits. But that doesn't make me a vandal. That doesn't give Epeefleche a right to block me.
Regarding 3rr: I don't want to push this too much, as I too seem guilty. Epeefleche said "we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections". That counts as a revert. WP:3RR says "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I only bring this up to say that if Epeefleche has himself violated policy, he certainly shouldn't be threatening to block me ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?).
Ok, I think I made a mistake by reporting this here. Clearly it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. If Epeefleche agrees I can move it there.Wheatsing (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's even anything remotely contrary to WP:CIVIL here, and as such WP:WQA might have little help. "Highly-seasoned" means "someone who's been around here for awhile", so clearly not an insult. Perhaps there's a suggestion that you might have edited Wikipedia before this account either with a retired account, or anonymously. In terms of "threatening", we have a whole range of warning templates ... they aren't threats, they're canned notifications that someone might think you're not editing according to the "rules", and are part of the concept of "constructive criticism". They typically link to the related policies so that an editor can educate themselves, and edit accordingly in the future. You will want to read the bold, revert, discuss cycle, as it will really help you in future editing. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what Bwilkins has written, but there is one other point that is worth mentioning. Wheatsing has, as far as I can see, been editing entirely in good faith, and no matter how much Epeefleche disagrees with Wheatsing's editing, it is not vandalism, and it is not helpful to call it vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
As I think I said, I'm happy to refer to Wheat's repeated deletions of RS-supported material without appropriate explanation simply as disruptive editing, even where there is no readily apparent reason for it and no non-frivolous explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WP is not a dictionary
Where is the correct place to ask for clarification on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? As I read this it is acceptable in an article on a title-word (word is the title of the article) where is a disputed meaning to insert footnote refs from reliable dictionaries, Oxford, etc. Or does Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary mean that dictionaries cannot be footnoted where the meaning of a word/title term is disputed? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is probably not the right place, but ANI very often is the right place anyway, haha. What is the antecedent of "it" in your second sentence? Later on you talk about citing from an encyclopedia--that's not what the policy is about. Its goal is to distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopedic entries, and to ensure we write about the latter, not the former. Questions about citations etc. should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Dictionaries are by WP convention "tertiary sources". In cases of technical terminology, general dictionaries are, frankly, poor sources. The WP convention is that an article should not primarily be concerned with definitions (that is, function as a dictionary instead of as an encyclopedia). In my experience, the use of general dictionaries is not a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. So if someone writes "XXX means YYY +dicref +dicref +dicref" someone adds three major dictionary sources behind a word to show that this is modern usage, that is OR and should be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not that it's OR--it's that it's not the kind of source we're really looking for. (And that's not the subject matter of WP:DICDEF anyway.) See WP:SECONDARY (I think that's the one you're looking for). But IMO a subject like Motherfucker (to take one that I know, nothing intended by it) can be sourced partly to the OED, which (if I remember correctly) points out that its first use is US, during World War I). But there should be a lot more to the article than just that one statement and the reference. Gotta run, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia articles should not be using these kinds of sources as WP:PRIMARY sources, and then drawing conclusions based on their usage - that is what the WP:NOR is. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please knock some heads together at Luke Evans (actor)? I think everyone involved with this needs to step away from it for awhile. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
DeltaQuad protected with pp-dispute until 27 August 2011. Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Danneel Harris move
The article has been moved to Danneel Ackles (and the talk page to Talk:Danneel Ackless) without discussion, and after prior consensus to leave under original article name after a similar move. Could it be returned to it's original title, and move-protected to prevent this from reoccurring in the future without discussion? Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Yes on both counts. I've left a note for the offending editor, Restya (talk·contribs) (with a link to ANI). Here's a problem, though: editor has been warned enough against moving this article, but since blocks aren't punitive and I've protected the article from being moved, what's the point of blocking? At the same time, I've looked at half their edits, and this editor has only one single interest, and is not interested in sticking to consensus. So there is a more drastic way to go about this, and it starts with the letters "indef". Drmies (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Note also that User:January has referred to Restya's moves as vandalism--see this, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
For whatever reason, it was archived [179], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week; Chzz ► Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011
Impolite behavior
I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[180] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[181]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[182]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.
I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[183] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).
I also asked the user to calm down as he/she has made 5 reverts on Raheel Raza in 24 hours. (Although I think I've made the same amount). I think if we both calmed down and Epeefleche was more polite, things would go better.Wheatsing (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if Wheat believes it impolite, and hope he won't take it that way, as I don't intend to make him feel anything other than a civil suggestion that he follow wp's rules, and to alert him to the possible consequences of continued violations of them. If I've suggested anything other, please take this as an explanation, and understand that I intend no impoliteness.
I've seen repeated deletions by Wheat of RS-supported material, and other similar problems, which I've brought to his attention both in edit summaries, on the article talk page, and on his talk page. I now see that this problem has been taking place elsewhere, such as in the second article at the edit he points to. Deletions by Wheat of rs-supported material without any reason is not appropriate (though significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal is readily apparent by examination of the content, or where a non-frivolous explanation is provided). Here, Wheat (again, as he has done elsewhere, as I have pointed out to him) deleted RS-supported material without any legitimate reason. It may be that at some point someone should check how widespread this practice has been. I've not done so, but my experience on just two articles is troubling. I apologize if there was some reason for deleting the RS-supported material that I'm not aware of that is not frivolous; but at the moment, I don't see any. Whether its a variant of vandalism, as described above, or just run-of-the mill unacceptable disruptive editing, we can't build a project with editors willy nilly deleting RS-supported material that does not match their POV. Just because. If Wheat prefers, I'll change my description of it to simply call it actionable disruptive editing. The fact that this is happening (again) with a BLP is troubling, especially as the hint of pov against the subject of the article is similar in both cases.
As to the 3RR rule, he misconstrues it. Neither of us have reverted the same material 4 (or even 3) times in a 24-hour period. Perhaps he is being confused by the fact that we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections.
As far as him having edited under a different identity, that is of course fine -- the only point there is that to the extent that he is seasoned, I would suggest that he use his knowledge of the rules to better comply with them. There is nothing at all wrong with having edited under a different name or ip.
In any event, if someone want to -- if not roll this up -- move it to the civility board, that would be fine. The only reason to bring this matter here, if at all, is to explore whether on the boomerang Wheat's edits -- marked by his continued deletion of RS-supported material, among other things, rises to an AN/I level. While I agree they may approach that if they continue, I personally don't think the matter necessarily AN/I-ripe, as of yet. My hope is that warnings will suffice (which is why I gave him another final warning, even though he already had one, rather than bring the problem here).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I completely dispute that I have removed sourced content without reason. I have removed content, and I have explained why. Epeefleche is free to disagree with my reasoning. Epeefleche is free to revert my edits. But that doesn't make me a vandal. That doesn't give Epeefleche a right to block me.
Regarding 3rr: I don't want to push this too much, as I too seem guilty. Epeefleche said "we have made multiple reverts in the same article in a 24-hour period, but to different sections". That counts as a revert. WP:3RR says "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I only bring this up to say that if Epeefleche has himself violated policy, he certainly shouldn't be threatening to block me ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?).
Ok, I think I made a mistake by reporting this here. Clearly it belongs at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. If Epeefleche agrees I can move it there.Wheatsing (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's even anything remotely contrary to WP:CIVIL here, and as such WP:WQA might have little help. "Highly-seasoned" means "someone who's been around here for awhile", so clearly not an insult. Perhaps there's a suggestion that you might have edited Wikipedia before this account either with a retired account, or anonymously. In terms of "threatening", we have a whole range of warning templates ... they aren't threats, they're canned notifications that someone might think you're not editing according to the "rules", and are part of the concept of "constructive criticism". They typically link to the related policies so that an editor can educate themselves, and edit accordingly in the future. You will want to read the bold, revert, discuss cycle, as it will really help you in future editing. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what Bwilkins has written, but there is one other point that is worth mentioning. Wheatsing has, as far as I can see, been editing entirely in good faith, and no matter how much Epeefleche disagrees with Wheatsing's editing, it is not vandalism, and it is not helpful to call it vandalism. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
As I think I said, I'm happy to refer to Wheat's repeated deletions of RS-supported material without appropriate explanation simply as disruptive editing, even where there is no readily apparent reason for it and no non-frivolous explanation.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
WP is not a dictionary
Where is the correct place to ask for clarification on Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary? As I read this it is acceptable in an article on a title-word (word is the title of the article) where is a disputed meaning to insert footnote refs from reliable dictionaries, Oxford, etc. Or does Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary mean that dictionaries cannot be footnoted where the meaning of a word/title term is disputed? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is probably not the right place, but ANI very often is the right place anyway, haha. What is the antecedent of "it" in your second sentence? Later on you talk about citing from an encyclopedia--that's not what the policy is about. Its goal is to distinguish between dictionary entries and encyclopedic entries, and to ensure we write about the latter, not the former. Questions about citations etc. should probably be asked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Hope this helps. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Dictionaries are by WP convention "tertiary sources". In cases of technical terminology, general dictionaries are, frankly, poor sources. The WP convention is that an article should not primarily be concerned with definitions (that is, function as a dictionary instead of as an encyclopedia). In my experience, the use of general dictionaries is not a good idea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. So if someone writes "XXX means YYY +dicref +dicref +dicref" someone adds three major dictionary sources behind a word to show that this is modern usage, that is OR and should be deleted? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not that it's OR--it's that it's not the kind of source we're really looking for. (And that's not the subject matter of WP:DICDEF anyway.) See WP:SECONDARY (I think that's the one you're looking for). But IMO a subject like Motherfucker (to take one that I know, nothing intended by it) can be sourced partly to the OED, which (if I remember correctly) points out that its first use is US, during World War I). But there should be a lot more to the article than just that one statement and the reference. Gotta run, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition, Wikipedia articles should not be using these kinds of sources as WP:PRIMARY sources, and then drawing conclusions based on their usage - that is what the WP:NOR is. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please knock some heads together at Luke Evans (actor)? I think everyone involved with this needs to step away from it for awhile. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
DeltaQuad protected with pp-dispute until 27 August 2011. Skier Dude (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Danneel Harris move
The article has been moved to Danneel Ackles (and the talk page to Talk:Danneel Ackless) without discussion, and after prior consensus to leave under original article name after a similar move. Could it be returned to it's original title, and move-protected to prevent this from reoccurring in the future without discussion? Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Yes on both counts. I've left a note for the offending editor, Restya (talk·contribs) (with a link to ANI). Here's a problem, though: editor has been warned enough against moving this article, but since blocks aren't punitive and I've protected the article from being moved, what's the point of blocking? At the same time, I've looked at half their edits, and this editor has only one single interest, and is not interested in sticking to consensus. So there is a more drastic way to go about this, and it starts with the letters "indef". Drmies (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Note also that User:January has referred to Restya's moves as vandalism--see this, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
NLT violation, possible impersonation, COI combative editing, and general disruption at Heroes in Hell and related articles
Orange Mike's Croonies: Membership is really, really, really, refreshing.
A few weeks back, what should have been a routine AFD regarding Lawyers in Hell turned into a contentious mess dominated by a batch of SPAs, contributors to the book, and associates of its editor; one of the participants accused the nominator, User:OrangeMike, of "an ongoing, malicious bias to anything involving Janet Morris", the book's editor/creator, referencing a comment he made about one of her characters a few decades back. Things haven't been getting any better since the AFD closed as "no consensus". (Note that I participated in the AFD discussion.)
Since then, there's been some cleanup done on the articles involved; the articles on individual books have been merged into the overall series article, and several editors connected to the series adding material designed to bolster its reputation, not always accurately. I was looking over the article about a week ago, after extensive IP editing occurred. I notice one claim regarding comments by a very well-known sf author (CJ Cherryh), found them implausible, checked the source, a youtube video, and found the comment to be effectively fabricated. (See the first paragraph this later talk page comment[184] for fuller discussion.) After that, I went through the IP and related edits and found a great deal of inappropriate material and removed it; I also added details on the publication history of a few of the best-known stories. And all Hell broke loose, creating quite a hullabaloo. (I'm sorry, but I need to maintain my sense of humor.)
There's been some editing conflict over this, entirely, I believe, with accounts identifying themselves as Morris's friends or associates, and in at least one case as Morris herself. I posted extensive comments on the article talk page, and was promptly met with an uncivil and inappropriate comment from User:UrbanTerrorist, which among other things argued that since I'd used a collection of profiles from the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors as a reference, I'd be willing to use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's hard to take an editor like this seriously, but he is a friend/associate of Morris.
And then, yesterday, someone claiming to be Morris herself chimed in, using language that bordered on a legal threat here [185]. She stated "I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria" and "Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter." This is talking like a lawyer, and, I think, a clear attempt to intimidate. (She also threw a few aspersions in Orange Mike's direction, even though he hasn't been editing the article.)
I was skeptical that the post came from Morris, since it makes several obvious errors of fact concerning the contents of her own books, but User:UrbanTerrorist claims to have spoken to her by telephone last night and confirmed her identity.[186] He also indicated that one of the IP users involved is also Morris (which also suggests that a related IP, which edited the article extensively, is Morris as well.) In a different comment directed at me, follwing his conversation he stated "Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers."
This boils down to a tag-team legal threat by two associated users. One talks like a lawyer, setting up the threat, but leaving off the "or else I'll sue" at the end. The other follows up with "Look out! She's gonna sue you." If this doesn't quite breach WP:BLP, it's really close; and if it doesn't merit a block it deserves a warning with teeth.
And, frankly, the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous. Morris doesn't want the word "reprint" used to refer stories that were published elsewhere, then later appear in books she's edited. Well, that's too bad. That's what "reprint" means, "To publish something that has been published before" [187], "matter (as an article) that has appeared in print before" [188]. Neither Janet Morris nor anybody else is entitled to so much control over articles related to them to allow them to exclude such plain factual statements. It's quite odd that she and people close to her think and behave otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Update: while I was posting this notice, User:Guarddog2, who identifies herself as Janet Morris, made this comment on her talk page: I have been monitoring the other bad behavior by OrangeMike and his cronies for some time and I don't need an account to do so; I'm just building a file. On its own, the comment is ambiguous, but it fits into the pattern of using the language of legal threats without quite pulling the trigger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It's marginal, but I would say GuardDog's part falls on the permissible side of WP:NLT, and is not actionable; least said, soonest mended. I am bemused by the idea that I have cronies, and am even more bemused by the idea that UrbanTerrorist is still carrying a grudge because I worked to prevent what I saw as promotional behavior. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Can I be your crony, Mike? Except I don't own any orange clothes so you'd have to provide the uniform. On a slightly more serious note, I don't think any of the other comments cross WP:NLT at this point. The language about "diluting intellectual property" comes really close. I'll agree that complaining about your reprints being called reprints is silly. -- Atama頭 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, part of Lois McMaster Bujold's The Vor Game was published as a short story ("The Weatherman") first -- does that make it a reprint? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
To clarify the point, the objected=to statement, referring to a single story rather than an entire book, is "Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction, it was reprinted in Rebels in Hell before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
technically yes. anf in reputable publishing houses you'll find a little note in the front saying "Foo was originally published in 'anthology of boo' by Blackie & sons" Just so you know its a reprint.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The underlying dispute may not be so ridiculous. I'm not convinced that the term "reprint" is helpful in this case. SF&F readers are of course familiar with anthologies which are explicitly completely composed of reprints such as the Nebula Winners volumes or the annual collections of Carr or Dozois. Thus when an anthology is described as including reprints, it may be taken to mean that it includes stories not originally written for inclusion in that volume. In contrast, it's common - in the broader world of publishing beyond SF&F - for newspapers to publish lengthy extracts from a book that has not yet been published, or even serialise it over a number of days. When the book appears shortly after, it's not referred to as "reprinting" those newspaper appearances. I suggest that this is quite reasonable, and that it would be misleading to the general reader of Wikipedia to insist on calling a book publication a reprint in any case when the material has already appeared elsewhere. It's also understandable that this would seem to the book's creator(s) to be a misrepresentation of their creative work. NebY (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the term "reprint" wasn't even used on the anthology page, only on an individual story page (the story, having won a Hugo Award, in independently notable). On the series/anthology page, while prior publication is listed, the term "reprint" is not used. The story had been uncontroversially listed in "Category:Works originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" for several years.before associates of the series editor decided to rewrite history. One of them went so far as to falsely claim the original magazine appearance was a reprint[189]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is welcome, especially after all the to-and-fro at Talk:Heroes in Hell about contradictory copyright statements, but puzzling. It sounds as if you're not insisting on the term "reprint" being used and may be resiling from your statement above ("the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous.... that's too bad. That's what reprint means"). But a couple of hours later [190] you seem to be insisting that reprint should be used according to your understanding of the term: "Are you saying that if the contract contains a non-standard definition of "reprint" or "original" or something, that Wikipedia should depart from plain language and ordinary meaning? Maybe we should debate what the meaning of "is" is, too!" Which is it? NebY (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anything need to be done here?
While moving images over to Commons, I ran across something odd - ToddC4176 (talk·contribs) and PrfktTear (talk·contribs) have userpages that essentially identical except for biographical details. Contribution histories have overlapped for years, though PrfktTear has a much more limited history. Suggests either an impostor or a sock. Should anything be done? Kellyhi! 17:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't the last two entries giving online identities confirm that these accounts are operated by the same person? Mathsci (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Those last two entries confirm they have the same user ID's on some other sites. However, they self identify as Todd C. and Chris L., so it's hard to tell what's up with that. If they both respond, maybe that will clarify things. A broader question for Kelly: Are they editing disruptively? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I've noticed but I haven't done any deep digging. I was more worried about the impostor thing than the sock thing. Kellyhi! 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is ToddC4176 (talk·contribs); I have no idea where it came from but I have no affiliation with PrfktTear (talk·contribs). Kind of surprised, actually, that someone would just borrow my whole personal history solely for a Wiki profile, but either way, I'm the real one. ToddC4176 (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to hear from PrfktTear, but since its last edit was January, I doubt that would be worth waiting for. I recommend the account be indef'd as an impostor, and its user page wiped. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I believe the PrfktTear account is compromised. It stopped editing in Nov 2009 when the userpage looked like this. On resuming editing in June 2010, practically its only action was to alter the userpage to what you see today. I have blocked indefinitely as a compromised account, and will blank the userpage as a forgery (or some kind of weird homage). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You know, I am seeing this a lot more often. It seems like users get disenchanted with the project in one way or another, and then, years later, they come back, mostly with an extremely nihilistic and mostly negative point of view, to the point in which many of us would think the account would be compromised. –MuZemike 07:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hounded by an admin
Insufficient evidence has been presented here that the administrator was involved, and the conversation is merely exacerbating existing tensions. Appeals to AE or Arbcom with further specific evidence of administrator involvement in topic disputes that might invalidate the ARBMAC discretionary ban, or require another administrator to review and reinstate it, may be made at those venues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I 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)
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. RainbowDash!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". Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [191]. 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 [192], 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. RainbowDash!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:
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.
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.
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)
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 [193]. 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [194] 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.
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.
[195]. 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" [196], 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" [197], 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: [198] (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 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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: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 [199], 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: [200]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [201] 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 Windtalk 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 priortwo 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
Threatening edit summary
– User blocked by Salvio. --Σtalkcontribs 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)
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
– 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. --Σtalkcontribs 19:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
User dispute assistance request
– 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.
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 [202] at 21:31 on 11 August [203] at 23:42 on 11 August, another at 23:52 on 11 August, and what else? Seems that a complaint made at [204] 00:17 on 12 August at ANI followed by this complaint shows rapid-fire mode. [205] 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)
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.[206]Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hounded by an admin
Insufficient evidence has been presented here that the administrator was involved, and the conversation is merely exacerbating existing tensions. Appeals to AE or Arbcom with further specific evidence of administrator involvement in topic disputes that might invalidate the ARBMAC discretionary ban, or require another administrator to review and reinstate it, may be made at those venues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I 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)
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. RainbowDash!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". Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [207]. 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 [208], 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. Fainitesbarleyscribs 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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. RainbowDash!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:
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.
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.
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)
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 [209]. 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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 [210] 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.
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.
[211]. 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" [212], 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" [213], 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: [214] (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 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.Fainitesbarleyscribs 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: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 [215], 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: [216]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [217] 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 Windtalk 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 priortwo 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
![[64]](https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User_talk:Kenlukus#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_File:St._Anne.27s_Church.jpg){kind=link}
