Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing: Community support for sanctions 1 and 2 (article and talk page restrictions) and consensus that 3 (editing w/mentorship) not useful at the time - Enacting, archiving
Line 243: Line 243:


== Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing ==
== Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing ==
{{archive top|result=Community editing restrictions are approved by consensus as follows: 1.Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed 2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above. There is not consensus that the mentorship would be useful or constructive under the circumstances. The community (or Arbcom) can revisit a mentorship if editing in other areas proves unproblematic. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] ([[User talk:Georgewilliamherbert|talk]]) 19:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)}}


{{userlinks|Circuit dreamer}} and his [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]
{{userlinks|Circuit dreamer}} and his [[WP:DE|disruptive editing]]
Line 562: Line 563:
::I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. '''[[User:Spinningspark|<font style="background:#fafad2;color:#C08000">Spinning</font>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<font style="color:#4840a0">Spark'''</font>]]''' 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. [[User:Bobrayner|bobrayner]] ([[User talk:Bobrayner|talk]]) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}


== Billy Hathorn concerns ==
== Billy Hathorn concerns ==

Revision as of 19:19, 17 August 2011


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archivessearch)

    La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

    Unresolved

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

    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)[reply]
    I've tagged it unresolved and, to prevent its archiving, am signing this without timestamp. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) Thx  Chzz  ►  as in without timestamp Elen of the Roads (talk)
    For whatever reason, it was archived [1], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week;  Chzz  ►  Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011
    Aaand. it got archived again [2]. Anyone know how to prevent that happening?  Chzz  ►  08:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, add a future timestamp. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like this: FASTILY (TALK) 23:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Fastily. I noticed this timestamp while skipping through the page and almost had a heart attack. God knows how many other editors you finished off. :) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This remains unresolved and any fresh eyes from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Koavf

    Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

    User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:[3]

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

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

    The primary goal is to prevent him from improperly editing electronics articles.
    He has not been blocked previously. A remedy must be measured.
    He has promised to use inline sources, but that promise has not been kept.
    The problem has been going on for years.

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

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

    History of past problems
    • ANI archive
    Circuit dreamer (then User:Circuit-fantasist) brought an action against User:Zen-in on 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI/Archive570;
    The action concerned Zen-in's reverting CD's edits to the articles: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance
    User:Ecoman24 proposed some compromises. CD (19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)) promised the following:[reply]
    I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions.
    I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense.
    He has been reminded of these promises:
    User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder
    Also in that dispute, Zen-in has agreed not to revert CD. The relationship between CD and Zen-in is clearly strained.
    CD made this edit.[4]
    User:Oli Filth reverted and started the thread on the talk page. Oli Filth claimed the addition was so wrong it was not worth editing.
    CD defended his addition as starting point, but Oli Filth demanded reliable sources for it.
    CD developed his own classification of negative resistance and wanted to find sources for it later:
    Let's first build the classification; then we can find sources that second it (if there is such a need). Here is my proposal. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    User:Spinningspark told him it has to work the other way around:
    It is completely the other way round, find sources first and then write from the sources.
    CD inserted some material including some figures in Negative resistance some time ago, but his edits were removed for lack of consensus.
    After waiting some time, CD reinserted his figures and added new text.
    Around 2 July, 2011, SpinningSpark asked CD to self revert. Support from User:Johnuniq, User:Glrx, User:Zen-in, and User:Steve Quinn. CD found no support.
    CD did not revert his edits. (Steve Quinn recently backed them out.)
    Back in January 2011, CD added new material to Electronic oscillator [5]
    I reverted the edit.[6]
    CD restored.[7]
    I reverted [8]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus
    CD restored. [9]; edit summary spoke of "great truths"
    I reverted. [10]; edit summary specified unsourced material
    There was a discussion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Relaxation versus LC oscillations
    CD was using his thinking about relaxation oscillators. "I have been asking myself many times what the word "relaxation" means in this context."
    I opposed the material for lack of sources.
    User:Chetvorno classed it as WP:OR.
    CD then offered his revelations about LC and relaxation oscillators
    I opposed the addition of the material based on WP:RS and WP:OR.
    CD commented:
    As usual, the same idle talk again... Have you written [sic] my detailed explanations and examples in italic? Can you make (at least one) reasonable comment about the topic? Do you understand something from the written at all? And where have you seen some references to a wikibook material? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Skip forward to July in the same article.
    CD likes to use negative resistance interpretations.
    CD has been editing the negative resistance article.
    CD edits the Electronic oscillator article.diff
    The article is using both positive feedback and negative resistance. Using both approaches is confusing and unneeded.
    I edit out the negative resistance aspect. Positive feedback is common explanation of LC oscillator. Negative resistance is uncommon explanation. [11]
    CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[12]
    I revert [13]
    CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [14]
    The talk page discussion about the above edits is Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator.
    CD states his philosophy; it includes sharing his "insights about circuits" ... "in Wikipedia because of its highest Google rank."
    I pointed out that his insights were WP:OR.
    User:Chetvorno agreed with me.
    I revert using Chetvorno as a WP:3O to revert[15]
    Back in April 2011, User:Dicklyon and I searched for sources the Baker clamp. The term is used loosely, and we wanted some solid sources to identify what circuit configurations were properly Baker clamps.
    See Talk:Baker clamp#What is called a Baker clamp?
    Dicklyon then took out some unsourced tangents in the Baker clamp article.[16]
    CD restored the tangent for TTL.[17]
    I reverted.[18]
    The actions were discussed at Talk:Baker clamp#Unsourced tangents.
    CD wanted the tangents restored even though he knew there were no sources:
    We will certainly not find sources making these connections but this does not mean that we should not use them to explain to visitors odd circuit phenomena and odd circuits implementing them! These associations serve as "bridges" between apparently different circuit solutions. If it is not so clear, I can explain the written in more details! Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    CD and I clashed again at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven.
    CD made several edits to the article diffs
    These edits used his terminology for negative resistance, for example S-shaped curve.
    His edits claimed the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge involved an avalanche.
    Gas discharges are nontrivial. There are at least 7 distinct discharge modes.
    The Townsend discharge is already an avalanche. Electrons are accelerated in a field, collide with molecules, and kick free other electrons in a cascade. It is a simple finite gain determined by the field and the path length; there is no feedback.
    The glow discharge (normal glow) is a breakdown. It is a positive feedback phenomena: each electron that leaves the cathode can ultimately causes >1 additional electrons to leave the cathode. Consequently, an arbitrary number of electrons become available.
    Sources vary about the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge. Some term the transition a "subnormal glow".
    It is clear that the distribution of ions is different between the Townsend discharge and the glow discharge.
    Many sources describe a neon tube in the saturation discharge (Geiger counter mode) and Townsend discharge conditions.
    Many sources describe a neon tube in the normal glow condition. It takes time for heavy positive ions to move. These slow ions must reorganize for a normal glow. During normal glow, there are distinct regions such as the cathode fall and the positive column.
    Most sources ignore the details and characterize the transition as a state change (ie, breakdown). The IV (current and voltage) characteristic may be graphed as a discontinous jump.
    Some sources refer to the transition as unstable.
    A few sources refer to it as a negative resistance region. (GE, for example, says it may be a negative resistance or unstable.)
    There are exotic sources that attempt to map the instability of the subnormal glow characteristics of a gas discharge.
    The IV characteristic may not be single valued.
    There are operating regions where the IV characteristic is not static but rather oscillates.
    I removed the reference to negative resistance, the S-shaped jargon, and confused claims. [19]
    CD did not revert, but did open discussion on the talk page (the link above).
    Those edits were his OR. He reinserted his diagrams.
    His diagrams don't have the load line found in the usual sources (such as GE), but they have his own terminology of "instant resistance".
    I objected to his OR and SYNTHESIS.
    The latest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator.
    There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research.
    Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations;
    CD copied the material from an earlier discussion at Electronic oscillator.
    CD claims the material is difficult:
    I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all. Three years ago I managed to reveal how the more sophisticated LC circuit does this magic.
    Despite claims of being a challenge for a mere mortal, CD offers no sources.
    Zen-in objected to his characterizations
    CD claims he searched for and found the truth; he wants help to find more truth [20]
    I stated his OR was inappropriate. [21]
    Starting 29 July 2011:
    CD introduces three unsourced views of how the Wien bridge oscillator works.
    There are factual errors.
    He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback.
    CD does add one source: a TI application note by Mancini and Palmer. CD does not understand the application note. He uses a quotation, but the quotation is out of context. His text does not describe any limiting process; the TI AN addressed the output voltage running into the rails.
    I removed CD's edits (2 August) diff and started editing the article
    CD reverted. diff
    I reverted diff claiming Zen-in as WP:3O
    I started talk page thread Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material
    CD reverted diff
    I cannot continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him.
    Zen-in cannot support my reverts because Zen-in has agreed to never revert CD's edits.
    I marked CD's added sections as disputed.
    I open WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator
    The discussion at NORN makes it clear that CD is providing his views. CD is asked for sources, but CD states:
    IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing.
    User:Dmcq states
    It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts.
    Not only is CD's material unsourced, it is seriously wrong. CD does not understand how oscillators work.
    User:Constant314 is continuing to engage CD at Talk:Wien bridge oscillator, but CD continues to show a failed understanding of basic oscillators.
    CD continues to believe the lamp resistance "must vary (quickly) as well in a response to voltage variations for a more principal reason - just to obtain sine oscillations".
    Sources such as Meacham (1938), Bauer (1949), and Strauss (1970) use the lamp to nearly balance the bridge; the sources expect the lamp resistance to vary slowly; the sources do not use the lamp to obtain the sine wave.
    CD does not understand the material, yet he believes he is competent to describe the material to others without the benefit of sources.
    Others have had WP:RS and WP:OR problems with CD.

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

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

    • Comment What he said; it is impossible to get articles on a trajectory of improvement relative to WP policies and guidelines when CircuitDreamer is actively editing. He's a smart guy and could contribute constructively if he wanted to, but he has made it clear that he doesn't care squat for WP policy. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that CD's editing is disruptive. I have discussed the issue of sources and NPOV with him on numerous occasions but he fails to see the point or else deliberately ignores it. He is clearly in breach of the behaviour guidelines he agreed to the last time time he was here at ANI. CD is not only disruptive in articles but also on talk pages where he inserts large walls of text trying to persuade other editors through the force of his own intellect rather than with sources as if he were teaching his students. This tends to make the talk page unusable to other editors. I propose that community restrictions are placed on CD as follows
    1. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed
    2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above
    3. These restrictions may be lifted in part or in whole if Circuit Dreamer finds a mentor acceptable to ANI and agrees to edit restricted pages only under his/her mentorship
    SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark, subject to review if a suitable mentor is found. It is unfortunate that the situation has come to this, but I have been observing Circuit Dreamer's edits for some months and the descriptions above by Glrx, Dicklyon and SpinningSpark are accurate. Circuit Dreamer is enthusiastic and likable, and will listen to a discussion if it is hammered home by exhaustive repetition. However, the editor always reverts to form and soon begins adding their observations (WP:OR)—some accurate, some not, but all unsourced or poorly sourced. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1&2. I don't see how a "mentor" would solve anything here (is there some policy/guideline related to this?). He was advised aplenty already. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support an indefinite topic-ban, enforceable by a complete ban. I have not been involved with Circuit dreamer before this report, but reading over the discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Wien bridge oscillator, it becomes clear he does not see a problem with his behaviour. In fact, he makes it clear that he himself believes it is helpful and will continue to add unsourced, and at times factually incorrect, material to articles. —Ruud 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support. I recall the previous ANI thread. Unfortunately I suspect there were some misunderstandings thanks to the input of a well-meaning but very inexperienced editor, whose incomplete view of the situation may have led CD to believe that their edits were only part of the problem rather than the entire problem. However I did believe we had an understanding at the end that CD would seek advice, work constructively with other editors, stick to mainstream published reliable sources, and keep their personal theories out of our articles. I'm disappointed that they've been unable to do this, leaving us with no choice but to exclude them from contributing to those articles at all. EyeSerenetalk 12:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1, but I'm wondering if we might consider a 1 edit per article per day restriction on the talk pages? That way, if he does have good, sourced, content, other editors can add it. If not, of course, it can be rejected. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on I confess I haven't read everything, yet, there's a lot of material here, but are we really proposing a topic ban for an editor with a clean block log, and no sanctions? Isn't a band for someone who has exhausted dispute resolution measures? I barely see any dispute resolution attempts. Where's the conduct RfC? Where's the failed mentor? Where are the escalated blocks for failing to follow policy?--SPhilbrickT 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In practice violating WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:OR isn't an offence you get blocked for without going through AN/I or arbitration. A mentor isn't going to help unless the mentee accepts there is a problem. On the other hand, I do see a large number of respected editors having tried to resolve this dispute constructively and failed. —Ruud 14:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I note the evidence contains a link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electronics#Edit_wars, a discussion about which CD wasn't informed. Perhaps we don't have a rule against failing to inform involved parties when you start a conduct discussion on a Wikiproject talk page, but it sure would be the polite thing to do. A mentor might fail, but a prediction of failure is not, IMO, sufficient reason for skipping the step. I see no excuse for failing to start an RfC covering user conduct. While some may think the user should know there is concern over the editing, the official notice is very limited.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • A procedural note... Arbitration usually only occurs after all avenues of dispute resolution are exhausted (at least, ArbCom is unlikely to take the time to hear a case until that point). A community ban can happen to anyone regardless of what, if anything, has been tried before. All that is required is a clear community consensus to ban, preferably done at the administrators' noticeboard (ANI after all being part of AN). Considering how difficult it can be to get a consensus on anything anywhere, that's not an insignificant requirement. Wikipedia:Ban#Community bans and restrictions has all of the details, but it's fairly simple. -- Atama 16:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I know we have a formal rule that one should not go to Arbcom without exhausting DR. But an indefinite topic ban is at least as least as strong as anything ArbCom might propose (short of a complete ban, which looks, for all intents and purposes like the same thing.) Maybe we don't have to show that we've exhausted every single remedy short of a ban, but I see scant evidence that much has been tried beyond some discussion with the editor. Not a single RfC. One ANI thread, but that brought by CD, not against CD. No 3RR blocks. Not even a 3RR notice.--SPhilbrickT 17:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • CD clearly isn't your run-of-the-mill revert-warrior, nor would the people who interacted with him have liked to lower themselves to childish edit warring. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear case of disruptive editing going on here. What would an RfC accomplish apart from everyone agreeing his current behaviour is inappropriate? There are only two possible outcomes here: either CD voluntarily stops making inappropriate edits or he stops non-voluntary. He has so far made it clear he is not interested in the former. —Ruud 17:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • What an RfC would accomplish, assuming it goes the way you expect (and I think it probably would), is a clear statement to the editor that the editing style is not acceptable. If the RfC is closed by an admin with a finding, one could point to it an d say, you can no longer simply contend that your edits are fine. The community has spoken and they are not. Until that point, you have editors claiming his edits are flawed and CD saying they are not. If we can ban someone on that basis, we have a flawed process. I'm not following the aversion to an RfC. The editor has been doing this for years, it isn't like it has to be solved tomorrow. If you cannot deal with it even for one more day, propose a 30 day topic ban and a concurrent RfC, and I'll support. I think the editor has problems, and they are likely to be intractable, but I simply don't support an indefinite ban of an editor with zero sanctions.--SPhilbrickT 19:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It should already be, but isn't, clear to him that his behaviour is not acceptable. The chance that an RfC will help him see the light is for all practical purposes zero. The energy that has to be put into this, almost completely symbolic, process isn't worth the potential, and certainly not the expected, gain. All CD would have to do to have his topic-ban lifted in the future is explain what is wrong with his current behaviour and give us some, not even much, assurance he won't continue. —Ruud 19:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop. What he does is to defend his actions and continue. This is his choice, a choice very easy to revise, and the community therefore shouldn't be burdened with spending more effort on him than it has already done (again, this problem has been going on for quite some time involving quite a few editors.) —Ruud 16:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sphilbrick, we're back here because Circuit dreamer hasn't followed the restrictions they agreed to when this issue first came to community attention nearly two years ago. Perhaps some background would help: as I recall from that ANI, he's got some concepts about electronics that are not mainstream. He saw Wikipedia as the ideal place for promoting these concepts, and from the above still does. This is why he's here; mentoring is unlikely to alter his very reason for editing. He's clearly exhausted the patience of those editors who work in the same area; I'm very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung. EyeSerenetalk 17:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    arbitrary break for length

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

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

    or

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

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

    If you're requesting other community members to spend more energy on this, at least have the decency to read through the, not unreasonably large amount, of discussion here and preceding the AN/I report. You're also pulling a bit of a strawman here. The main problem is that CD refuse to abide by WP:V and WP:OR. He doesn't really have a choice of agreeing to this or not, he simply has to. So far he refuses. The consequence of this is that cannot continue to be a part of this community. No amount mentoring or dispute resolution will change this. Only his choice to abide by the five pillars will. —Ruud 18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now read the NORN exchange. I really do sympathize with those who are convinced that CD doesn't get it, but CD agreed to some editing restrictions, and believes he is following them. Unfortunately, the agreed to restriction has a hole big enough for a truck: "I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense." I agree with those who thinks his notion of common sense isn't consonant with what WP believes doesn't need citing. But I do not support banning someone for having a different view, without any formal finding that the editor has violated community rules.--SPhilbrickT 18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that I should read all the material. I'm trying, but so far, of everything I've read, I've yet to see a bannable offense. Can you cite a specific diff, or is it an accumulation? --SPhilbrickT 18:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the continuing insertion of unsoured, unidiomatic and factually incorrect material into multiple articles, while several editors have requesting him to stop doing that. No single occurrence of this would warrant a topic-ban, it's the continuing nature of this, even after repeated explanations of why this is inappropriate and requests to stop.
    Argeeing to "some" editing restrictions and "him beleiving" to be following them really is not sufficient. He actually needs to actually abide by WP:V and WP:OR. Until he explicitly agrees to do this (as he has explicitly stated not to be going to do so) and actually does this he cannot continue to edit. —Ruud 19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We are in complete agreement that his editing is unacceptable and if not changed, would mean he isn't welcome to edit at all. We simply disagree about what interim steps are needed. I would be surprised to learn that this community has ever topic banned an unsanctioned editor. This doesn't look like the first place to start. Or tell me that my assumptions are flawed and we do this all the time.--SPhilbrickT 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A topic-ban is a form of sanction and one has to be the first. Most problematic editors tend to be a little unstable and get a few 3RR blocks before they exhaust the community's patience. A few are better at restraining themselves though, or simply edit at a slower pace. A particular editor in an arbitration case I was involved in ended up banned for a year and topic-banned indefinitely without having had any prior blocks or sanctions imposed on him. His behaviour, or more accurately the amount of energy required to deal with him, did drive away at least three valuable contributors from the project. —Ruud 19:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. I've read through a few of the talk page discussions, and it's pretty clear that Circuit Dreamer is editing disruptively. The topic ban/mentoring arrangement above may help him find his footing here and contribute productively. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a topic ban. It is clear that these problems have been problems for a long time, they have been pointed out before, they are not going away, and they are highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have always believed that CD's edits, however well-intentioned, are out of place in Wikipedia. When I reverted several of his edits almost 2 years ago they all contained similar graphics as this- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Negative_resistance&oldid=442011666; as well as confusing long-winded analysis. The previous versions of these articles were well written, easy to follow, and had adequate figures. The sheer volume of his edits make it difficult for the dozen or more editors who have been cleaning up after him to keep up. It also makes it difficult to grasp the full scope of his activity. I would suggest reading some of the comments on CD's talk page. impolite statement on Gyrator discussion_page is one of many times CD has been rude on discussion pages. Following this are several unheeded warnings from Spinningspark. After Dicklyon reverted CD's edits on the Transistor Transistor Logic page, CD posted the following comment: "Dicklyon, IMO you have gone too far in cleaning up the interfacing section. These situations are very important for TTL circuit design; so, they deserve to be included in the article. This morning, I posed the problem to my students on the whiteboard in the laboratory of digital circuits (see the picture on the right). They tried to find answers to my questions in Wikipedia but they did not manage since the answers were removed:) Well, let's discuss these considerations here. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)" (copied to CD's talk page here) I believe this clearly reveals a conflict of interest. On November 5 2010 CD was invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts after a discussion page interaction with another editor. CD did not attend. I support a permanent topic ban. It should have been done several years ago. Zen-in (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree that CD's editing style is unacceptable. But I concur with SPhilbrick. Editors have been tangling with CD for years; what's wrong with spending another month on an RfC, in the interest of proper procedure, giving him one more chance to avoid being blocked, and avoid setting the bad precedent of a premature use of sanctions? --ChetvornoTALK 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      What's wrong? Wasting yet another month, just so the proper sacrifice is made to the Gods of Process? Process for process' sake is pointless. As far as "precedent", CD will not be the first, nor will he be the last, to be indef'd, topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned without the bother of a pointless Rfc. An Rfc is editors trying to show the problem editor the error of his or her ways. This has already been done, by many editors, over an extended period of time. If you want to see them all in one place, I suggest you start digging through histories and compile your own. I'm with EyeSerene, above: I am "very much against making already frustrated editors climb the procedural ladder for the sake of being seen to stand on every rung." As it is, we have a supermajority for the ban, and only yourself and SPhilbrick disagree, and - this is important - NOT because you think CD will learn and improve from an Rfc, which is the only reason to have one, but "for the sake of process" or "for the sake of procedure". I cannot express how much I think this is wrong-think. I do not understand the worship of bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 10:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not a fan of process for process' sake. There are times to skip process and do something out of process. This is not one of them. This guy has been editing for years. Why has there never been an RfC? It's too late to redo the last couple years, but an RfC would take a fraction of the energy spent on interacting with him in useless ways. I don't think the first sanction on someone should be an indef. When an unruly kid in a class has been told many, many times that their behavior is a problem, you go through escalation and send him to the principle's office. You don't send him tot he electric chair. That's exactly what is happening here. Every single response by editors has been the equivalent of "Johnny, stop that!". Now you propose the electric chair, because you don't think a stern talking to by the principle will work. Maybe it won't. But the proposal here is wrong. Do the right thing, not the wrong thing. --SPhilbrickT 11:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I must say I'm with KillerChihuahua on this one. Your analogy doesn't work, on several levels: this ban isn't an electric chair, but more crucially still, this editor isn't a schoolboy, and an RfC isn't "a stern talking to by the principal". This is clearly an intelligent adult, and his kind of disruption is not that of an unruly kid. He's in rational control of what he's doing. If he didn't get the message after so many clear warnings, why would we expect he'd get the message in an RfC, which basically is just the same warning given in a more organized way? Fut.Perf. 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Concur. In my view this isn't premature sanction, this is sanction that should have happened 18 months ago. If I'd known that we hadn't resolved this in the previous ANI report, CD wouldn't have a clean block log now. EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, while my analogy is not perfect, it is not as far off as you suggest. In the world of Wikipedia, for an editor interested in a single subject, an indef is practically an electric chair. If that's slightly over the top, let's use the exact analogy, life in prison with possibility of parole if you kowtow in exactly the right way. An RfC is a stern talking to by an admin, if it uncovers problematic editing, and is closed by an admin, with such a finding.
    As for clear warnings, I don't think they are so clear. I've read dozens of pages linked in the evidence (not all yet), and I'm not finding the clear warnings. The place for warnings is the editor's talk page. I see a warning from 2009 that if certain behavior isn't changed, there would be a request for admin action. A topic ban is not admin action. Let's list all the times the user has been warned that they face a possible topic ban if they do not change. I count zero. How many do you count?--SPhilbrickT 12:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seems to be in favour of explaining ad enforcing rules as one would do with a minor. Carefully explaining rules, the sanctions and punishment for not following them, increasing pressure over time. In such a pedagogically correct procedure, you should also always ask the minor to explain to you what he did wrong and apologize. However, CD has so far made no attempt to do so. (Although it should be noted that I disagree this is the correct way to treat intelligent adults, they have a strong will and such methods are therefore ineffective.) —Ruud 14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand the function of an analogy, so let's talk about Wikipedia. We rarely ban people without warning them that they might get banned if they don't change their behavior. There are zero such warnings on the editor's talk page (if some were removed, I will happily reach a different conclusion.) You can't bear to wait 30 days to do an RfC? Leave a final warning that the next edit in violation of policy will result in a topic ban. That will take less time than it will take to respond to this post. I don't think such a warning is fair, but it is a tiny bit better than banning without warning.--SPhilbrickT 15:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. We have difficulty dealing with situations like these, where a seemingly intelligent editor refuses to participate in community norms yet absorbs significant community resources. I know nothing of the scientific subject matter germane to this discussion and am not a participant in the underlying conflict, but after reading some of the background and particularly this talk page thread it's apparent to me that Circuit dreamer is unable to successfully collaborate in this content area (at a minimum). Normally I would advocate for a user conduct RfC to begin with, but the pattern here seems long and the efforts of other editors to engage with CD seem ongoing and genuine, to little effect. As such I understand the reluctance to run this whole matter through an RfC--perhaps largely for the sake of process--when the problems are already so well documented and long term in nature. A topic ban is a fairly mild step and one which is very much reversible if Circuit dreamer is able to take a different approach to editing. Given that action is clearly needed, a topic ban seems to me to be the best outcome for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is a topic ban a "fairly mild step"? I understand that we like editors who are willing to work in multiple areas, but the fact is, many editors are attracted to Wikipedia because they have a particular area of expertise and want to improve articles in that area. An indef topic ban for such a person is the virtual equivalent of a community ban. Why aren't you discussing 30 day topic bans, if only to make it clear to the editor that the community is serious? --SPhilbrickT 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's fairly naive to think a time-limited topic-ban will be effective. All we need is CD to explicitly acknowledge he will be playing be the rules. Once he does that, I'm pretty sure everyone will be in favour of giving him a second chance and lifting the topic-ban. If he continues to insist his behaviour is perfectly acceptable, then the "indefinite" topic-ban will effectively be an "infinte" one. If we give him a time-limited topic-ban he will surely not acknowledge this and we'll be having yet another discussion about him next month. If he truly cares about Wikipedia, he would have listened a long time ago. The fact that he didn't is pretty strong evidence he is primary here to find a larger audience for his, not entirely mainstream, vision on explaining electronics. In my opinion we should strive to make Wikipedia a nice place for good and productive editors and not deteriorate it by trying keep aboard each and every misguided editor with potential, that they have no interest in to use for the good of the project. Until this discussion gets closed, he still a choice he can make out of is own free will. I don't see why we should resort to using psychological tricks and social pressure to get him to do something we may want, but he doesn't. —Ruud 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After the 10/09 AIC AN/I an effort by several editors was made to work with CD. That had some positive results at first but it eventually deteriorated to the present situation. In retrospect maybe we were all too patient with him and spent too much time trying to contain the problem without resorting to administrative action. Warnings were given to CD by Spinningspark and others. They are buried somewhere in the discussion pages. Zen-in (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by initial reporter.
    I appreciate the reluctance of EyeSerene, the extended defense by SPhilbrick, and Chetvorno's concurrence. An indefinite ban is a big step, and perhaps it is an extraordinary one. For what it's worth, I did do a 3RR in January 2011. See User talk:Circuit dreamer#Relaxation osc. He's an experienced editor, so I did not template him. I regret that I didn't know about WP:DE until recently; I would have reported him sooner. If there had been earlier reports that led to some small sanctions, maybe CD would have corrected his behavior. If CD had persisted, then the current situation would be clearer.
    Ruud's comment, "To avoid a topic-ban, all CD would have to do is acknowledge his behaviour is inappropriate and stop", does something clever. It shifts the burden from the editors who have to deal with CD's edits to CD himself. CD must show he gets it before any more energy is spent.
    In following the current discussion, I looked at Circuit dreamer's user page. CD is sophisticated. He teaches at a University. He may not be a professor, but he's an academic and should know the value of references. He is, however, opposed to conventional methods. His user page has some surprising links. His informal bio link states:
    ... I do not accept the traditional abstract approach favored in technical education: formal analysis of ready-made circuit solutions in their complete, final and perfect form. Instead, I rely mainly on my imagination and intuition.
    In his philosophy link, he rejects the mathematical models and explanations in "classical textbooks on electronics". He apparently rejects the notion of traditional sources.
    Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page.[22] It has a lot on the failure to use or cite sources and CD's misunderstanding of the oscillator. CD believes a diode-limiter circuit is a Wien bridge oscillator. In my post, I explain that a source, Strauss, distinguishes the limiter circuit from a Wien bridge oscillator.
    After posting this thread at AN/I, I notified CD via his talk page at 02:21, 11 August.[23]
    Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[24]
    I recommend reading that reply in the context of the current debate (e.g., the 10 points at the top of the thread). Ignore the insult, but consider his position in the context of his informal bio and philosophy. CD does not care about sources. Anything that is obvious to him is true. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. A Google search trumps any reliable source.
    Although a topic ban is more extreme than I am comfortable with, its effect of shifting the burden to Circuit dreamer is appropriate.
    Glrx (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A word on mentoring

    Some here (a minority) have thought a topic ban extreme for a good faith editor. That is why I have also proposed the possibility of mentorship - to give CD a way out if he really wants it. Others (also a minority) have thought mentorship will achieve nothing with CD. However, it does no harm to offer it. CD must first find an acceptable mentor willing to take this on and to my mind the first thing any acceptable mentor is going to ask for is an acknowledgment that past behaviour is unacceptable and an undertaking to correct it. If CD is not willing to do this then he should not really be editing Wikipedia and the topic ban was justified. If he is willing he can be kept on a very should leash, at least at first - if I were mentoring him I would require quality sources for each and every edit for instance. SpinningSpark 15:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    how about a different tack

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

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

    How about a really different tack

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

    Or is it just fantasy? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't know that you're dreaming! Your Lord and Master (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Wikiversity? –MuZemike 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuance

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

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

    Go for it. We'd like to hear your response. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On mentoring

    I am willing to mentor Circuit dreamer, if that's an option that Cd and the rest of the community are happy to pursue. However:

    • I'm not a professional EE, though I do have a degree in physics and a job in IT, so I can keep up with the tech stuff.
    • Obviously any mentoring agreement would come with some strings attached. I can make some suggestions but ultimately it's the community's job to agree on the conditions; I'm not a dictator.

    Some likely conditions are:

    • Cd agrees to work with the mentor in editing electrical/electronic content. Initially, changes to electronics articles should be drafted in userspace; if/when the mentor is happy that progress is being made, then Cd may work directly on articles again.
    • Any edit in article-space which adds content on electronics (or changes the meaning of existing content) must have an inline ref which supports the new content.
    • The mentor will try to guide Cd on matters of policy; in particular, verifiability and original research. However, Cd has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that any edits they make are in line with policy.
    • Cd, and the rest of the community, acknowledge that the past behaviour was problematic, and that a relapse is likely to lead directly to a topic ban with no further chances or excuses.
    • If the mentor feels that Cd is not following the mentorship agreement, they bring the issue back here.
    • This mentoring agreement should have a definite endpoint. Maybe 2 months? After 2 months the mentor comes back to the community (on AN/I or elsewhere) and we can review whether the problem has been solved; either the mentoring agreement ends positively (Cd continues editing), or negatively (topic ban) or it's unclear (mentoring agreement renewed for a while). This date could be brought forward if the mentor thinks Cd has done really good work.

    What do y'all think? Comments / criticisms? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is very generous of you to make this offer. Essentially the same arrangement was tried after the last AN/I, but for a longer period of time. The editors involved in this earlier mentoring effort are very experienced EEs. You might want to read their comments above so you will know what to expect. Zen-in (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I did a quick search earlier and didn't see that earlier deal. (The change of name doesn't help either...). I fear the wording may not have been watertight.
    If the community is still favourable, I would still be happy to go with mentoring if clear lines are drawn for the benefit of all concerned, and if it's clear that there are no more second chances.
    There is clearly a very persistent problem, but somebody has to do something. I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban - but if the community wants to go down that avenue, I'll happily stand back. Alternatively, people might prefer to take some other DR path. It's good to have more options, though; mentoring is another option on the table. Either mentoring succeeds - delivering a favourable outcome for both Cd and the rest of wikipedia - or it fails and delivers the same topic ban that folk have been pushing for above. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban. Really? Every member of the community who has previously has dealings with CD and has come to this page has declared in favour of it as far as I can see. Anyway, I am cool with mentoring as long as the mentor is allowed to set strict conditions, intends to so do, and the community agrees that breaches of the mentor's conditions can be followed by admin blocks. I am tempted to list what I think the mentor's conditions should be, but until CD actually agrees to mentoring that is pointless and he has shown no sign either now or in the past that he is willing. SpinningSpark 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was never a formal arrangement or deal to mentor CD after the 10/09 AN/I. However a few editors did make an effort to work on improving some electronics articles with CD. This Emitter coupled logic talk page documents this effort from 10/09 - 12/09. The goal was to add more inline citations, as can be seen by reading this discussion. Examining the edit history of the ECL page will show continuous edit warring after this. Other editors tried working with CD in the Operational amplifier applications page. This [talk page] is worth reading. There are several cases where CD added material that had no inline citations and that simply appeared to be made up. These edits were reverted by other editors and their reasons for doing this were given. Their intent was to mentor CD and to help him learn how to edit as directed by the AN/I. The result has just been more edit-warring. The credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia's electronics pages has improved in the last 2-3 years but at what cost? Why is it necessary to have continuous edit wars? Zen-in (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just recently become aware of CD, but I recognize the pattern of this type of editing. There is a continual tendency to opt for promoting and presenting original thought while eshewing reliable sources. Specifically, (as noted in the drop down box above) he prefers to picture how circuits work in his imagination, and relying on that instead of reliable sources. Feedback from others who edit according to Wikipedia standards appears to have no effect. There is a continous wearing down of other editors. I read where editors who were part of this project have left --- Quote: --- [25] "... and it appears that other editors have left the field...".
    This editor has already effectively hi-jacked one article [26], [27] before finally being restored to the community. (Also please edit history of that article).
    This mentoring is a generous offer. I am sorry to say that I am skeptical that it will work. However, I accept the above terms pending community consensus at this ANI. However, there must be a time where CD accepts responsibility for their own editing behavior. If mentoring is not going to happen then I also support an indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think further discussion here is premature. First we need to hear back from CD, who hasn't edited this past weekend. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A suggestion for natural resolving of the problem

    Sorry that I have delayed my response to your comments here. The reason was that I have begun preparing an open letter to Jimmy Wales where I pose a general question about Wikipedia and the role of its administrators, "Should they stimulate mediocrity and oppress creativity of Wikipedia editors?" Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to hear about the triad of extremely dogmatic, scholastic and orthodox wikipedians forming this plot against Circuit dreamer? Step right up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The solution. In the very beginning, I would like to say that there is a more natural and painless way of resolving the problem than banning me. I mean that I have to ban myself from Wikipedia editing since this year I have to finish my dissertation about applying this heuristic approach to understanding, presenting and inventing electronic circuits (I have spent five years for Wikipedia and now I have to spare some time to my life work). So, instead the suggested indefinite or topic ban, I agree some kind of suspended ban. I realize that the big problem is my massive blocks of edits. So I promise to refrain from such manner of editing and to keep only more episodic editing. If I do not respect my promise, you may impose some kind of ban to me.

    The trap. I regret that Grlx had no patience with my last edit about Wien oscillator since it was my last massive initiative for this year. It is interesting that just he was the one who provoked my imagination to begin thinking about how sine oscillations conceive in an RC oscillator and thus I arrived at Wien bridge oscillator:
    "...I'm not sure that a phase shift oscillator is properly a harmonic oscillator. It generates a sinewave, but I'm not sure that is enough. It does not have a typical resonator... Those ideas fit with one of your comments about relaxation oscillators not having a resonance. Does that mean a phase shift oscillator is a relaxation oscillator? It doesn't have a switch element, but it does have negative feedback..."
    Reading these decently said words I had the feeling that Grlx showed an interest and curiosity... and he wanted to consider this topic in all frankness... and I began developing the topic... and thus I fell into the trap... The only way to clarify the situation is to say, not to save the truth... the home truth... as it is recorded in the history.

    Early Wikipedia edits. I joined electronics Wikipedia in 2006 with great enthusiasm. I was noted that Wikipedia articles in this area were formal and theoretic; there had not introductory sections saying what the idea actually was. Thus I came with clear and obvious purpose - to reveal the basic ideas behind circuits by clear and obvious explanations based only on basic electricity and electronics laws, human intuition and common sense. I posed them on talk pages and began waiting for wikipedian response. Alas... there was no response... Then I began creating and filling the missing introductory article sections starting with this unlucky Negative resistance. Then some of the heroes above appear and began pressing me for sources. I tried to explain that such primary explanations cannot be sourced (if I had to cite, I had to place links to Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws) and suggested to discuss these elementary and more than obvious truths... No one heard me... I met awful people - a kind of evil genius that only wanted to remove me (from articles, from talk pages, even from history pages if they could...) One of them, I can cite his name, advised me to stay and to teach students in Sofia where should be my place... Believe me, before joining Wikipedia, I had never seen such people! And what was more surprising for me, imagine they were even tolerated! I have never understood this psychological Wikipedia phenomenon - to tolerate, encourage and even instigate mediocre, vain and sterile people and at the same time, to keep down, to oppress thinking, productive and creative people! I began gradually realizing the sorry truth about this handful of people inhabiting this area - they did not understand circuits; they knew circuits but they did not understand them! What they were and what they are!

    Wikibooks. Instead to be improved, my edits were brutally removed and I was banished. Then I established Circuit idea and created a lot of circuit stories. But I had a dull time there. I needed hot discussions and two years later, I returned to Wikipedia. I had already accumulated some edit experience and began creating quite pretty articles.

    Present Wikipedia edits. In the last two years, I revealed, in the introductory article parts, the fundamental ideas behind such legendary circuits as RTL, Diode logic, TTL, ECL, Latch, Gyrator, Schmitt trigger, Multivibrator, Differential amplifier, Operational amplifier (the internal op-amp structure). I created and completely finished Miller theorem and finally, I reorganized and structured the poor present Negative resistance to obtain this unhappy article.

    I assume personal responsibility to say that all that is written by me in these articles is the very simple, obvious and clear truth about these circuits. It can be immediately seen if only look at the written; it can be immediately verified (if do not believe me, place here my assertion and I will immediately answer to you). It is a truth that can be explained to and will be realized by every ordinary human being. It can be explained (of course by using appropriate analogies, metaphors and relations) even to a curious 6-year boy (Einstein)! This is the power of my intuitive, qualitative explanations; this is the reason to not cite them (only them, not at all). It will be unnatural, comic and absurd to cite every sentence in Wikipedia; to not think, to not express even the elementary thought... this will make normal people laugh... Only people with dried, formal, sterile and damaged minds can do it... will look for and dig up ready-made and cut-and-dried phrases, and will try to assemble an article from them! These people have gone too far respecting Wikipedia policy and have reverting NOR from useful and positive to oppressing and negative thing (like NIC:) You can see remarkable examples of this approach in Wien bridge, at the end of Wien bridge oscillator talk and in the contribution pages of extremely orthodox wikipedians.

    And yet, it revolves! I would like to say some words to the triad of extremely dogmatic, scholastic and orthodox wikipedians forming this plot against me. The naked truth is that you cannot, do not want and will never accept me; for you I am just not one of you... I am nobody for you... just because I am not a resident of United Kingdom or I do not work at Silicon Valley or I do not teach at Berkeley... This is the sorry reason because of that you hate me and you do your best to banish me forever from Wikipedia... I stay before you as before the Holy Office and I must persuade you that "it revolves" ("there is true negative resistance") to not burn out me...

    About you. You (the triad and your likes patronized by you) are different but still there is something common connecting you - you do not understand circuits; you know circuits but you do not understand them! You are clever but wicked and underhand... you are evil genius... I prepare an open letter to Jimmy Wales to ask him if this was his idea when he established Wikipedia - (administrators) to stimulate mediocrity, stupidity and meanness, and to stamp creativity?

    I have 7200 contributions and in each of them I have written something useful, some simple, obvious and clear truth about circuits; please (here I mean the other wikipedians, not the triad), browse through them to see if you have some notion about circuits. Then look at the scanty 650 contributions of this person to see what he has created in Wikipedia through years. You will see... nothing... just nothing. If you have found something, please place it here to see... but I am absolutely sure you will not find anything. Then I ask people patronizing such paradoxical persons, "What do they do in Wikipedia? Why do encourage them to continue behaving in this nonsensical, useless and foolish way? Is this your function in Wikipedia?" I will pose this question in my open letter... (to be continued...) Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've collapsed this rather than deleting it, but it's little more than a series of blatant, paranoid personal attacks. if that makes me one of "the triad" then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, Chris, your golden triangle ring is in the mail, just FYI. We didn't forget you, we just had some problems with the jeweler getting the size wrong. Anyway, I think the diatribe above underscores exactly why people are tired of dealing with CD. I personally don't have any prior interactions, and haven't weighed in above in regards to the ban, but I think I'm understanding why so many people support it. -- Atama 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Billy Hathorn concerns

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

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

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

    Links to past discussions:

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

    He should certainly just be banned from DYK, where he has played a significant part in bringing the process into disrepute. I prseume this can just be done by local admins? Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that he should be banned from DYK -- discussions there are ongoing -- but that just keeps his problematic "contributions" off the Main Page, not out of the encyclopedia. cmadler (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I note the CCI discussion is ongoing, which means it's already being examined by admins. My 2p is to allow that discussion to conclude. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree. There are no issues with Billy other than what's already been opened at CCI ... in my recollection he has never engaged in uncivil behavior, personal attacks, edit wars, sockpuppetry (to my knowledge) or anything else that usually gets people discussed here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I am going to have to second Sandy here on two points. First, the CCI isn't going to get finished out anytime soon, it's one of several dozen CCIs, many of which are as large or larger than Billy's, and some of which originate as far back as 2009. We can't afford to sit on our hands for two to three years on this. Secondly, I am going to agree with Sandy's conclusion that this is a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I was the one that brought the PUF (possibly unfree files) case against Billy, after going though all of his files (he is the largest contributor of files, measured by bytes, on all of Wikipedia). Multiple editors tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him during the PUF, no little to no avail. I just recently left him a very clear explanation of the problem, explaining that he could not take photographs of other people's work and then claim it as his own work. His response, that he thought it was fair use, missed the point entirely. I've given up on getting though to him, sad enough of a statement as that is, and I think that it might be time for several strict sanctions to be levied against him; both the aforementioned DYK ban, and a ban on uploading photographs/images derived from other photographs/books/museum displays. He's done a great deal of good work photographing buildings in small towns, I say he should keep that up, but he's got to get out of his problem area (photographs of photographs/books/museum displays), and he's got to do it soon. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that, between the CCI and the topic ban discussion already underway at DYK (to which I will shortly be adding my support), there's no need for a discussion here unless we want to consider a block or community ban, and we do not seem to be at that point yet (as Sven above and Orlady below are implying). A link to the discussions and archival material, as already provided, is sufficient if we wish to have broader input into this discussion. I do not see what can be added by opening a separate discussion here of the same issues already being discussed at WT:DYK, by many of the same users. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The most that can come of the discussion at WT:DYK is for him to be banned from DYK. Without further action it's entirely reasonable to expect that Billy will continue to disrupt the encylopedia with unproductive new articles in the same way he has for years. I do think a community ban is in order, as Sven and Orlady describe. DYK can't enact that, and as far as I know neither can CCI. That's why we're here. cmadler (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having read the multiple links above, which involve multiple problems being introduced into the encyclopedia, and taking into account the good work this editor is doing, my suggestion would be to block indefinitely pending a statement that the large number of problems will not be repeated. Too many editors are having to waste their time fixing his issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban from DYK (meaning all DYK project pages) makes sense to me. Although Billy has made some good contributions there (I've reviewed some bad DYKs submissions from him, but other of his DYKs that I reviewed were decent, or at least I was able to make them OK without enormous effort), it is now clear that his positive value at DYK is greatly outweighed by the problems created by his poorer-quality contributions.
      Beyond that, I don't think a block is appropriate. This is not a persistent vandal or a deliberate creator of junk. This is a good-faith contributor who does not behave badly within the community, but just happens not to be committed to quality control. (And, unfortunately, there are many users here who have far less respect for verifiability and quality than Billy does.) I believe that Billy's "autopatrol" bit already has been pulled -- that's good because it has reduced his ability to create new pages without minimal oversight.
      Instead of a ban, I propose that Billy be required to create any new pages and do his file uploads in user space, for review by others before the material goes to article space. (That plan wasn't acceptable to another productive user of my acquaintance who also has unusual ideas about quality and who is now blocked, but that's a different personality entirely. I have a hunch that Billy might accept the arrangement.) Having to work under that kind of oversight might motivate him to start policing his own work, which would be a good result. (I don't know, however, if it's possible to put files in user space.) --Orlady (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If he'd go with that suggestion, it's clearly a better one than the block I suggested above. The files issue is more of a problem - files automatically go into mainspace, they'd have to be moved manually back into userspace, and non-free images are automatically disallowed as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Orlady's proposal is a good one. Running files through WP:Files for upload rather than uploading them directly might be a good alternative to "userspace files" since such a thing does not exist to my knowledge. 28bytes (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I've had problems with some of Billy's over-detail sometimes, but he's a good local historian, at least by Wikipedia standards. . His article on Louisiana and neighboring state politicians have built up a network of relationships, and the people are most of them at least technically notable. There's a question of whether Wikipedia is really the place for this level of detail; but one could equally say that the problem is whether the level of detail he's been adding should not be our goal everywhere. I do not think he has gone beyond the academic standards of fair use, though he may have gone beyond the much more restrictive (and, in my opinion, unreasonably restrictive, standards of Wikipedia fair use, at least for images. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ones I ran through PUF were not borderline free use, they were blatant copyright violations. Until he understands that taking photographs of other people's work and claiming that it is his own work is not tolerated, something solution is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about an article creation ban, AND file upload ban? Forced mentoring? Anything along those lines? Pesky (talkstalk!) 06:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Non-admin. - I've bumped into some of Billy's work as it has come to AfD. He is a decent content creator with a particular regional and ideological focus to the stuff he writes about. This is perfectly fine. I've found his work to be capable. I have no information about him plagiarizing or stuffing DYK, but the pieces I've seen have been acceptably well done. I believe that his charge that he has been stalked in the past over the ideological content of his work (tending, from what I've seen, to be conservative and christian) has a basis in fact. He's a good Louisiana historian and people need to cut him a little slack, in my opinion. Copyvio is another matter, if that's taking place (like I say, I have no information), but this is the wrong venue for that, yes? Carrite (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    non-admin comment Ordinarily, ANI would not be the venue for discussing possible copyvio matters. However, the original report made a case for a chronic pattern of copyvio matters, and sought additional admin input (and, presumably, action). Reading over the discussion so far, my 2p is that it may be moving beyond the scope of ANI, and into that of RFC/U. This is based on the overall apparent intent to help Wikipedia (and my own assumption of good faith), but an apparent and disturbing inability to avoid even the appearance of plagiarism. (Were I a bit more cynical, I'd probably be raising WP:COMPETENCE questions.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Umm, why do we need to un-archive? We've already got a CCI going, and if an RFC/U be opened, that will take care of general behavioral issues. What administrative actions are needed from this specific discussion? Nyttend backup (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The requests under discussion are for an article creation ban, a file upload ban, or a requirement that Billy put all new articles and files in his userspace for review before they are moved to article space. This was suggested as the appropriate venue to bring this issue, and discussion above seemed to support that; however, if this should be taken somewhere else (RFC/U?) let me know, and I'll raise the issue at the appropriate page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this did need unarchiving, but Billy Hathorn should have been notified. I've done that here. For the record, the DYK ban was enacted here. Billy Hathorns's response was here. I've left a note at his talk page asking him to comment here. One of the main problems here is Billy Hathorn's persistent lack of engaging in discussion about these issues. He needs to stop creating content until he has engaged in a proper discussion of these concerns, which at a minimum would be responding here and at the CCI page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only a long rest from DYK but one to three months off article creation are necessary, during which time he should be given access to a trusted, experienced editor who might create a few for him in collaboration, to ensure he knows what is required. He still shows signs of not understanding CP and copyvio. Tony (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming that Billy Hathorn has refused to not communicate with regards to the concerns here, then and only then a block may be necessary. Now, if he was just notified of this, then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    That being said, plagiarism, in particular willful plagiarism, is a very serious concern and just as much as copyright violations – this is stuff in which academics get embarrassed, discredited, and driven out of their profession; and in which students get kicked out of school for. The same applies here, in which we have previously community-banned serial plagiarizers for such long-term conduct (or they have otherwise driven themselves off Wikipedia). The CCI needs to be conducted and followed closely and carefully, while actions should be taken to ensure that he is aware of the consequences of what he may be doing; this could range from an RFC/U or the current CCI, to an outright block if it is found that he is plagiarizing and is not willing to discuss this. –MuZemike 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I did notify him of this thread when I first opened it, and he's been notified multiple times of discussions at WT:DYK. I did not think to notify him that I de-archived this discussion since that was more procedural, but thanks to Carcharoth for doing so. cmadler (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ideally, they'll help out with cleanup (rewriting content) and - in a perfect world - even proactively identify problems themselves. I can only recall one contributor who put real work into proactively identifying his own problems. There have been a couple who have worked on cleanup, and some of them have done a very good job of it. One of the problems with cleanup, though, is that (in my observation) it can be very challenging for contributors who have issues with writing content from scratch to begin with revising established problems. They seem to do better when starting fresh with a different article; when revising existing articles, they almost always seem to want to do it incrementally, unaware of the dangers of creating a clear derivative work.
    I have been busy and am not much involved with this one, but I think that what's generally helpful in cases like this is to see that the contributor can write new content without the former problems. And to make very clear that after CCI we hit zero tolerance for future issues. As somebody who has launched a few CCIs of my own, my thought is that if we ask the community to put efforts into cleaning up a problem like this with a user and then permit them to keep doing it, we are abusing the community. :/ My personal practice on finding continuing issues with somebody who has been through CCI is to indef block. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Further update. Two responses, at his talk page and (for some reason) on my user page. See here and here. The latter misplacing of the reply (on my user page, rather than my user talk page) and the "Can you put this information in the right section?" request, reinforces my impression that Billy Hathorn is not that used to editing outside of the article namespace, except in certain narrow areas (look at his contributions by namespace to see what I mean). Anyway, per his request, I will copy his comment here (the latter one, as it says more than the first one), and leave a note on his user talk page again. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Billy Hathorn, initially posted at his user talk page here and later expanded upon here, and copied here per the request in that post:

    Thank you for your suggestions, but I don't know how to respond to such a long list of ad hominem attacks. I don't see responses making any difference in the thinking of the attackers. I don't even recognize other Wikipedia writers by screen name, but dozens have come out attacking me and apparently virtually none in defense. It reminds me of the old Lincoln line that if he answered all his critics, his office would be closed for all other business. No article (and there must be 4,000, and I have no exact count of how many I have created) has even been cited for an error of fact. I haven't copied anyone's work and passed it off as my own. I can fill articles with my own writing. Several attempts to cite copyright violation have failed. Some are also deleting past articles with few allowed to comment. Photos that say "own work" were listed that way automatically by the Wikipedia photo form, and I forgot to delete "own work" in a few dozen of those. Can you put this information in the right section? It appears that nothing cam be done, as I have been banend indefinitely from Did You Know? Where do I go to plead "not guilty" to the charges?Billy Hathorn (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

    Would suggest discussion is continued here, as the next step would be to respond to what Billy Hathorn has said, as quoted above. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I also gave further advice here (including advice to stop creating new content). I would suggest that around 5 suitable examples are selected and a place to discuss those examples identified (ideally the talk page of the articles concerned) and Billy Hathorn responds there. That should demonstrate whether progress is possible here. I realise some will think that the case is proven already, because a CCI has been opened, but what is needed here is an indication of what Billy Hathorn wishes to contest and where that discussion should take place (possibly at the CCI page?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That would seem like a very good approach; I like the way you've described it at his talk page. :) I have myself not had much time to look at his situation, but did find issues in one article when I was approached about him at my talk page: Bill Noël, [28]. I believe that these were significant enough to require a rewrite. See [29] and Talk:Bill Noël. Billy evidently feels that this article was adequately paraphrased, but perhaps did not see the examples at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnpacklambert

    No admin action is likely to be taken on the basis of these rambling and unfocused discussions; boldly closing
    Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Actually, as i recall from hanging around WP:CFD there has been a considerable amount of discussion about this in various locations. The discussion has had a number of components - one at least is that as 'Jewish' is not an ethnicity but a religion, categories of theCategory:Foo people of Jewish descent should be avoided. Another long running principle has n=been that there must be a source in the article to support the categorisation. If JPL is removing categories where there is no source in t he article, then that's following the rules, not breaking them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been told by Jewish friends that it is both a religion AND an ethnicity. Are they incorrect? --Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion on Cfd is one thing. An unilateral spray of category removals is another. And is definitely not condoned. But you missed the issue. He is removing categories because of a misunderstanding of what is called a distinct subcategory (WP:DUPCAT), as two editors have told him on his talkpage, and he continues.
    As to removing categories that are not sourced in the article, which is not the reason I posted here, still see first what I wrote on his talkpage that there are alternatives preferable to mass deletion of categories, imho. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass categorizing of people where there is no element in the article to support the cats is undesirable and not condoned by policy, please re-read the first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT.
    I have recently made these edits, [30], [31], and I do not expect to be reported at ANI for this as the articles contain no information pertaining to the faith of the first or the eventual Galician ancestry of the second. Oh, but here we're talking about "Jewish" categories aren't we, obviously anyone tampering with this must have an agenda, it would be unthinkable that they were simply applying Wikipedia policy unilaterally. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sarcastic insinuation, that I would be on the watch against some anti-semitic editor, is completely unfounded. I discovered his edits on Isaac Asimov, who was Jewish, but who is on my watchlist as a science-fiction author. WP:DUBCAT does specify "Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often non-diffusing subcategories." Btw, I think you made another comment of this sort a few years ago. I clearly remember leaving some discussing with a distinct impression of profound dislike for you. I have definitely had it with you or anybody else seeing Jewish vigilantes everywhere. You are kindly requested to apologise for your bad-faith assumption in this regard.
    An other reason why your comment is so stupid, is because I have stated clearly what is the reason for my post and what isn't, and you are the second person here to focus on what is not the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you can dial it down right there. You came on here asking for a block of an editor for following Wikipedia policy, and now you're having a go at the two who responded to you, and complaining on WT:AN that no-one will do what you want. JPL appears to have made it clear on your talkpage that he is removing cagtegorisation where there is no mention in the article. Categorisation follows the article - it doesn't precede it. Your suggestion that we should leave people categorised as Jewish (or anything else) without any mention in the article, let alone a supporting reference, is absurd. Show us some examples that are genuinely against the rules and you might get further. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, to take your example of Isaac Asimov - the cats JPL was removing were superfluous. He wasn't removing all mention of Asimov being Jewish, just several cats that are all subcats of each other, where he only needs to be in one to appear in all of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now this is where you're wrong. See WP:DUPCAT. Not to mention that "Jewish" and "of Jewish descent" are not the same. Debresser (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your rather hysterical reply above, I think a certain amount of editors are fed up with these discussions that rage continually on the BLPN and on the talk pages concerned as soon as "Jewish" enters into the picture and the refusal of a certain category of editors to read plain English or understand wikipedia policy. "Ethno-tagging" is the term used by one such editor to describe the continual and insistent efforts to label people despite a lack of pertinence to their careers and/or a lack of self-identification.
    I am also glad that you "remember clearly" leaving a discussion in which I participated "a few years ago" with a profound dislike of me as I have only had an account since May 2010 and have only been editing in earnest since January 2011. So, as for bad faith assumptions and so on ... but I do not require or expect an apology, as your current behaviour (ANI, moaning about ANI at AN) is akin to a child throwing a temper tantrum for not getting his own way, IMHO. CaptainScreebo Parley! 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If so I take back my words about remembering from a couple of years ago. It must have been somebody else with a signature very much like yours. I prefer not to delve in mud, so I won't try to find it. Perhaps it was you, just not a few years ago. Time flies.
    But you will have to apologise to me. A bad faith assumption based on my being Jewish, that is what I'd consider a classic definition of antisemitism. What you are fed-up with, is no reason to assume bad faith in my case. So please, I'm waiting. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Perhaps it's my English. Perhaps it's you. I'll just explain it again. The issue is that Johnpacklambert is removing categories because of his incorrect understanding of WP:DUPCAT. As two editors have pointed out to him on his talkpage. The issue is not the removal of categories that have no mention in the text. Now, massive deletion of categories based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines, and unwillingness to listen to experienced editors warning you about this on your talkpage, those are a good reason for a preemptive 24h block. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you said yourself that he was removing categories because they were not sourced, and on your talkpage he says he's not even doing that, he's removing categories where there isn't even a mention in the article, and you are begging him to leave them just in case they turn out to be true. Second, I think you may not be understanding how some of these categories are defined or chain up - I can see an explanation being given to you for the Asimov edits, but I'm not sure you understand them. Show us some diffs, and people might take more of a look. As it is, you've just made allegations with nothing to suport them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and just to add, as this discussion came up recently elsewhere. Category:Fooian people is for people who were born in Foo, Category:Booian people of Fooian descent is for people who were born in Boo, but their ancestors hailed from Foo. Asimov cannot be both a Belarusian Jew and and American person of Belarusian-Jewish descent, and he definitely shouldn't be in both American people of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American people of Russian-Jewish descent, because one is a subcat of the other, and you use the lowest category, not all of the things. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you about these two things. Debresser (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a link to his contributions at the beginning of this post. He has about a hundred edits with editsummaries like "Already in subcat", or without editsummaries at all. Any of them will do. Just one example: [32]. Debresser (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there was this one article where he said that being Jewish wasn't mentioned in the article, and it was. As posted on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You do understand that if it's already in the subcat, there's no need to also add it in the parent cat...don't you. Don't you? That if you add someone to Category:People from Toronto they also appear in Category:People from Canada. Is the sum total of your complaint one instance where he thought it wasn;t mentioned in the article but it was? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And you do get WP:DUPCAT don't you? Debresser (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I do, now explain to me how that applies to American People of Belarusian-Jewish descent and American People of Russian-Jewish descent. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question. It doesn't. :) As I said above, the more specific of these two should stay, and the other should go. But it does apply e.g. to Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players. As John Pack Lambert asked me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wait, so a person who is Jewish can't point out an inordinate amount of edits to an ethnic category that he happens to be part of? Wow the fact that you mentioned that and called it conflict of interest is, in fact, "a little" antisemitic, and no that is not a personal attack, that is fact and observation. Debresser may not use that word but god knows he's thinking it. And no, the term antisemitic is not overused.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Just because an editor acknowledges his religion or his political views doesn't mean he can't be neutral. What about the rest of us that have views but simply don't have userboxes about them? It's irrelevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You should check the meaning of the term WP:Conflict of interest, Night of the Big Wind. An interest is if I had shares in a company, e.g. Or is this just you stalking me and trying to cast doubt upon my motives for preventing you from removing information from that euthanasia-related article? Note btw in that very same link to my userpage, that I am personally against euthanasia. That should show you that my intentions there are like my intentions here: to do the right thing, regardless of my personal convictions. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you start talking about stalking and cast doubt upon my motives because of a completely unrelated subject to this discussion, it looks more at creating a smokescreen to hide something then a seriius discussion. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, Night of the Big Wind, there is this. Neither shows a COI, just perfectly acceptable declarations of the user's religions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing his broadside attack on Elen of the Roads I just get a creepy feeling that you may be wrong... Night of the Big Wind talk 18:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who attacked Elen of the Roads? See User_talk:Debresser#ANI. And your creepy feelings you better keep to yourself, imho. Or would you care to explain how it comes that you just "happen" to stumble on this discussion a few weeks after you were declared wrong on all three issues in that article because of my opposition? Debresser (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, what do you say about that antisemitic post from Captain Screebo just a little higher up? I really think you - or anybody basically - should slap him on the fingers for that and force him to apologise. Debresser (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should change the Wikipedia software to not permit anyone to use the word antisemitic given its incredible overuse. Screebo's post is not antisemitic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is by no way an antisemitic remark. It does state that some people, including you, are overly sensitive on cases of ethnic or religious tagging or removals. And that is why I came up with COI: you are too close connected with the "jewish identity". Night of the Big Wind talk 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually as an observer there is a hell of a lot of antisemitism going on in this conversation. I read it, I was not part of the conversations. Things were implied, whether consciously or unconciously, that were of an antisemetic nature. People may have not thought they were being so, but they definitely were. It's called microaggression, and btw when a person of a ethnic group says you are being oppressive, racist, or antisemitic, you don't respond with "No I'm not!" You listen to them and try to understand why you think they are saying that. Maybe this can be a learning experience for many of you.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • COI is where you have a financial or commercial interest, or it affects your academic or political reputation, or its a family member. Supporting the same team/party/G-d or whatever can make one prone to express a POV, but that's different, and only prohibited when writing articles. Debresser is coming across as over-anxious here - I'm waiting to hear whether JohnPackLambert has been actually changing categories outside obvious consensus, or whether he's just been doing a lot of edits in Jewish categories, made some mistakes, got Debresser worried, and the subsequent discussion went badly.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another person who has joined Debreser in attackin me for editing these cats, Epeleche or someothing like that, actually suggested that since I graduated from Brigham Young University and not Yeshivah University I have no right to edit Jewish related cats at all. In the case of Jewish MLB players cat it clearly was in line as a subcat of Jewish American Sport People, this alignment was placed in April by somone else and I have never edited this cat. Just considering how many categories MLB people end up in it is hard to justify putting them in both, especially since they all play in the US and so for a certain definition of American are such. Anyway of the Jewish MLB players cat only maybe one person in that cat would not be described as American, and even him I did not read his article enough to figure out if he might qualify. A bigger point is that I came across one article that literally said "person x was a German-American psychologist". That one sentance was the total of the article (I do not remember the guys name), and yet he was in four Jewish categories. If they had said "Jewish German American psychologist" I would have left the cats. But no where did the article say Jewish. The articles I have edited it has not be a question of the material being "sourced". I don't even bother checking closely to see if there is a source on being Jewish, or if the source says the person is Jewish. I just check to see if the article calls the person or one of their parents Jewish, says something about a connection to Yiddish theatre, or in a parenthesis says of an actor they are Jewish in real life. I even let it go where all it says was they were a member of the board of the Boston Jewish Benevelent Association. I am not sure all these organizations with Jewish in their name have only Jews on their board. They might, so I allow such use of identification. However when the closest it comes in the article to saying they are Jewish is to say they have a Ph.D. from Brandes, that does not cut it. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Victor L. Ludlow have degrees from Brandeis, and netiehr of them are by any definition Jews. Actually there are several other examples of non-Jewish alumni of Brandeis. If it was Jewish Theological Seminary of American or Yeshivah University, it has a higher liekelihood of proving Jewishness, and I have accepted Jews with just a mention of attending Yeshivah of Flatbush, but Brandeis just does not cut it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Screebo's comment about overreaction when anything "Jewish" is involved seems to hold up. I have removed Category:Hispanic and Latino American judges from articles on people with last names like Gomez since there was no mention to them being either. My chief counter-example to attempt to assume by last name is Leander Perez. Several of these people were women who it was unclear whehther it was their married or maiden name, and with several of the last names for all we know their ancestors moved from the Azores to Fall River in 1870, and general people with Portuguese ancestors are not considered "Hispanic or Latino". The main point though is that people should not be classified by ethnicity not stated in the article. No one came back swining saying I was involved in some anti-Hispanic project, or the fact that I am an alumni of a university that does coursework in English and not Spanish makes me an unqualified editor. So I think Screebo is right that people react harshly with Jewish categories in ways that they do not react with other categories. I would also again point out that it is disingenous to say I was objecting to unsourced mention of Jewishness, I was objecting to mentioning of Judaism that had not occured at all in the article. This is an issue of not introducing information in categories that is missing from an article, not a question of what needs to be sourced or how the sources need to be presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is Johnpacklambert's misunderstanding of WP:DUPCAT. If he now understands it correctly, then this thread can be closed, as far as I am concerned. Note, I haven't seen his last edits yet.
    As to Captain Screebo's antisemitic remark. What is not antisemitic about it? Ok, he didn't say "you are a filthy Jew". But that is not the only form of antisemitism. He made a bad faith assumption based on my religion/ethnicity. That is antisemitism. Anybody disagree with that? If not, what do you plan to do about it? Debresser (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually the discussion here has convinced me that I am right on which cats should be subcats of others and Debresser is wrong. I see no reason to leave someone in a subcat and a parent cat unless the subcat has the "do not diffuse" notice on it. Debresser could have just put up that notice where he felt it belonged. But no, he decided he needed to bring this here. I am not sure why. However I have not seen anyone else agree with him that if X is a subcat of Y than things need to be in both cat X and Cat Y. Of course he has really not explained that issue very well. Anyway he started out by saying I was removing because things were not sourced, so he has clearly changed the issues over the discussion. What this adds up to in his last section is he wants to denounce people for trying to follow the rules on cat trees and failing to understand the exceptions, when he could just post the exceptions. As I have said before I did not make Category:Jewish Major League Baseball players a subcat of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. If he has an issue with that, which seems to now be his main issue, than he should file a complaint at the person who set the cat tree up that way, and not attack me for following the way the cat tree was set up. Beyond this, we have gone from him complaining about me removing the one mention of Jewishness in an article (which happened to be in a category) to him complaining because I reduced from 2 or 3 down to 1 the number of Jewish cats. However I was not removing people from all Jewish cats, and they were still even in the American Jews cat tree, people would just have to click on the subcats to find them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would encorage others to check out the rude response he made to my comment on the discussion board of Category:Jewish American sportspeople. There is nothing keeping him from posting the "do not diffuse" notice on the Jewish MLB players cat, as I suggested he should do in my talkpage. There is nothing that is keeping him from removing the Jewish American sportpeople as a parent category of Jewish MLB baseball players. He seems to just prefer to attack me than to fix what he claims are poor line ups. The guidelines clearly encorage posting the non-diffusion notice, and his failure to mock me for bringing up the issue is not indicative of assuming good faith or trying to be a friendly participant in the wiki. His basic assumption seems to be that everyone that someone deems to be Jewish for reasons that are not evident or explained to other editors should be in as many Jewish cats as an editor chooses to put them in and if another editor comes along and questions the unexplained inclusion of people in Jewish cats or the need to have them in three Jewish cats, each a child of the other, then they should be blocked. Well that does not add up to me. Categories need to be supported by mention in the article, and there is no reason to multiply cats an article is in. This is especially true of baseball players who tend to be in sufficiant as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think these two posts are a bit off-topic. In short: 1. If JPL disagrees with WP:DUPCAT he should take it up there, not here. 2. My response what that nowhere does WP:DUPCAT make the guideline contingent on having a warning template on the category page. If he feels like putting one up, he should go ahead. In any case JPL will have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, which is precisely what I told him on his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, having looked at it, John Pack Lambert seems as in agreement with DUPCAT as you are. What he is saying is, without the template which DUPCAT recommends adding to non-diffusing categories, there is no way for an editor to tell that it is a non-diffusing category. So the answer is for you, who are concerned about non-diffusing categories, to add the template to the categories you are concerned about. Also, given that you started out saying that he was removing categories because there wasn't a source in the article and he should stop, I think most of the rest is addressing that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for showing us where we agree. That always makes discussion so much more pleasant. But please understand that WP:DUPCAT only recommends to add an indication in the form of a template to non-diffusing categories. It is not an obligation, and absence of such a template is not in itself an indication that a category is not non-diffusing. Especially since it seems to me that a great many non-diffusing categories have never been tagged. In other words, whether or not a category is non-diffusing, is a thing the editor should be alert to. And when alerted to that fact by two editors, he should stop his edits, not continue them. There is that too. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So how are we supposed to know the category is non-diffusing? Anyway, the examples given do not lead one to think that specific field of sports activity is non-diffusing from a category for all sports activity. How are we supposed to know which categories are diffusing and which ones are not?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would also like to point out that I never asked Debresser about Jewish MLB players and American Jews on his talk page. I asked him about Jewish American sportspeople and American Jews, and he gave an answer that throughly confused me. Basically I asked him if it should or should not diffuse, and he never said yes or no. Netiehr he nor Epeefleche has explained anywhere how the Jewish MLB players works according to the non-diffusing rule. If we had Category:American Jewish baseball players I could see the MLB cat being non-diffusing, but from the broad category of sportspeople it does not really make sense to not diffuse a group that is in a specific sport. We always diffuse from a a general to a specific sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I think we have the crux of the problem. Identifying non-diffusing categories may not be obvious. Somewhere - not here - there needs to be discussion about the categories that Debresser thinks are diffusing and JPL thinks are not. A nice dry discussion, about the theoreticals of the thing, moving onto some specific examples which can then be tagged as diffusing if all parties agree, which I'm sure they will. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Btw, the text in WP:DUPCAT used to be even more cryptic, until User:Kotniski improved it, I think it was he. It might be worthwhile to see if Wikipedia talk:Categorization can come up with some easy guidelines what categories are considered non-diffusing. I for one would be happy to see such a discussion and partake in it. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Why did you start a whole new thread on this exact same issue, when there is a perfectly good one a few inches up there ^^^ already going strong, which you were already participating in? --Jayron32 05:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why a new thread? 1-The one above is a critique of my actions, this is a critique of Epeefleche's actions. 2- The discussion above has to do with edits to articles. This has to do with personnal attacks in CfDs. 3- The one is somewhat focused on Debresser's actions, Epeefleche is another individual, who violates rules in ways that Epeefleche never dreamed of. 4- Most importantly, in light of the personal attacks lobbed in the above discussion against Debresser putting this discussion there might obscure the fact that I had not personally attacked anyone, I had made a CfD nomination, which is not a violation of any wikipedia rules, and then had Epeefleche come on and attack my alma mater and act as if it is a source of evil. This has nothing to do with Jew related edits at all, and everything to do with bullying on wikipedia. This is an issue of people making personal attacks, the other is mainly focused on whether the fact that someone puts in a category should force other editors to accept it when there is no indication the category is right in the body of the text. That is an issue of wikipedia policy on categorization, this is an issue of someone engaging in uncalled for personal attacks, which may double as backhanded attempts to malign those things I am associated with. My views on what is overcat are not linked to my alma mater, and to imply they are is just plain out of line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Q: What's one consequence of having multiple wives? A: Having multiple mothers-in-law! (You can blame Jay Leno for that one.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you notified Epeefleche, something you're supposed to do when discussing somebody here? I noticed that you posted on his Talk page after starting this section, yet somehow forgot to mention it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    These two threads are about the same issues, so I've combined them together. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unequal application of equal rules. Just noticed that this matter mentions me. Just to clarify one aspect of the discussion (ignoring for the moment the more important editing against consensus and disruptive editing issues). JPL is of course welcome to edit all manner of articles. He appears to have been involved, however, in markedly unequal application of WP's equal rules. That's akin to a White cop sitting at the side of the highway, and only giving out speeding tickets to Black drivers who drive a mile over the speed limit. Unequal application of equal rules is problematic.
    For example, JPL says -- quite correctly -- that information on wp should be sourced. He has deleted what appear to be hundreds of references (via cats) to people being Jewish. Of the 100 or so I looked at, the vast majority were supportable by a quick google search of five seconds.
    What is of some concern is that while JPL announces to the community that he is a Brigham Young alumnus and church member, he then concurrently (I only checked his latest article creation) creates an article with ZERO refs. On a Brigham Young graduate. Who belongs to JPL's church.
    His interest in applying WP's rules therefore appears somewhat less than equal. He is deleting references to people being Jews, relying on his adherence to WP's reliability criteria (one I support, though I note that we do have sentence or two at the project that are unreferenced). Deleting such references from hundreds of pages. And then he completely suspends his criterion for Brigham Young alumni, who are members of his church. We assume good faith. But that is a rebuttable presumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has four sources, how that is "unreferenced" is beyond me. Anyway Epeefleche is being disingenous. I have deleted categorization of articles as being Jews when there was no reference to it. I did not "delete references". I deleted categorizations that had Zero, none, nil support from the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has zero references. Wikipedia:Citing sources tells us how to cite sources. To cite sources, we use refs. "External links" -- as we know from Wikipedia:Citing sources, are in contrast for "books, articles, and websites related to the topic that have not been used as sources." Extra troubling, is the fact that at the same time JPL you are deleting Jewish cats, even where he has been given a url that confirms that the person is Jewish, as is detailed elsewhere in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion by JPL of evidence that people are Jewish -- even when an RS is supplied. Adding to the curious desire by JPL to delete from articles the fact (as reflected in cats) that a person is Jewish is the following. He actually deleted this cat along with the url that reflected that the person was Jewish. Arguing in his edit summary "Article makes no mention to Adler being a Jew, if this is notable to be catted it should be mentioned in the text of the article". This is a knowing deletion of accurate material -- by a person who at the same time is creating articles on members of his church, without any ref in the article whatsoever. We may well have a problem here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL unilateral mass deletions not spreading to other cats. The problem of non-consensus, unilateral, questionable deletions by JPL seems now to have spread to other cats. See the discussion here. I've tried to advise him to perhaps heed consensus, but he seems to take a dim view of that advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually those actions were in accordance with the CfD on the category which came to the conclusion rename and purge. I purged the non-fire articles with an affirmative directive to do so having been made at CfD. This was no unilateral, it was in line with the policy that was devised at CfD. I was only implementing the policy that was agreed upon there. So again, Epeefleche is attacking me because I actuially act according to policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Antisemitic remark going unpunished

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

    Oh, but here we're talking about "Jewish" categories aren't we, obviously anyone tampering with this must have an agenda, it would be unthinkable that they were simply applying Wikipedia policy unilaterally.

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

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

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

    I am withdrawing this comment due to the controversy it caused and I feel some people were offended by the nature of these comments. I won't be taking part in this conversation any further. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I think you need to step back a bit, and look at this a little more dispassionately: Captain Screebo seems to be commenting on the tendency of accusations of antisemitism to be bandied around, with little evidence actually being presented, but instead 'bad faith' being assumed. If this results in 'sarcasm', what do you expect? And do you really think that objecting to being labelled an antisemite is evidence of antisemitism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The answer to the latter question is obviously "no". And please, telling me to step back is also insulting. I am not a person prone to whims, spells of ire etc.
    Captain Screebo's comment was in any case a bad faith assumption and his sarcasm a personal attack. And if he was just commenting on a tendency he might have perceived, as you are willing to assume, then he surely must have realised that his comment would be like oil on the fire. So a strong reprimand is in order whatever way you look at it. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I do not see any anti-semitic attack in Captain Screebo's comment. It looks more that you are overly itchy and have a bad faith assumption. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked a veteran admin whom I greatly respect to give his assessment of Captain Screebo's commentary, and he agrees with you. I shall therefore assume that I must have read meanings into his comment that weren't there, even though I still perceive things otherwise. I let go of this issue at this time. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have refrained from commenting so far so as not to pour "oil on the fire", and also I consider this to be a non-issue as several people on this page have already stated that they see no personal attack or anti-semitic remark in what I wrote.
    I would just like to point out to Debresser that I was making a general comment about this subject area which tends to get very heated, with both pro- and anti-semitic editors pushing to tag to advance their POVs, as seems to be the case for the LGBT issue, as can be witnessed from all the brouhaha surrounding Luke Evans (actor), and accusations of de-gaying and so forth, homophobic editors etc. I believe the Balkans and all related articles are also "hot potatoes" as to the ethnic catting/tagging of people but, so far, I haven't had the pleasure of getting embroiled editing in this area.
    I don't see where at any point I inferred you were Jewish or could have known this from your username, or adressed you directly as Jewish, yet you wrote above:
    As to Captain Screebo's antisemitic remark. What is not antisemitic about it? Ok, he didn't say "you are a filthy Jew". But that is not the only form of antisemitism. He made a bad faith assumption based on my religion/ethnicity. That is antisemitism.
    Assuming I made a bad faith assumption is a bad faith assumption IMHO and, yes, I know you're Jewish now because you've been screaming it all over the page, the only reactions to your comment either above or in this section were to say "calm down, the comment is not anti-semitic". I do not expect an apology as I mentioned elsewhere even though you are clearly over the line of what constitutes a personal attack, as per your cite above: Wikipedia:Npa#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, by making unfounded allegations of anti-semitism and starting a whole section with that in the title, .
    It would be appreciable though if you struck through the relevant comments and maybe asked someone to hat this section as having my name trawled through the mud on a highly visible noticeboard (in several places to boot) is not really pleasant. Shalom. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me point out that I personally still feel offended by your bad-faith assumption based on my religion or ethnicity. It is only that I am willing to accept the fact that there might be other ways of looking at this. Therefore I can not in good faith strike out anything I have said before. I am only willing to let the matter rest. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, I explained my comment was about this area (concerning Jewishness) creating needless drama, I personally do not go around assuming that people are this or that, I don't care if people are Buddhist, Martian or even Tea Party members so long as it does not overly influence their editing, and I take objection to being called anti-semitic that's all. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the expression "to be the one with a chip on ones shoulder", so I can't help you here. What I can tell you is that I came from WP:DUPCAT, not from WP:JEWISH_VIGILANTES, and your remark showed bad faith and used insulting sarcasm. Calling it antisemitic might have been taking things a bit too far, but you have been in transgression of two very important principles of polite discussion and it was in connection with "Jewish" categories. So perhaps you should start with an apology for making this mess, and then I shall consider retracting the word "antisemitic" in regards to your post. I think that is being completely fair here. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have noticed myself that this user constantly focuses on people of color and minority groups. I have been on Wikipedia for several years (this is a new account) and recently became more involved when I found women of color were harder to research, so I took it upon myself to make categories for women of color. Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) consistently nominated these categories or voted delete for them with another user who was consistent who I won't mention. Fortunately these categories were kept, because they are very important for women's history and the history of their respective ethnic cultures. I also noticed him focusing on women and Jewish categories as of late. Now I cannot presume anything about him, but these actions are very telling. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That statement is verging on trolling. You took it on yourself to create categories that there had previously been a consensus not to create, and several people - including me - took part in the discussion around deleting them. You were very aggressive and accused people of everything under the sun. In the end, you did what you should have done to start with, and got consensus for a change in the rules relating to categories of this type agreed by the community. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I did not accuse anyone of anything during those discussions. A lot of people accused me of things. A lot of people accused me of being racist against white people, that I would use the "race card." (When I am white myself, and then people decided to call me racist the other way around.) There was a high amount of racism going on in those conversations--I did not mention that. I didn't accuse people of "everything under the sun." But I did get accused of "everything under the sun." You said that I said something apt to calling everyone "racist scum" actually, heh, I never called anyone racist and I never brought up the topic of race--it was brought up by other people and I certainly did not call anyone anything like "racist scum." That term was not used here, or on my blog, But my personal blog was found and posted on here because I called a person a "Nordic asshole" which is not racist, it's like calling someone a "Canadian asshole." I was even told by one person that what I was doing was comparable to Nazi Germany. Yes, the Nazi argument was brought in. I was told by my friends (who were not allowed to speak on the subject due to canvassing rules) to plod on in spite of this sort of abuse. I may have done things the wrong way, and I admitted that numerous times in discussions you did not take part in, but it was due to being unaware of the way Wikipedia works, and subsequently I have done things the correct way in other areas. But if you wish to call me wrong, call me wrong. I don't harass this user in my off time or engage him other than in topics we both happen to take part in, which is always on the AFD page. But, by your logic I could say your comment verges on trolling since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand and we've taken part in a conversation before where you disagreed with me. Oh dear!--Henriettapussycat (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. If you can't see the problem with calling someone a "Nordic asshole" for challenging your edits about black women, because you assumed he was white, then you need to study a different section of history. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus Christ it took me half an hour to figure out what you were implying with that comment. No, I was not implying that she was a Nazi, and I did not consider the historical implications when I said that remark. I mean christ almighty. I was purely referring to the area she came from. I think this is more of a cultural difference in a misunderstanding than someone trying to be offensive (obviously calling someone an asshole is offensive, but let's ignore that issue for the sake of this explanation). It's simply me being ignorant of what would be offensive to Europeans and United Kingdom due to implied ideas in the statement. There are a lot of cultural things that offend Americans that Europeans don't get either. Sure you can make ALL KINDS of assumptions from what I said, but that was in no way what I was implying. I was just angry, and I knew she was from Sweden, and that was the only insult I could make. Jeeze. Elen, I think it is really best for the both of us if we avoid each other in the future and do not engage each other in conversations. This has gotten pretty heavy, and I think we have both said some pretty regrettable things about and to each other. Just so you know, I intend to keep my actions soley to editing pages in the future and don't plan to get into these deletion type of discussions. It triggers my anger way too much, and I end up saying a lot of things in the heat of the moment I regret in the end. I apologize for all the things I have said to you that have offended or even hurt you, because that was really wrong of me. I hope you can continue your activities on WP in peace.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is hilarious. Sorry, do you mean you've only just realised why everyone jumped down your throat, you got blocked etc etc. It was a World War you know...do you come from Easter Island (struggling to think of some really remote part of the planet that escaped not only the events but the aftermath for the last 70-odd years)? If so, I completely accept your explanation in good faith, but you really really need to follow this up in your history studies, because you are missing some information. Also perhaps check out Stormfront - not a pretty read, but probably essential to understanding some of the forces active today, and why that remark is still offensive to Americans as well as Europeans.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was never blocked. Being from a Nordic country doesn't automatically make you a Nazi, okay? At least, this is my line of logic. I'm not responding to you again. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting/good point. I had missed the women-deletion aspect of his edits, as I only looked at his other dozens (hundreds?) of deletions over the past three days. Agree with your points, now that I look back further. Especially when at the same time, he is creating articles with zero refs, of people who belong to his church and share his alma mater. The two editing practices, combined, certainly call to mind that AGF is a rebuttable presumption.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd, I can see four sources in that supposedly unreferenced article at that diff. Do you need a new monitor perhaps? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There were zero refs. There were "External links" -- but as I was told years ago, and as it appears our guidelines still state quite clearly, external links are not sources. Rather, external links are "books, articles, and websites related to the topic that have not been used as sources." Extra troubling, is the fact that at the same time JPL is deleting Jewish cats, even where he has been given a url that confirms that the person is Jewish (oh yes -- he took the opportunity to delete the url confirming the person is Jewish at the same time). The combination here is very concerning.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there were four sources and one external link. I invite everyone to check the diff. Either you really do need a new screen, or you are saying things that are incorrect for the purpose of causing trouble to another editor. Previous consensus has been that this may constitute a blockable offence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, he just has a unique use of "reference". He does not consider it a reference unless it is linked as a footnote to a specific fact. Just listing sources without linking them to specific facts does not meet his creteria. The fact that Mr. Hamilton is an African-American severly undermines the attack Herietta has made on me. She has taken it on herself to on multiple occasions accuse me of being racist. She has accused me of not understanding or caring about Afircan-American history. I partly created the article on Mr. hamilton to show she was wrong, because the articles i have created on Alex Boye, Emanuel Abu Kissi, Amram Munsunga (since deleted), Marcus Martins, Marvin Perkins, Darius Gray (I am not sure I created that one, but I at least expanded it), Jesse Lee Thomas and Joseph W. Sitati are the mark of a racist out to supress all references to people of African descent in wikipedia. The fact that I nominated a huge bunch of male-singers categories for deletion is also not evidence. Some people just seem intent on gaining exception from wikipedia policies by agressively attacking any editor who tries to apply them. I have removed all sorts of unjustified categories. Why I should sit back and let articles that make zero mention of Jews still cat as Jews is beyond me. Then of course there are the articles on Jews I have created. Of wait, that was the article on Daniel Rona which was deleted with no return to the issues brought up in the first discussion even though I provided sources relating to a whole new set of notability for Rona that had never existed in the article's previous incarnation. If you want to talk about people really deleting information of Jews go and attack whoever deleted that article. I am just removing categorization of people as Jews when there is zero evidence in the article that they are Jews. No one has screamed about my doing the same thing to probably 30 articles that claimed the person was of English descent, even though I was only for that time focused on English-descent. Uneven application of rules would be if I removed the Jew cat and left the Am people of ITalian ancestry in the same cat even though neither were mentioned. Even there it would be an unfair attack because it is easier to read an article to see if a particular cat is supported than do so for all cats. I think the basic problem is some people treat having large cats for their ethnic group as some sort of mark of pride, but we are supposed to categorize based on actual relevance. This is not a race to have the most people in your ethnic category, so people need to stop acting as if it is an attack on them to apply the rules. Anyway as I have pointed out elsewhere, we allow putting in Jewish categories with a lot less evidence, I have not objected to articles on the grounds of how many sources they have. If I come across an article with no sources that says the person was a Jew in the article, I leave the cats, so these people are being consitently inaccurate about my editing. I am not going to let them bully me into letting them make claims with categories that are not done in the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never called you racist, John. Seriously, get it right. I did say you are uneducated in black history, and you are. It doesn't matter how many classes you take. There is only one thing I am sure of you being, and I will not say that, because I don't believe in labeling people unless they have chosen the label themselves. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can everybody please dial it down a notch or two? This is ridiculous. Henriettapussycat, for somebody who claims he doesn't engage in name-calling, you sure call people a lot of names. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was given a warning by you for calling people racist. I'm not sure where on WP I have done that, and in this topic I mentioned people to support User:Debresser's request, but banning me for supporting his request and noting other people who joined in on the discrimination--pointing out as an observer that yes, this stuff was going on...Whatever. Sure. It doesn't really matter if you want to do that. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have chastised editors for making antisemitic remarks before, I don't see any such here. Screebo is simply noticing that the area of jewish categories is contentious and that people generally are quick to assume bad faith from people editing that area. I see this post as a testament to that fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Herietta is the one who says I have something against "women and people of color". If that is not calling someone racist, than nothing is. Beyond that there is no true reasoning behind the claim that I am uneducated about African-American history, it is just thrown out as a gratuitous insult. That said, this attack was first lodged with the category Category:Black British musicians so African-American history is irrelevant. Anyway considering which of the contents of Category:American military personnel by ethnic orogin I nominated for deletion, that is the Jewish, German des, Jamaica des, Swedish desent, and one other European one, the claim that I have some agenda when I did not nominate the African American cat for deletion is just plain unfounded. I am still suprised at how tolerant people are of Epeefleche's totally uncalled for comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a comment I left on my page for John, and I will put it here so people will understand my reasoning and know that I am not calling anyone racist or antisemitic.
    I admit wholly I do tend to get angered easily, this is an issue of mine that I seriously work on and therefore will be avoiding this topic and other deletion topics in the future unless they directly involve me.
    Okay, now, there is a difference between doing things that are racist, doing racist actions, and being a racist, that is--having racist thoughts. Sometimes people who are not racist do racist things. Yeah, sometimes that happens. If anyone is upset at me for pointing out actions they have done that are suspect to seem like discrimination, then I guess you can do that. But as it seems, I don't think anyone here is a racist or against Jewish people at all. Period. I really do not believe in labeling people like that. I think that people do things sometimes and don't really think about it through wholly. Just like I made an African American Women's category, but did not think about first making subcategories and dividing women up in a logical way, then overreacted during a deletion review. Hey, people make mistakes. People sometimes display discriminatory behavior when they in fact are not racist or antisemitic. Hey, it happens. I'm sure even I have at some point in my life without meaning to--god knows I don't hate people different than me. Pointing out behaviors does not indicate thoughts behind them. I don't think anyone here is a racist or antisemite. Period. I can't read your minds.
    If you want to understand my reasoning, you can watch this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
    As I said, I don't believe in labeling people unless they have chosen the label for themselves. I would never call a person racist. People display behaviors and that lets me know what kind of person they are. The person above goes by John. That is his preferred label. There is quite a difference there, isn't there? People might choose the word "cunt" for me, I would choose the word "woman." Yep, people choose their own labels, they aren't chosen for them. I don't plan to take part in these discussions anymore because people do not understand my intentions. Not all behaviors indicate thoughts. It's called Behaviorism.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epeefleche, that master of the diningenous attack, has gone after me again on my talk page. This is getting over the top. He is now attaking me for following the clearly stated wikipedia policy that where someone is born is not notable for them, trying to claim I am misleading for quoting this part of the category guidelines for categorzing by place on my talk page, and trying to turn the non-ethnic based people from x type categories into an ethnic feud. He is being extremely rude about it. He who has falsely accused me of "removing references to people being Jews" which is a lie, I removed categories not references, is now complaining that I did not quote the entire sentance twice, and accusing me of being misleading about it. bio articles are on the people and are categorized in ways that are notable to them, I am not being misleading, and I find his behavior down right provocative and rude. I am wondering if there is a way to block him from editing my talk page. I am getting tired of his rude, underhanded, accusatory and insinuating attacks.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Epeefleche just keeps coming back with his annoying posts on my page. Now he claims there was a reliable source that someone was Jewish. It did not say so in the text, it does not belong in cats. I wish someone would set him stait on this fact. Also tell him to stop trying to bully others to accept his unmentioned in the text categorizing plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Herietta's calling someone a NA is clearly racist. If she called someone a different NA and was black, we would not forgive it. She might wine and complain that black people are allowed to call other black people that, but it is not within the acceptable usages on wikipedia, and we will take exception to people railing against other wiki users on their blogs. You can be racist against your own race, and it is clearly racist to assume what race people are with no evidence. She had no evidence that the person in question was "Nordic". And she has no evidence that I am white, in fact the 2000 census clearly shows I am Native American, and thus not white at all. Assuming that only white people would want to delete certain types of categories seems to be racist to me. Also her treatment of all Hispanics and Latinos as "people of color" seems to be an unjustifiable racializing of the matter. The term itself strikes me as part of racializing rhetoric, but even worse it can not accurately be applied to all Hispanics and Latinos however you define it, unless you define the term less inclusively than the US census and in a way as to exclude many people who will proclaim being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a self-hating racist is entirely possible. Using racial agression to quiet your oppnents works all the time. Since your race is general not know to those who read your posts, you can not assume in-group rights of attack, and I for one reject in-group rights of attack as a way for some groups to exercise dominion over others. I think it would also help if someone told Henrietta that she should post her new comments below earlier comments, and not disrupt the flow of discussion by inserting her responses above responses already there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there really is such a thing as microagression, Henrietta fits it to the t. Instead of asking herself "why would someone be offended by my saying they are ignorants about x" maybe she should ask herself if that is a fair way to talk about anything. Her system allows the accusers to always accuse, and makes some of us have to just bow and let them get their way. Well, it does not work that way. Rules are equal, and you should not go around attacking people for trying to apply them. It also would really help if people realized that deleting a category removes zero articles and would be a little less hysterical about the prospect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Listen, if you want me to get into discussions of race and try to do some sort of gymnastics here--this is a little ridiculous. I've told you that I don't think you're a racist. I've explained to you that the aspect of your behavior where you continue to bring up whole groups of ethnic groups or social groups to be deleted is incredible problematic. True, I have said things that are completely out of line when I get angry, and I get angered easily, but I have always attributed it to your behavior, not your thoughts or what I think you may be thinking. The fact that I must explain that Latinos are considered people of color, and people of color is not a made up term, it's a real term, so no need to put it in quotes. Latinos can be either black, white, or mixed. Yes that's pretty colorful. Not to mention white people have made them into a social minority through history--it's a completely falsified thing. But Hispanic and Latino people do have their own culture in American, and that is something you can not deny, John. Seriously. And to deny women their own category would just be redonk. Using the term black vs. African American is not racist. It's just another term. Are you meant to claim here, instead, that I am not in fact the race I claim to be and am saying this as a ploy to cover an extreme plot to control Wikipedia from within, thus taking over Wikipedia? Or something like that. I mean really? If you want to continue this, I think it would be best that maybe we talk about it somewhere else so we can better understand each other. I think that things have gotten a little extreme here from the both of us. A lot of accusations have been thrown around by a lot of people, including myself, and perhaps a calm conversation would be the best thing for the both of us. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ClaudioSantos and eugenics

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

    It seems to me a close call as to whether WP:RESTRICT#ClaudioSantos applies here. Damn, the link doesn't quite work. Go to WP:RESTRICT and look him up. PhGustaf (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a thread about the his editing restrictions and whether or not they apply to Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and I think it was generally agreed upon that they weren't sufficiently connected. here Falcon8765 (TALK) 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After I was unblocked I have edited only 1 time at Planned Parenthood. Not even 1 sole revert. Is this a futil report abusing the ANI? Should it be noticed the fact that although Falcon was not blocked, he certainly did break the 1RR rule at Planned Parenthood during the same 24 hours for I got the block precisely for breaking the same 1RR rule? Is the ANI a place to extend or to start an edit war? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion is about you, not Falcon. And it's not about edit warring on AN/I. But I do note that your behavior on eugenics topics is much like that that got you banned from euthanasia topics. PhGustaf (talk)
    Anybody could face misperceptions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is abuse of ANI. ClaudioSantos has shown a thorough disregard for the spirit of cooperation and consensus that wikipedia is based upon. Despite all the help that others have offered him in the form of advice, warnings, compromises, he continues the same tendentious editing behavior. I'm not sure what my opinion is worth here but I recommend extending the topic ban temporarily to cover Eugenics, I think it would save everyone some trouble. I have to assume good faith so I'll just say that I've found his edits since coming back from the block quite disruptive. Metal lunchbox (talk) 09:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the issue of ClaudioSantos's euthanasia topic ban, certainly Planned Parenthood is unrelated, but Eugenics in the United States actually has a short section on Euthanasia programs. Maybe it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask ClaudioSantos to at least stop editing Eugenics in the United States based on his current euthanasia topic ban? I have found his edits there to be unhelpful. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I find the repeat reports of disruption disturbing, but as I noted before, we should not be stretching community sanctions every which way to cover other disruption. If the community wants to extend the sanction the community can write up a larger topic :ban and !vote on it.
    Claudio - I would like to urge you to consider if you're doing something wrong in how you are engaging here on Wikipedia. You seem to be walking down a path that eventually leads to exhausting the community's patience, and an overall ban. I think you should reflect on how you're working here and consider alternate approaches that don't push quite so many buttons.
    That said, I don't see anything I am going to action right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Claudio: I have not been involved with the Eugenics in the United States article, and ceased editing the Planned Parenthood article after being informed of the sanctions placed there. Several editors involved worked towards and gained a consensus on the PP article regarding the alleged eugenics link, despite tendentious editing by yourself. The problem is that after the expiry of your block, the same tendentious pattern of editing has continued on Eugenics in the United States, with the exact same subject matter that agreement was formed upon on Planned Parenthood (specifically this). There is a continued demonstrated effort upon your part to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way, despite mass consensus not to do so. The results of a RFC on the topic at Talk:Planned Parenthood had many non-involved editors plainly stating they thought linking the two was inappropriate.
    Going through the exact same arguments over sources that you put forth on Talk:Planned Parenthood to include your point of view on the matter is tendentious in the extreme. I, not sure how else to proceed, brought it here for cooler heads to review your behavior, lest I am misreading it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think re-interpreting the editing restrictions to include eugenics is slightly absurd, but it does seem appropriate that we should consider new community sanctions to also include eugenics topics.  - Metal lunchbox (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example let us consider the diff mentioned above. Falcon8765 is arguing about the content that he (dis)quilifies as tendentious and an attempt from my part "to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way". That could be a content dispute but it should not be resolved here in the ANI with an attempt to ban the opposite editor, or am I wrong?. Meanwhile the cited content was removed from Eugenics in the United States, arguing WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and I did NOT restore this content again. Nevertheless, last to mention that the alleged tendentious content is based on an article written by Margaret Sanger self. It was taken from this source (p.11) provided by Metallunchbox. The quoted expressions there used were exactly the same used by Sanger self. If Falcon finds that Sanger is connected to eugenics in a negative or a positive or a tendentious way, it is a Falcon's conclusion but it is nothing that I argued nor published; the very same diff provided by Falcon is an evidence. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neither involved in the dispute at Eugenics in the United States, nor will I become involved. I have not suggested you be banned either. The content itself isn't the main problem, as has been stated. Your behavior on Planned Parenthood exhausted the patience of the editors attempting to work with you, and after that has been resolved, you are trying to start a dispute over the same content on the eugenics article too. I don't think it unreasonable to find this behavior frustrating and inappropriate. If another editor besides yourself thinks I am in the wrong, I will be happy to drop this and let you continue your quest. Falcon8765 (TALK) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there is not a dispute at Eugenics in the United States. The article stands still. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with ClaudioSantos here, the articles are relatively stable now and while there was the beginnings of an edit war, he chose not to pursue it beyond a few reverts. It is likely that this discussion had some effect on his editing behavior. I suggest we give him a pass for now and all of us can consider this discussion to be a serious warning to him that continued tendentious editing on this topic will likely result in sanctions.  - Metal lunchbox (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that 9 of the 15 contributions that ClaudioSantos has made in this discussion have been revoked by Oversight. I assume these things happen for a good reason but is there something that we should know about those edits? Seems kind of strange to me. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Chesdovi and Palestinian edits

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

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

    Debresser has removed “Palestine” under an unusual pretence: [33]. Please fix as I do not want to get dragged in to this again. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps merge this with the section above...? Debresser (talk) 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I being reported on WP:ANI for 1 edit??? In addition, is there something in my explaining editsummary Chesdovi disagrees with? History has no POV, and my edit reflects historical facts.Debresser (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not retort by calling your edits ridiculous, but your edit that supposedly “reflects historical facts” has left a populous and significant city in no region or county. Forget about facts, that is vandalism. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism? There was no country added to Gaza in this article until you added it today, and nobody felt the worse for it for over 5 years! Please, be realistic when using terms like "vandalism". Debresser (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser thinks articles are in a perfect state and no is allowed to edit them, especially if edits do not agree with his sentiment. Debresser has no rationale to remove Palestine. This seems obvious. In the past, he himself said that if no other editor took it up, he would agree to it. Now look at what he is doing. Forget about reneging on his word, he is vandalising pages. Chesdovi (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Support That they are shooting at each other over there (=the territory before WW2 known as Palestina) is bad enough, I don't want that war over here. Night of the Big Wind talk 10:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Night of the Big Wind, we are not shooting at each other. Chesdovi is Jewish also, if I am correct. :) Debresser (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is would you would shoot a Palestinian rabbi? Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    causa sui (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Why would I be topic-banned? Chesdovi is the one creating 7-8 "Palestinian" categories (all deleted per Cfd), creating articles like "Palestinian rabbis" (now at Afd), and adding the term "Palestinian rabbis" to articles. Clearly he is trying to push his POV on a consensus status which does not agree with him. I am doing something very contructive, forcing him to abide by consensus. Now him I'd be happy to see banned for his disruptive editing. Debresser (talk) 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You dont "force" on wiki, you discuss. You should heave learnt that by now. If Deberser does not like my edits he should discuss first, not revert then discuss. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm concered, I will not edit is this area until the Afd closes. If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages. Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    <reply to previous post, editconflict> And WP:BRD? I remember discussing with you. In the mean time you continued with your edits on other pages. Sorry, but the only way to deal with you is take you to WP:ANI right away, or have you banned. In view of your history, here and elsewhere, the latter seems the correct course of action to me. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DRNC. This is different. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, I do not revert for the sake of reverting. There is a consensus against your edits. Haven't you noticed that yet? Debresser (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On what do you base this consensus? Half, if not more people agreed at the Rfc and Cfd that the term is valid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I quote from the closing comment

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

    QED. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I intend to go to DRV in due course. Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins, please notice Chesdovi's reply just now "If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages." He is clearly not willing to abide by WP:BRD, or consensus. No articles used the term "Palestinian rabbi" prior to Chesdovi's edits. Because nobody considers them such. Chesdovi just now stated that he will continue pushing his tendentious editing against consensus. Debresser (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article stays, it shows that the term has the consensus needed. Please note that Debrseer's assertion that no articles had used the term before my addtion is false. Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not show that you can call other people that. Just because we have an article homosexuals does not mean you can call people that. :) Debresser (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What it does mean is that if we have an article on a Polish Pope we can like it to Polish Popes. I will repeat that the term was used in numerous articles before I added it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the both of you: "where two are fighting, have two guilt." (waar twee vechten, hebben twee schuld). Night of the Big Wind talk 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NotBW: What is going to happen to Palestine at Israel ben Moses Najara? Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nightof the Big Wind. You can't sell generalities here. Nor could you sell them to Dutch marines of Rotterdam, trying to defend their country against Nazi invasion in 1940. I am clearly trying to defend Wikipedia against the massive onslaughts in several namespaces of an editor with such huge POV problems that he is already banned per WP:ARBPIA and his edits are heavily protested as soon as he shows up. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, there is the smokescreen again! Another attempt to defuse the situation by steering it into the wrong way... Night of the Big Wind talk 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Wasn't it you posting some rather irrelevant and annoying generality here? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a fact, my friend. You two are fighting over something, and neither of you is innocent. And I fail to see any relationship between this Palestina/Israel-struggle and the Battle of Rotterdam. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Forget about it. Not important here. If you like, remind me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Debresser had consistantly denied it has anything to do with the I/P conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm beginning to think your edits here and there stem from the same POV. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask Debresser to please make sense. He has consistently used each and every opportunity to publicise my previous block and bans. Yet he doesn’t seem to know what they were for! (They were seen by others as being POV in favour of pro-Israeli interests.) He cannot have it both ways. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough of this

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

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

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

    • Support 6 month TOPIC BAN and infinite INTERACTION BAN. Oh wait, was that not a motion? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot keep blaming us. The original Rfc was not closed. Whose fault is that? Chesdovi (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, ChrisCunningham, for you sense of humor. I like the idea of a ban against reporting on each other at ANI. Debresser (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the solution you propose. The problem is that Chesdovi continues to make these controversial edits. Even after the Cfd was closed with "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". Nor was the Rfc closed in his favor. It just expired. And frankly, so many people disagreed with him, that at best it would have been closed as "no consensus".
    I think Chesdovi is just refusing to admit that he can not garner consensus for his edits. I am not sure there is purpose in yet another attempt. But for sure not as long as he continues his controversial edits. So how to be about this in any practical way? Debresser (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As to BWilkins "motion". As I said before, I do not think it is correct to punish me with a topic-ban for fighting to maintain the present state of affairs against an onslaught of manifold non-consensus edits that are being heavily protested at all venues (Rfc, Cfd). Perhaps give me the Defender's Barnstar, that I would understand. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For me it is quite simple. If Palestinian rabbis is kept, that is a green light to add it to all Palestinian rabbi articles. Debresser talks of consensus, but there are only two votes for delete at Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said before. You can't just call people "homosexual" just because we have such an article. You'll need something better. I have brought you specific reasons in most of the editsummaries why this link is inappropriate. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Like BWilkins, I support a topic ban and interaction ban. Both of these editors are nice people, but they cannot seem to work together productively, particularly with respect to Palestine/the Land of Israel. I oppose a broader topic ban on articles related to Judaism. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I really am shocked that anybody would consider me for a topic-ban, when I am trying to defend consensus-editing here. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that your seeming addiction to getting baited into arguing with him makes it difficult to outsiders to distinguish between you. This is compounded by the number of times you've gone to ANI despite the result being the same (i.e. nothing) every single time. If you want to settle this without a topic ban, avoid engaging with Chesdovi directly entirely and instead engage with other editors either through the WikiProjects or RfC. I personally agree with what I've seen of your position on the content disputes but that's no excuse for the ridiculou drama generated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad that you seem to understand where I am coming from. I feel bullied by WP:ANI trying to punish me for defending the system from attacks by a disruptive editor. This is the opposite of the welcome I think I receive. Things might have developed different if WP:ANI would have shown some basic insight from the beginning, when the problem first arose. Something like "if a guy comes up with something new and people don't like it, perhaps we should not let him go on with it until he can show consensus". It surprised me that nobody came up with this simple though rather brilliant idea. Excuse the sarcasm, but I really was surprised when that happened.
    In addition, I want to post a question. Since when is "creating drama on WP:ANI" sufficient reason for a topic-ban or block? If admins here see no reason to take action, they should just close a thread or refer it elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI is not a dispute resolution mechanism. This applies the first time you take something to ANI and the 99th time you take it to ANI. Continuing to take things which ANI cannot or will not deal with to ANI, or exacerbating the same by constantly replying to them, disrupts the project and makes admins look for the simplest root cause, which in this case is a content dispute between you and Chesdovi. The simplest solution (which is typically the first one that comes to mind) is to simply eliminate that interaction. When it comes to that point, the onus is on you to explain why that isn't optimal. It has most certainly come to that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I come here to make sure Chesdovi stops. Because he will not listen to anything else. And he does stop when I post here. There is another solution, which is a topic-ban for Chesdovi, even only for article namespace. That would eliminate the whole problem at its source. Because the source of the problem is Chesdovi. Any "simplest solution" need not involve me. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, Chris Cunningham, when you said "roughly the dozenth occasion", you were exaggerating by a factor of 2. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My experience with both of these two is that if you touch anything they are discussing with a 10-foot pole whichever you disagree with will go on a full-scale attack claiming you are an uniformed person and so on. They spend son much time going after eachother that few other people want to join in the general fight. That is why issues they bring up do not get resolved, they scare off the other editors who do not want to get nasty statements on their talk pages. I would say that they both could do a lot better at assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some compromise can be worked out. Likewise on the Afd of Palestinian rabbis there have been similar proposals. The problem as I see it, is that Chesdovi keeps trying to come at it every now and again from a new angle, and the whole thing starts anew. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic and interaction bans per Bwilkins. They should still be allowed to file WP:AE reports against each other if they wish, because the format there is much less prone to drowning independent admins in endless discussion between the parties, and calling something as being from Israel vs. being from Palestine amply qualifies as a valid topic area at AE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it’s unfortunate that people support bans over a content dispute. I do not understand why either of us should be penalised here:
    FACT 1: There were originally numerous pages with the term “Palestinian Rabbi”
    FACT 2: I added the term to more pages, basing it o n the fact that the current majority at the Afd support the term’s usage.
    Debreser reports me for doing so, and I report that Debresser removed the word Palestine, and people want us blocked for that? I call that stifling editing because people can’t be bothered to sort out sticky subjects and prefer to just brush it under the carpet…. Is that the wiki way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Anybody care to look at what Chesdovi is doing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism? Just look at the questions he is asking. And see the easy and obvious answers to them. And please tell me after that that he is not a tendentious and disruptive editor who in all likelihood had best be topic-banned. Debresser (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop stirring the pot Debresser. I want answers, not having to be bullied into accepting what you feel is correct. If you stifle discussion as you have on so many occasions, we will not get anywhere. You answers so far are absolutely unsubstantiated. I would prefer if other users would kindly take up a more credible discussion with me to resolve this. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I hope people look at what both of you have done at WT:JUDAISM. Another good reason for an interaction ban and a topic ban. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Malik, if I took the wrong course of action, please advise how I should go about this instead of recommending bans which will not resolve anything. This will not just sort itself out. Do you think Dwellers suggestion of Mediation is good? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over contents of DSM

    Bittergrey (talk · contribs) is insisting on citing the DSM on several two (paraphilic infantilism and list of paraphilias) despite being irrelevant but for a single minor qualification (infantilism appears as a behaviour of masochists, not as a separate diagnosis). This consensus is clearly stated at the RSN (see [34] and [35] by FiachraByrne (talk · contribs), [36] by James Cantor (talk · contribs), [37] by FuFoFuEd (talk · contribs). Despite this, he has been edit warring across all these pages to re-insert it ([38], [39], . It's quite frustrating and appears to have no chance of stopping. Some admin assistance would be appreciated - though 3RR has not been hit, it's also not going to stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WLU has, to date, taken this dispute to not two but three articles. At location one, paraphilic infantilism, WLU gamed 3RR ([40][41][42][43] - 28 hours) to avoid waiting for a third opinion that I requested. He modified that request to assert that this conflict was a just a formatting issue. The third opinion request preceeded WLU's RSN request. At location two, list of paraphilias, I started a discussion[44]. At location three, diaper fetish, I decided to let WLU show what he would do if I didn't hold him in check. I think the deleted text "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilia" was reasonably well-supported by section "302.81 Fetishism" in the DSM (pgs 569-570 in 4TR).[45]. The RSN debate was only about 302.83, a separate section.
    This is WLU's second attempt to remove details (specific page numbers) from the first article[46]. In the first, he didn't question the DSM's quality as a source. Notably, the only "edit war" WLU succeeded in picking there and then was with a bot.[47]
    Admittedly, my comments then about his motivations were not in keeping with good faith. However, it should be noted that now both times, the urgency of WLU's edits directly followed debates with another specific editor and involving James Cantor. The timing of the current urgency support those comments as best could be imagined.
    As for RSN, FiachraByrne had already became involved in an offshoot of the second such debate. FuFoFuEd might actually have been neutral, and unaware of how heavily votestacked the RSN conversation was. BitterGrey (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Dealt with what I could from an Administrators point of view. Two pages protected, going to warn both users about edit warring, and they can take it to WP:DR. -- DQ (t) (e) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Protecting the page doesn't deal with the central issue - consensus was clearly that the DSM does not verify the text it was attached to in any of the pages it was used.
    I will happily take any suggestions on how to resolve this; the central issues that a source is being mis-used across multiple pages and edit-warred to keep it in place. What should I do? Protecting the page doesn't resolve this, and the last time the page was protected, it was protected with the DSM still being inappropriately cited for three days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WLU should consider constructively joining the discussions that followed from the third opinion request, at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism. He's now at 3RR at a second[48][49][50] of the of the three locations.
    Of course, he and I differ about what the central issue is: He was at 3RR in the first location BEFORE questioning DSM as a source. Those edits were to all obscure page references[51][52][53]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Initially my edits were to collapse references to DSM pages from three different page ranges (568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single citation to the entire chapter (pages 535-582 [54]). The dispute became so pointless and acrimonious that I simply edited elsewhere for 4 months. My next edit along these lines again compacted the references to the DSM to a single one with the <ref name = > tags, covering a six page range (568-73) since Bittergrey thought citing the entire chapter was excessive [55]. I also did some citegnoming involving the {{sfn}} template and {{cite pmid}}. Later I actually read the pages of the DSM cited, and found they did not verify the text they accompanied (discussed here). Accordingly, I spent several edits removing the references [56]. My interpretation was subsequently supported with a clear consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (see my initial ANI post, or the entire RSN section [57]). Since the DSM was used inappropriately in two further pages, I removed and adjusted on those pages as well - diaper fetishism and list of paraphilias.
    The DSM clearly does not support the text it accompanied. It was clearly misused on three pages. My actions are clearly in line with WP:Verifiability. I hope someone will take the five minutes to look into the diffs and the DSM itself ([58]) to resolve this or direct us to a more appropriate venue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course, when the discussion at RS/N didn't produce the result wanted by BitterGrey, he found another venue for it. I think WP:DR should be renamed to WP:CIRCULAR. I'm curious if among all venues tried is there one editor that agrees with BitterGrey on this (besides himself). FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My request for a third opinion was made at 15:12, 10 August 2011, BEFORE WLU's RSN request at 11:19, 11 August 2011. (I chose WP:3O because WLU had expressed a preference for it at the time[59].) However I have to agree with FuFoFuEd that forumshopping did occur. We merely disagree about who was doing it. I had previously respected FuFoFuEd for not claiming to know everything, and was optimistic about his potential neutrality. Well, I _was_. BitterGrey (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the RSN and 3O requests are, as I have said, totally separate issues, the timing is irrelevant. The 3O request was not about whether the DSM was appropriately cited. Once it became clear that the DSM was being misused, the sole issue the 3O had to resolve was the use of {{sfn}}. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From the WP:30 request:"...there is an editor seeking to reduce the specificity of the citations(eg. [60]). DSM is dry reading and it seems worthwhile to point people to the relevant page(s) instead of making them wade through the whole section..." Seems quite clearly to have been about the DSM citations. BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I thought we were making some progress at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Anyway, same problem as reported for Paraphilic infantilism and the use of the DSM exists for Diaper fetishism. That is that the source does not support the content at present. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on FiachraByrne's comment, I'd like to point out that I have let WLU make whatever edits he wishes to Diaper fetishism, and he has[61]. Last I checked, the previous DSM citation to pages relevant to fetishism and general points regarding the paraphilias was replaced with a citation to just the one page defining infantilism, as a subcategory of masochism. According to the DSM, masochism and fetishism are separate paraphilias. Again, the present version FiachraByrne wrote about is WLU's version. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard to the DSM, that page looks fine now. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify this [62] is the version of the article Diaper fetishism where the DSM was mis-attributed. As Bittergrey suggests, WLU fixed those citations. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to me what just happened? Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, the page went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now", but there were no edits to the page[63]. To keep FiachraByrne from putting words in my mouth, I assert that the citations were correct BEFORE they were modified by WLU, and now are not correct. Why shouldn't a fetishism article cite the fetishism section? It did before and now does not.
    I agree with the 'contradict' tag that FuFoFuEd has added to the "fine now" page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As Bittergrey knows, I raised the issue of the use of the DSM in the Diaper Fetishism article at the RSN for this article at 1:44 pm on the 14 August [64]. At that point, as recorded in the foregoing diff, Bittergrey replied that it would be better to deal with one article at a time and nobody else responded to the issue. In fact, WLU had already begun to remove improper use of the DSM in that article four minutes before I posted my original concerns [65]. Above Bittergrey states that he "allowed" WLU to make those edits so he was, I presume, aware that at the time I posted my original concerns WLU was in fact already removing improper use of the DSM from that article. Either editor could have informed me of this but it was my responsibility to check the article. Then when I was notified by WLU at midday on the 15 August of the ANI here I didn't really want to get involved. So I was pleased to note some hours later that this process had apparently been resolved and I went back to, among other things, trying to establish a workable consensus that respected the sources at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Returning here for a look early this morning I saw that things were not in fact resolved so I posted at 5.36 am 16 August my concerns about the use of the DSM on the Diaper Fetishism page. As we've established, WLU had in fact already resolved any problem with the use of the DSM on that page, at least from my perspective, and I was in error to have presumed that the page had remained unchanged from the last time I had looked at it (which would have been some time just before 14:38 on the 14 August). As soon as I realised that the page was in fact rectified I posted that information here, but I guess other editors were already aware of that. As to putting words into Bittergrey's mouth I'm not aware of any occasion where I've done this. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to Bittergrey's contention "that the citations" in the Diaper Fetishism article "were correct BEFORE they were modifed by WLU, and now are not correct" ....(I'm afraid I've also had to post this on the RSN page) ...
    Just to clarify, here we can see the Diaper fetishism page prior to WLU’s edits. The DSM IV-TR was then used to support the following statements in that article:
    1. Diaper fetishism, "Nappy fetishism" or Diaperism, is a paraphilia in which a person feels a desire to wear or use diapers. This is normally not due to any medical need whatsoever
    The DSM does not mention Diaper fetishism although it does of course discuss fetishism. It is undoubtedly supportable that Diaper fetishism is a fetish and a paraphilia but the DSM IV-TR does not provide that support. Nor does the DSM describe diaper fetishism in any way or state that the wearing of diapers in such an instance does not stem from medical need.
    2. Diaper or nappy fetishism is differentiated from paraphilic infantilism (sometimes simply called infantilism) in that those who engage in infantilism and fantasize about being regressed to an infant or small child state (a form of role-playing) do not involve in sexual activity as such. While in a (temporarily and intentionally induced) state of regression, this fulfils an emotional need that may result from very early childhood experiences. Pure diaper fetishism, on the other hand, refers strictly to the practice of wearing diapers for emotional or sexual gratification, although there is a spectrum of practice between the two. The popular term for a diaper or nappy fetishists is diaper lover, or simply DL. Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias
    The only source for this series of statements was the DSM IV-TR. The DSM IV-TR does not mention diaper fetishism. It does not distinguish it from paraphilic infantilism. It does not discuss infantilism in terms of regression or state that it does not involve sexual activity as such. It does not say that this temporary state of regression fulfils an emotional need or that this emotional need is derived from an experience in early childhood. It does not define diaper fetishism. It does not state that there is a spectrum of practices between infantilism and diaper fetishism. It does not mention Diaper Lover. It does not state that diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism (a tautology in any case) or identify it as a paraphilia. To a greater or lesser degree, other sources would have supported most of these statements. Then, perhaps, reference to the DSM may have been appropriate if one was to make a general statement about fetishism. But the way this text is constructed one would presume that the DSM recognised diaper fetishism as a specific paraphilia and engaged in a long discourse about it. Thus, the use of this source was misleading.
    3. Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children.
    It is true that the DSM IV-TR does not seek to link fetishism to paedophilia but that is different to the statement above.
    4. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism.
    As above, the DSM IV-TR does not support this contention. Other sources may although there are a small number of cases of co-occurrence. Another source, Malitz, was cited in support of this statement, however.
    5. Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention.
    The DSM IV-TR does not use the phrase ‘diaper-related paraphilias’ or any approximation of this and it does not discuss a differing focus of attention amongst those with the diaper-related paraphilias.
    6. Some are aroused from "wetting" (Urination) their diapers, or, to a lesser extent,
    There is no such statement in the DSM IV-TR. It could be supported by other sources.
    7 Some do not use the diapers at all, for arousal, or bladder and bowel movements.
    This statement was supported by another source (Malitz) but the DSM IV-TR makes no such statement. The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR. Urophilia and coprophilia are listed in the DSM IV-TR as examples of 302.9 Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified, but not in such a way as to support the above statements.
    FiachraByrne (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Minor point - the DSM does mention diapers on page 572, within the context of sexual masochism - "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." As far as I can tell that is the sole mention of both infantilism and diapers. Other sources do identify infantilism as something associated with masochism but as discussed above and elsewhere, the DSM does not. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My bad. Thanks for checking. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably won't have time to address all of FiachraByrne's claims, but will touch on a few to show that they are as throughly unchecked as her previous claim about the article[66], which disappeared suddenly after it became clear that she could not blame it on me. It reminds me of WLU's accusation "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[67] This ended when I pointed out that the ref to the DSM at list of paraphilias was added in 2008 by someone who was now arguing against the DSM[68]. It is great to be addressing this issue in a forum that won't be so easily votestacked or swayed by spammy shouting.
    "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias."
    • Sexual fetishism is specified because fetishism refers to religious or magical artifacts.
    • pg 569-570 (302.81 Fetishism) A list of items "among the more common" fetish items is given. The only exclusions listed are female clothing (in the case of cross-dressing) and masturbatory aids such as vibrators.
    • pg 566 (Paraphilias) "Paraphilias include...Exhibitionism (...), Fetishism (use of nonliving objects), ...
    Thus, with few exceptions a <whatever odd item> fetish is a sexual fetish, and (sexual) fetishism is a paraphilia.
    "Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention."
    • pg 569 (in the section differential diagnosis) "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on the characteristic paraphilic focus."
    • pg 569 (302.81 Fetishism) "The focus in Fetishism involves use of nonliving objects (the "fetish")."
    • pg 572 (302.83 Masochism) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and cloted in diapers ("infantilism").
    • It seems relatively clear that diaper fetishism and infantilism are diaper-related, and per the DSM, they do differ in their focus. Also per the DSM, they are both paraphilias.
    "Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism."
    • Pgs 568-569 define fetishism, 302.81. Pgs 571-572 define pedophilia, 302.2. They are separate paraphilias. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but this text being supported doesn't say that.
    "Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children."
    The symptoms for fetishism are detailed on page 568 of DSM 4TR. A sexual preference for children is clearly not among them.
    By the way, if anyone still thinks this is about the DSM, they should note that all the pages that were relevant to fetishism or paraphilias in general have been removed from the diaper fetish article by WLU. It now only cites the page 572, on masochism. Within the confines of AGF, this doesn't make any sense.BitterGrey (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    I'll skip the rest of the details, and get to the main point: We have a set of people trying to push their views on the DSM, without even having done a careful reading of it.
    • "I've read them all [pg 572 and other pages of the DSM], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." WLU[69] after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations en masse to make them harder to check.
    • "The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne[70], in grandiose but flawed presentation posted to both ANI and RSN, and after seven thousand words of discussion at RSN about the paraphilic infantilism definition on page 572.
    • DSM 4TR pg 572 (302.83 Masochism, in the Paraphilias section) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism").
    One of the things that makes the DSM a great reference is that it is in most libraries. You don't have to depend on what people like this say - you can check it for yourself. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help need for a page

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

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

    This Corporation is just a front for a scam

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

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

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

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



    User:Who R you? tagged the page this morning as A7, and commented in the talk page that it was his opinion that this was a scam, and referenced a non-RS source as proof ( www.scam.com ). Although I have no ties to this company, it appears to me they are a multi-level marketing company operating legally within the rules of Federal and State rules regarding MLMs. I'm concerned about this page being marked as scam and thus deleted uncontested. This page should have been marked {{Primary sources}} and not {{notability}}. After I created the page, I was hoping some other editors would jump in to continue to add RS content. A brief search on Google News turns up a handful of RS sources, and Direct Selling News (an RS trade journal magazine on direct selling industry) has run several articles before on this company. This article falls within WikiProject Companies  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 12:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Who R you? (talk · contribs) has been notified of the discussion. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. May want to review that user's recent contributions - especially with his WP:PA to an admin for deleting a category he created here. This appears to be a new WP editor that may not understand how to use deletion tags properly.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the edit warring over that speedy tag -- {{db-t3}} has been explicitly tagged for 3.5 years as allowing the page creator to remove the notice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     ┌────────┘
    As indicated, I tagged the article with {{db-inc}} and then I included reference on the talk page to db-spam and db-promo.  I came across this WP article on the company through non-Wikipedia related articles about the company's CEO Ryan Blair, his promotion of his new book, and info about his company being a multi-level marketing scam.  Googleing his name I came across the deleted in 2008 Wikipedia article about Ryan Blair and then came across the active article about the company; that article basically just promoting/advertising the company as a normal business.  In any case the company didn't, IMO, meet any of the requirements of notability; so, after checking the various WP pages, I tagged it with the db-inc and included in the talk page that it appears to be a part of an MLM scam.

    If memory serves there were 5 sources on the article, all of which were publications of the company or its principals, and a 'references needed' or 'not notable' or similar template had been put on the article by someone else dating back to, I think, January.  I looked to see who had been editing the page, I believe it was Leef5 and a few IPs, I subst'd the appropriate notice on Leef5's page and added a message saying: "No offence, but I don't think this article is really the kind of company that Wikipedia wants to advertise for; particularly since WP doesn't do advertising.  I'll leave it to you to tell me if you strongly disagree" and figuring that if he thought it was unreasonable we'd discuss.

    I just saw this message now along with Leef5's response on his talk page and the notice on mine about this discussion.  In looking at the article I didn't see anything remotely noteworthy about the company; it appeared more like an advertisement to try to back up the company's credibility.  So, in addition to tagging it for deletion for being not notable, I added the comments on the talk page in case either Leef5 or anyone else wanted to discuss whether the article should just be kept around and expanded with better references, something which might have made sense if it was a more legit company; although I still don't know how it could have been said that there is anything notable about the company.

    IMO, to truly provide a NPOV article and provide both points of view on this guy/company, would mean pointing out some very negative things about him and repeating statements similar to those linked above from scam.com, which would open WP up to accusations of libel so the most logical thing seemed to me to be to nominate it for deletion.  If I am to take it from some of the previous comments that you would have preferred that I nominate it in another manner, please point me in the right direction.  Thx — Who R you? (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is/was an article about a company, not about a person. I took great effort to make sure the article did not have puffery and was as neutral as possible. The correct action would have been to discuss the issues first, especially since this was on the grounds that it wasn't notable. (See WP:BEFORE, particularly point #4). If you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us. MLM models typically have a lot of criticism, but they are legal. A simple Google News search on Visalus turns up enough RS sources to establish notability. If it didn't, I wouldn't have created the article in the first place.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly hope you didn't take me to be implying that the guy running this scam isn't, in fact, an extremely skilled and effective con-man who's very good at sucking people in.  If you thought that I was saying he wasn't really good at it, I apologise for the confusion.
    As for the WP:Before, thanks; that's the first time I've seen any mention of anything other than speedy deletion.  I'll be sure to try to take that entire group of pages into account should I, in future, come across anything else I think should be deleted.  And my sincere apologies for my having mistakenly used the Speedy process when I should have done otherwise; I can certainly understand how that would come across as a real negative thing; sorry about that.
    As for your MLMs are legal, I'm not trying to be condescending but, I'd suggest that you read section 5 of multi-level marketing; I think it'd be more accurate to say that MLMs can be legal.  I believe you might be making a common erroneous assumption that they automatically are.  And I'm betting that you haven't undertaken the long list of precautions identified there by the FTC.  I personally have no interest in investigating Visalus' commission structure and reviewing the legalities of their contract terms; but I'd be mildly curious to know what you find out from doing such an investigation; that might even make for a good article, except that I guess it'd qualify as OR.
    I assume good faith in your creation of the article; but, with regards to your comment of: "[i]f you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us", I can only point to 6 BBB complaints (5 Resolved) and the aforementioned scam.com postings at this point, I fully acknowledge Mr. Blair's efficiency at manipulating web search results to ensure that every title that claims to be a complaint (or at least the 10 or so I could be bothered to check), redirects to another advertising page of one of his dealers *cough* suckers *cough* or to some blog that I consider equally unreliable (but then I am the untrusting type); why don't you check and tell me if the 168,000 hits that Google returns for "Visalus scam" are all equally redeeming.
    With regards to Visalus' notability, there certainly are between 835,000 and 997,000 Google hits (depending on when I hit the search button) for Visalus; I've seen visalus.com, visalusscience.com, visalusshakes.com, visalusreview.com, visalusproducts.com, visalusshop.com, myvitools.com, visalusbodybyvishakes.com, visalusquebec.com, visalus-canada.com, visaluscompetition.com, visalussciencesscam.com (by the way, when was the last time you saw a WalMartScam.com site, or a McDonaldsScam.com, or a NutribarScam.com, or a WorldComScam.com or SubPrimeMortgageScam.com for that matter), visalusbodybyvireviews.com, and that's the first 5 of apparently 56-odd pages; not quite sure how that equates to 835,000 hits, but that's unimportant.  Since you're creating this article claiming the company is (at least in some way) notable (I find almost a million hits of self−promotion), please identify an RS's presentation of this company as notable; I haven't found any such source, and I've looked far more than I ever cared to.
    And on a second review of your response just before hitting Save, I see that your search was of Google News.  So, which of the 16 matches is it that you think makes the company notable? Is it the Forbes (Blog), the Midland Daily News, the Forth Worth Star Telegraph, the SmallTownPapers News Service, the South Coast Today story about ViSalus Sciences’ partnership with Hulk Hogan and pro-wrestling, the DailyBusiness.ro (I’m guessing that’s either Spanish or Italian), or one of the others that you deem to be a Reliable Source?  I’m actually not trying to be a prick (I’m really good at that when I’m trying), I simply recognize and have dealt with this kind of guy before; a few thousand dollars will get your name in a whole bunch of newspapers, I’ve (unwillingly) had my 15 seconds of fame in one such PR purchased prime-time tv news spot (the moral of the story is don't believe everything you see on television or read in the newspapers); but I’m not seeing anything legitimate about this guy, just skilled media manipulation by a photogenic con-artist.  And I don’t believe Wikipedia should provide any appearance of respectability for him or his company which are, IMO, equally interchangeable scheming persons as the law would call them both.
    By the way, regarding the guy that you listed in the article that invested all that money and was buying all that stock, were you able to find out if he is in fact Ryan Blair's multi−millionaire step−father who started him out in, and financed all of his, business ventures?  That was what the non−RSs that I was finding (who were citing an Amazon.com nobody's paraphrasing of his new book) were saying about him, but I don't know step−dad's name to be able to confirm.  Might be another POV to keep things neutral should you restore/recreate the article.  — Who R you? (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The "guy" you are referencing is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange, Blyth, Inc.. I think the issue here is you may not be aware of what a RS is and is not. Just googling for a company name and finding one with the word 'scam' in the URL is not a RS that the company in illegitimate. Google news is better at identifying RS, but we must still look at each source and identify if it passes WP:RS and WP:V. I may suggest, we move the bulk of this discussion over to WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. I don't see this being an AN/I issue.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     ┌────────┘
    The "guy" I was referring to was whom ever was on a page that I had looked at 12 hours earlier and which, as a non-administrator, I was unable to look at again.  So is Blyth the multi-millionaire who married Ryan's mommy and financed his businesses?  You'll remember I did mention about a guy who had money and set Ryan up in business; is that Blyth?  As to the url, my thought is that most companies don't pay to register their domain names with scam added on to them and then set up web pages to catch those searches; but if you're under a different impression, by all means show me some other examples.

    I'm still wondering about an RS that says this company is in any way notable.  And as to whether a page comes up under Google Everything or News, I consider that irrelevant, the question is what does the page say when you open it up, who wrote it, what's the context, is it an ad in the New York Times, or a well researched, cited, and documented story from Little Billy's neighbourhood newspaper; the reality simply being that neither I, nor I doubt you or anyone else, is about to read thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of pages returned in a typical Google Everything search.  Personally I was using Template:Blekko as a search engine for the exact same reason, search refinement, ignoring datafarms, spam, etc, and returned only those hits that were relevant, but without the privacy concerns of Google and Yahoo/Bing.  But, regardless of search engine, the count of hit returns is only somewhat indicitive of volumes in some cases, the issue is what's in the articles returned.  Of the 16 hits for this company under Google News (excluding the Texas paper identified below and the Italian/Spanish one, unless you've translated it), do any of them indicate this company is notable?  Or were you figuring that I was going to read them and try and find some proof for you that this company might be able to be considered notable?  Not likely.

    And, it certainly wouldn't qualify as an RS, it would never make it into the article mainspace, and it's only barely relevant here; but FYI, what follows are the contents of this Amazon.com book review mentioned earlier (I also noticed after saving that the Google News article for the Forth Worth Star Telegram, previously identified, is a presumably paid ad for this book):

    Copy/pasted content from Amazon.com removed due to copyright - User:Hersfold 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Copied here both for ease of reference and because I'm not to sure how long it might/might not last on Amazon.  Similar to the at best marginal relevance that this book review might have in relation to an article on the company, I simply mention in passing (given my belief that the truth always has some relevance), the blog where I heard about this guy/company/book, had (as best as I can tell from the immediate 7 thumbs up after each positive posting and 8 thumbs down for each negative post), a team of 8 sockpuppets making buy this book posts to the blog over the last two days; I took offence and subsequently found the Wikipedia article at issue here.

    As far as I'm concerned, feel free to come up with some indication that this company was/is notable and the admins reading this can undelete the article and give me shit for using the wrong method of deletion; problem solved.  I've explained my POV, probably about as thoroughly as I care to, you obviously want to have this article restored, so find some RS that says it's notable and that can happen.  — Who R you? (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you seriously just paste a large block of copyrighted text to the incidents noticeboard? Please do NOT do that again... Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I reposted a copy of a statement by an Amazon.com user who posted their statement in a public forum, for intentional public consumption, and without indication of copyright or restriction.  I reposted said statements for non−commercial use in a relatively private area where I have a reasonable expectation that the public, as a whole, will never see them.  And while Amazon does maintain a right, under the "REVIEWS, COMMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS, AND OTHER CONTENT" section of terms of their "Conditions of Use" contract, to distribute (et al.) the information (such as book reviews) contributed by users, they maintain no authority to limit the original submitter's authorization of use or rights of publication, any more that WP would have the right to limit redistribution of my submissions beyond the restrictions of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license I submitted them under.  Further, Amazon's terms under the "LICENSE AND SITE ACCESS" section restrict reproduction and duplication only "for any commercial purpose"; to my knowledge, an internal discussion here does not qualify as a commercial purpose.  But thank you for your concern and, regardless of whether or not I am within my rights to reproduce that public domain information here, which I will gladly argue the right of as you may deem necessary, I also have no wish to ruffle any feathers and I won't even entertain the idea of posting the information again; no doubt anyone who wishes can search the Amazon book ordering and reviews page and read the reviews to find the August 9, 2011 contribution of "bob−o".  — Who R you? (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    "Blyth" is the name of the company, not a person. Again, conversation about notability needs to be done over at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. Notability is not an AN/I issue.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 12:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, then I will now proceed to that area to continue this discussion; I assume before checking that a section already exists for this article where I will look for your identification of an RS.  I obviously missed the earlier reference which I now see appears pointing to that area.  As to "Blyth", please feel free to read all past comments as "Blyth (principal of)" if that makes it any clearer for you.  Meanwhile, I suppose I will check back here again at another time to see if anyone other that you has any further comments; I am assuming, Leef5, that yours and my further communications will continue as appropriate on the page you have identified.  — Who R you? (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong and rollback

    As a part of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ryulong#Ryulong_and_IRC, it states "Should Ryulong be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action on IRC against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to ANI or the Arbitration Enforcement page." Within the past 24 hours, he came on IRC twice asking for people to look an a dispute regarding MOS and an Infobox. Lately, he has come on IRC and asked for other people to step into his disputes, including once about a kind of flag to be used in an article on a game show article. I have warned the user saying is pushing the limits of not only myself, the other admins on IRC, but the boundaries of his ArbCom sanctions. I was replied to like this. Normally, rollback is seen as OK in userpages, but with it being a notice of ArbCom enforcement, I found it very inappropriate. Thoughts? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking for outside input in minor disputes from anyone on IRC, admin or not, is not within the scope of my arbcom limitations. I am not allowed to ask someone to perform an administrative act against someone with whom I am in a content dispute. Also, WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback states "Rollback may be used...To revert edits in your own user space". I was exercising that right, regardless of the content of the message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That warning on their talk page, that's more a shot across the bow than a real warning--it's not very specific. If your sketch of what Ryulong was asking for is accurate (and barely knowing what IRC is I have no other recourse), then they did not fall foul of their restrictions. Asking someone to look into something, though it can certainly be an invitation, is hardly the same as asking for some specific action. As for the rollback, mwuah. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and it's not an ArbCom notification that they rolled back--it's a message from you containing reference to an ArbCom restriction. How about this: Ryulong, please consider not using rollback in such circumstances, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine... And use masculine pronouns to refer to me.Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be similar to what I brought up earlier on ANI about use of rollback. A picture is really starting to be drawn here that is demonstrating that Ryulong either does not know how to use rollback properly, or is unwilling to use it properly. I would recommend removing rollbacker access from his account. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't his desysopping specifically mentioned his use of rollback? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Premature RM closure of Crepe

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


    It seems to me that a discussion that is so active that it received over 25 edits today alone is way too active to close. I reversed the closure and requested that the page move be undone, at least until the discussion settles down, but that was reverted (along with removing a post-move comment).

    I hereby request an uninvolved admin to reopen the discussion and reverse the premature move accordingly.

    • Talk page history showing how busy the discussion is: [71].
    • Closing of discussion: [72]
    • Revert of closing: [73]
    • Post-move comment [74]
    • Re-close of discussion and removal of post-move comment: [75] (also a personal attack, referring to "sore losers").
    Discussion closed prematurely tend to be followed by another proposed move... This is already the second such proposal discussion within one or two months - obviously there is more to talk about before consensus is truly established. Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted the following response to Born2cycle at the talkpage of the closing admin; it is relevant here also:

    Born2cycle, if you are concerned about some anomaly in the closure of this RM, why were you not concerned about the closure of the first RM, which was based in large part on manifestly flawed evidence from you? Why have you said nothing in answer to my painstaking refutations of that false evidence, absenting yourself from the present RM for the last five days or so? Why do you feel free to inconvenience so many of us so much, over such a tiny issue as a hat on a pancake? Please adopt a more mature and less disruptive attitude. Through your unanswerable carelessness, you have been the immediate cause of my losing a day's full-time real-life work, while you stayed silently away. Don't do that!
    The closure of the present RM was a straightforward matter to be achieved expeditiously, once that faulty evidence was exposed. Please leave a good outcome alone.

    I suggest that this disruptive affair is better left behind us, and that all involved now move on. And learn some lessons from it (especially about how to do real Google searches).
    NoeticaTea? 08:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed that discussion because the evidence was overwhelming, and nothing new was being said. Born2cycle said I was "not uninvolved", but the only comment I had made in the discussion was basically "this is an interesting discussion, because of the issues involved," when I was relisting it a week ago. I don't care one way or another what the title of the article is, but like I said, the evidence was overwhelming, and nobody opposing the move was actually presenting anything new. I was even wrong about how interesting the issues were, because as it turns out, both COMMONNAME and ENGVAR point to the same conclusion: that the name for those thin pancakes is spelled in most reliable sources with a circumflex.

    I don't see how letting it run for another week would make any difference, but if the community feels that the discussion should continue, I won't revert or have anything further to do with it. It is, I think, worth noting that the editor who reverted my close had been involved, but had basically dropped out of the discussion upon thorough refutation of his evidence. The discussion is educational to read, indeed, but I believe that it had moved past the point of diminishing returns, and into deceased equine territory. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Amendment: What I said is not entirely fair. Born2cycle did not "drop out upon thorough refutation of his evidence"; he had simply been largely away from Wikipedia for the last week. I admit, I had kind of wondered what happened to him, and I'm glad he's okay. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think the details of the pro/con arguments are irrelevant here. All that should be relevant here are facts pertaining to the process. My main point is that the discussion was obviously ongoing and extremely active when it was abruptly closed. Maybe it was a dead horse situation - I don't know, because I didn't get a chance to read it and evaluate it before it was closed.

    My other point about the closing admin being involved is that he expressed a strong opinion about there being an ENGVAR problem on the page about a week ago[76], and then closed it a few days later saying he was convinced by Noetica's common name argument.

    If you look at the history you'll see that there were lulls in the discussion. For example, only 3 edits on August 9th, and none on August 10th. Yesterday, the day the discussion was closed, there were over 35. The evidence that the closing admin found to be so compelling was only presented a couple of days ago (based on that being the first time Noetica - the one who presented it - edited the talk page - I still haven't read it).

    How can we say that the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages when we close discussions before all major participants have even read, much less responded to, the latest salient points? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Born2cycle, exaggeration is almost never helpful. "he expressed a strong opinion about there being an ENGVAR problem on the page," is absolutely false, and I don't enjoy being misrepresented. What I said was, "This is an interesting case, because we're feeling out the boundary between WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME, or at least that's what I think we're seeing here." If that's a "strong opinion" about "an ENGVAR problem", then I'm a monkey's uncle.

    I'll thank you not to do that in the future. Exaggeration is almost never helpful; don't you agree? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that "crepe never should have dropped the circumflex" is an expression of a strong opinion. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote out of context, much? Let's have the full sentence, "Per that decision, crepe never should have dropped the circumflex, at least as I understand the issue." According to my understanding that it was an ENGVAR issue, which I "thought" it was, then the ENGVAR guideline would oppose the dropping of the circumflex. I didn't say I was certain that it was an ENGVAR issue, and I never said that I was fully in support of the ENGVAR guideline. I think it's a compromise that has worked pretty well, but if something else is better supported by the community, I'm all for it. Please include context when you quote me in the future, Born2cycle. It will avoid a lot of misunderstandings. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to discuss premature closure, the real problem was the first move that this one undid. It was based on horribly flawed evidence and a strange close rational for an evenly divided opinion; even the guy who closed it admitted as much. Everyone else who had a chance to look at the evidence pretty much agreed, it appears, so that was indeed a dead horse (Kauffner remained obstinate, even after admitting that the usage is about equal, however – of the last day comments, he was the only one in opposition to moving it back, for reasons never articulated after his counts of online hits were thoroughly discredited by looking at them). At least we're back to a good starting point, if someone wants to try again to claim that for some reason the article should be moved to the diacritical-free title. I recommend that Born2cycle read the evidence before makeing more noise about this; his flawed counts were a big reason it went as wrong as it did and took so much work to undo. Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A Wiki editor counting up cooking book titles on Google Books vs. a bunch of fuddy-duddy dictionaries and encyclopedias? It was never any contest. Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, Britannica etc, etc., who would use such discredited sources? I don't what I was thinking. Kauffner (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't admit quite that much. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm simply asking for an objective opinion about the facts here - discussions that are so active should not be closed. There is no evidence that this discussion was going to go on and on without end and so had to be closed now. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Born2Cycle, I honestly don't see how you can make a case that GTBacchus was "involved", at least not based on Talk:Crêpe—did GTB say something somewhere else? Surely you are not claiming that being involved is implied by relisting? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    See my talk page [77]. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That thread is about your opinions on titling, not about pancakes. I suspected there was an ENGVAR issue there, and that made me curious to ask your opinion. I have never had a "strong" anything regarding circumflexes for English breakfast, and only a tortured reading of my remarks could make it appear that I have. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, all I see there is support for wp:ENGVAR, not an involvement in this particular case. I'm not commenting on whether this was closed too early—frankly I'm glad it's over, either way—but I don't think GTBacchus was "involved". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally support ENGVAR, but I'm not married to it. What was going on in that discussion was me trying to figure out the extent to which Born2cycle favors COMMONNAME as established by Google searches above all other naming criteria. (Born, please note the phrase "the extent to which". I don't think that you absolutely favor COMMONNAME as established by Google searches above all other naming criteria, but I get the impression that you lean some distance in that direction. Context, context, context.)

    As it turns out, I believe the discussion established that it's not an ENGVAR issue at all, because American cookbooks tend to use the circumflex, too. At least that was my reading of the discussion. All it takes is someone uninvolved deciding to re-open it, and it'll be open again, and I will not object. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest that your stated opinion about the previous close being improper based on ENGVAR introduced a bias in favor of supporting the proposal to move it back, and may have affected your reading of subsequent comments.

    If any discussion was ever prematurely closed, this one surely was, given the high activity at the time of the close. That no one is acting on this clear objective fact shows that WP is not governed by rule of law at all, but almost exclusively by "rule of man":

    The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law", consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of law" with the "rule of man."[24] According to the functional view, a society in which government officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of law", whereas a society in which government officers have little discretion has a high degree of "rule of law".[24] ... The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."[25]

    --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ENGVAR played absolutely zero role in my decision. I learned in subsequent discussion that it wasn't an issue at all, so far from introducing a bias in favor of supporting the proposal, I decided that it was completely irrelevant. COMMONNAME prevailed; isn't that your preference?

    I suggest that you wait and see if anyone from the community - not already involved - has anything to say about all of this. Your comments about rule of law are very interesting, and to my mind, irrelevant. There's a colorful history of people who wish that Wikipedia be more rule-bound. These people have, historically, always left disappointed. Make of that what you will, but I'm not going to argue another word with you about this. It's in the hands of the community, so let's see what they say. Okay? Good day. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The role of the rule of law is irrelevant here? I take it as a given that people understand both the seduction and inherent fatal flaws in favoring the rule of men over the rule of law, but perhaps I assume too much. I posted this simple request over 10 hours ago. The lack of action in all that time is making it quite clear that there is probably little understanding, much less appreciation, for the role of the rule of law here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn it. I said I was done, but I feel compelled to reply to this. Wikipedia is not a formal legal system, never has been, and probably never will be. It's not about lacking understanding of "rule of law"; it's because we chose not to do it that way. Our very first policy was Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and it is still of top importance. Wikipedia is not here for lawyers, and rule-lawyering is strongly discouraged. If we were rule-bound, one could use rules and loopholes to create no end of red tape and nonsense. The way we do it, you have to actually convince actual human beings in the context of an actual editing issue.

    Please do not try to make Wikipedia rule-bound. I'm not worried that you'll succeed; I'm worried that you'll burn out and leave. It's much better and easier to, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

    When I see that I'm not getting any traction on an issue, I accept it and work on something else. I recommend that as a practical strategy. Many have come to grief trying to play this as a rules-game (i.e., a game governed by well-defined rules). Please don't be one of those people. Go learn some history: we used to have an editor here called badlydrawnjeff. Study his example, and learn from it. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and before you start telling me what ignore all rules means, study the history of that essay. It's in the archives at WT:IAR. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The alternative to the rule of law is akin to spinning a mouse's wheel in its cage. Burnout, of course. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the alternative is the most successful amassing of free knowledge in the history of history. Millions use this encyclopedia every day, and we're really good at what we do. We just do it in ways that often surprise people who are accustomed to formal systems. Look how many of us haven't burnt out. That means something. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ANI by Born2cycle is without merit. First, one can not make a compelling case for undermining a clear general consensus by offering up an observation that the Talk:Crêpe page had been received over 25 edits today alone. As the revision history clearly shows, the vast majority are just ones by me; that is the nature of how I make posts: I get in quickly but am seldom satisfied with what I have and typically expand and revise; thus, a whole bunch of edits, but they are for one post. As can clearly be seen at the edit history, the majority of the latest edits are just Born2cycle and GTBacchus doing back & forth “No… you’re the poopy-head!”

      It’s just this simple: By nose count alone, there was a 15-to-9 balance (forgive me if I miss-counted) in favor of making the article title consistent with how the word was accented throughout the body text. Nothing about that action is unusual. Makes sense, in fact. Moreover, if one looks at what people were arguing about and what the issue was really about, the quality and consistency of the arguments by the “supports” exceeded that of the “opposers”. As GTBacchus was quick to point out (refuting Born2cycle’s allegation) he is not an involved admin; he merely commended the approach and methodology used by seemingly grown-up-types when he wrote This discussion is where I'll probably point people in the future as an example of how Google searches should be treated; that's good work..

      Well, sure that is going to be of great disappointment to Born2cycle. But the bottom line is this ANI is just a matter of “But… I still want my waaaaay.” Just pardon me all over the place for pointing that much out here, but Wikipedia being an encyclopedia anyone can edit, this phenomenon occurs all the time and this is just one of those cases.

      I suggest speedy close of this ANI; it is without foundation and is an utter waste of everyone’s time, who are merely an all-volunteer group of folks who want to go about engaging in an enjoyable hobby without disruption.

      To Born2cycle: Just because Infinite electronic white-space is now available below for you to now refute my statement that the “quality” of the arguments by the “supporters” exceeded that of the “opposers,” I suggest you not avail yourself of opportunity. Your argument about “25 edits” in the last 24 hours amounted to a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged, weapons-grade bullonium. Give it up; this is going nowhere. Greg L (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    "Poopy-head"? Hmm. Yeah, I'm comfortable with that. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Parrot of Doom

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


    User: Parrot of Doom accused me of acting like an idiot [78]. I then asked him to be civil [79]. In response, he told me to "take your civility link and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, sunshine." [80] 79.97.144.17 (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, there are those who might say that placing an edit-warring template on the talk page of an editor with whom you are edit-warring is not the smartest thing to do. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say that Parrot was a bit silly here. This is a PA, and as far as I am aware its not considered idiotic to place edit warring templates with edds you are edit warring with. In fact I seem to recall that you should issue such warnings.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC).Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't look isolated. Here (yesterday) [81] he calls a message left by another editor "childish prattle". 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be a policy of his. At the very top of his user talk he states "Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer."79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I protected the page for three days, because you will probably just get another IP if I block you for blatant edit warfare, including continuing to revert after warning Malleus for 3RR (and violating 3RR yourself). Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you only protected because you thought the IP would IP hop if you blocked him/her, then why didn't you just semi the article? Jenks24 (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Malleus and the IP violated 3RR before the IP warned Malleus about it. Then the IP reverted again. If I block Malleus and the IP, Malleus is blocked for 24 hours, and the IP will probably get another IP and continue editing. If I protect the page, both are locked out. If I only block the IP (or semi the page) for reverting after warning Malleus for 3RR, then that would be decried as "endorsing one version of a page". Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, fair enough. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, parrot calls me an idiot [82]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And now Parrot calls me "fucking stupid" [83]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you notified him on his userpage of this thread?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but User:Malleus Fatuorum has. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious, 79.97.144.17: have you ever used an account on Wikipedia (as opposed to editing from an IP)? NW (Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Years ago, yes, but I found far too much of my time being consumed by wikipedia when I had an account. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not excuse blantant PA and incivility. I thinki that all involved parties need to take a step back.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, all involved parties are participating to some extent in talk page discussion, and while Parrot has used some pretty strong language, one has to admit that the IP editor is not responding to the valid questions asked of them. That this is exasperating is not unexpected--and in addition, we're dealing with an FA, the lead of which was unchanged until the edits in question. So, a change requires not just good evidence but also a good rationale, and that's missing so far, in my opinion. How about this: Parrot of Doom is urged to tone down their language. In return, IP is urged to at least attempt to address Parrot's concerns (and those of Malleus, in earlier edit summaries) on the talk page before attempting drastic overhauls to the basic content of a Featured Article. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How am I not responding to the questions asked of me? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC). I went and found 7 different references in response to their concerns, is that not a response?79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Do you know for certain that from 1351, that Act also applied in Ireland?" Your answer was "this article is about the punishment", but the article's lead was "To be hanged, drawn and quartered was from 1351 a penalty in England..." etc. To change what is essentially the focus of the article is drastic, and that's the point you need to address. I have a suggestion: drop this stick. As for your comment below, Parrot did not say they have no regard for WP:CIVIL--they suggest they have no regard for "complaining peevishly" about WP:CIVIL, which I imagine is what they might charge you with. Let me repeat: drop this stick. It should be clear to you now that this is not gaining traction; keep it on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is it peevish to expect to not be called an idiot and "fucking stupid" by someone who is supposed to be my collaborator? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Whilst its ture that Parrot should not have said that you have not helped yourself.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So am I to understand that I also may insult other editors? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that parrot states on his talk page that he has no regard for either WP:CIVIL or WP:OWN should be of concern, regardless of whether he's specifically being uncivil towards me or not. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be of concern? WP:OWN in particular is widely misunderstood, and WP:CIVIL widely misapplied. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be an excellent solution, Parrot does seem to have been provoked. Te IP needs to edit less combatively.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Since when is it ok to call another edit stupid or fucking stupid? This is obscene. Block PoD for harassment, CIVIL and NPA violations. 65.96.60.92 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking is not punitive. Read WP:BLOCK. Furthermore, I can understand PoD's frustration - he's worked the article up to FA status, not too easy to do. Connormah (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Using "fuck off please" (directed at someone else, not at me) as an edit summary [84]. Blocking may not be punitive, but it is intended to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms". Does no one else think that a block might teach him that it is unacceptable to be so aggressive towards other editors, and thus lead to a more congenial editing style? And just because he's worked an article up to FA status doesn't remove others' rights to edit the article. He doesn't own it.79.97.144.17 (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely not. Blocking would do nothing but provoke him more - that'd be extremely counterproductive. Blocks are preventative measures used to protect the encyclopedia from things such as edit warring and vandalism, not to "teach" someone. Of course he doesn't own the article, but given that he has authored the article, he is bound to know more about the topic having researched and having sources. And again, "fuck off" would probably be me reaction to the comment he responded to in your first diff. Regardless, I think it's time to move an and drop this topic for the time being. Connormah (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why does this exist? 79.97.144.17 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    More again: Telling me to fuck off in an edit summary [85]. 79.97.144.17 (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was clearly provoked. Drop it already. I (and I'm sure a lot of others) am not willing to block a valuable contributor for something like this. Adding a templated warning on someone who you clearly know is annoyed with you's talk page? That is 100% warranted. If I were you, I'd take the advice and move on. Time to close this thread? Connormah (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't going anywhere good. 79.97.144.17, it'd in the best interest of everyone if you'd just drop it - you're just adding fuel to the fire at this point. Connormah (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Shroffameen

    Resolved
     – Blocked for two weeks for copyvio issues by Eagles247. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Shroffameen is a newbie, and I try to assume good faith, but his use of automated tools has been problematic. It'd be useful if an admin could restrict his access to Twinkle. He has made numerous inappropriate deletion requests both CSD and XfD ([86] [87] [88]) because, well, he has Twinkle and he's just gonna use it, gosh darn it!

    He's not malicious or a vandal or anything like that, he just doesn't understand what he's doing; he's had a lot of people offer to explain it to him but he carries on regardless. Temporary removal of access to Twinkle until he understands deletion policy and so on would fix this. He can then either have a rather more patient user adopt him, but he shouldn't be doing CSD (and potentially biting other new users) or clogging up XfD with requests. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not possible any more. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked him for two weeks for copyright violations before I saw this thread. If an extension of his block to indef is agreed upon, I have no problem, as I believe this user is too incompetent to edit on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In addition to what Tom has already pointed out, Shroffameen has also made some questionable moves ([89] [90] [91]) and had several of his drive-by Twinkle taggings undone by established editors ([92] [93]). If it is no longer possible to blacklist people from Twinkle then I think that given the number of notices this person has been given ([94]) WP:COMPETENCE applies here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Major misunderstanding - it is perfectly possible to ban people from using Twinkle. An admin tells 'em - you may no longer use Twinkle. If they use Twinkle again, they get blocked. In fact, if someone uses Twinkle disruptiely, an admin can just block them, see Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Blacklist Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the case I would like to request that Shroffameen (talk · contribs) be banned from using Twinkle upon his release from his block, for the reasons pointed out above by Tom Morris (talk · contribs). I have a feeling he may end up back in block-land before long... —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps adding OR despite warnings

    Magoohoo (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding original research and unsourced claims to articles, and a bunch of talk page warnings to go along with it. After being blocked for 48 hours back on July 11, his very next edits today are to again add original research and the names of non-notable authors and their books into articles. He/She also appears to be editing while logged out as 173.212.190.209 (talk · contribs). This editor shows no sign of understanding or learning and I think should be blocked until such time as they can demonstrate that they understand. - Burpelson AFB 19:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal Threat?

    I would like to draw attention to what I consider to be 3 legal threats on my talk page. The first one I had pretty much dismissed because there was enough info in their posting to figure out why they wanted to send me a legal notice. The second[95] one from Zhardoum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a borderline threat of legal action. The 3rd[96]. I have attempted to keep the historical context of Guru Josh encyclopedic, however Zhardoum thinks that any mention of Guru Josh Project constitutes an endorsement of the naming regardless of the previous historical performance. I would ask the administrators (and peanut gallery involved) to evaluate the assertions by Zhardoum and the IP address (which I have some suspicions about). Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Of note this was previously discussed at DRN where I became involved. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that Sarek has left the user a warning. Is that enough? Drmies (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We let anybody who hasn't been explicitly warned about NLT before off with a warning? /sarcasm Hasteur (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Zhardoum's response to Sarek's warning sarcasm or some kind of alternate reality? [97] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have now given him a specific instruction to remove the threat from Hasteur's talkpage. If he edits again without doing so, he should be blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Guy has had plenty of warnings about legal monkey business, see [98]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Zhardoum's post on Sarek's talk page was in response to Sarek's edit to the article [99], not to Sarek's warning. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the way I read it, yes. WP:DOLT, after all... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fairy snuff. That makes more sense. He does need to take the notice off Hasteur's talkpage though - he has been warned before about bringing external legal issues onto Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    COI by article creator of Market America and possible outing of creator's identity

    A new article Market America was created recently by a SPA (User:Mjchipol) - I ran into it after updating its categories and was immediately "warned" on my talk page that he owned the article and check with him before editing it: [100] I responded with a link to WP:OWN. I then went to engage the user on his talk page, however he put in redirects from both his user page and talk page to the article: Old revision of User:Mjchipol, Old revision of User Talk:Mjchipol. After fixing those, I placed the correct OWN warning on his page, and tagged the article page with a COI tag. Mjchipol responded to the tag on the article talk page asking how he could make the article seem less promotional "so it doesn't sound like I'm advertising for the company." [101]. I responded asking if he had a COI [102]. He responded he did not. [103]. I took him on good faith and removed the COI tag and added the {{Criticism section}} tag to the controversy section, and asked that he work on integrating the controversies into the main text in the appropriate areas.

    An hour or so ago, an anon IP came by and appears to have outed the identity of Mjchipol and confirms there is a COI. I won't post the details here in case an admin needs to take action on the outing: [104]  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    On a side note, I don't propose the article be deleted, as there is some good content there worth keeping. It just needs to be NPOV-afied.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like the guy outed himself by choosing to use the same name as his other publicly accessible accounts, very close to his real name; is it really outing him to notice that, esp. when he's making up silly stories instead of admitting COI? Maybe so. Do we have a good alternative process for dealing with such COI problems? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think it's an outing problem, user was clear enough about his relation to the company. Just delete the IP's remarks if they seem out of place, and see if you can keep on working with the editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the user lied that he had a COI - this was kind of a dual-purpose AN/I. One a COI SPA who created an article of the company he works for, and then lied that he was a student doing this for a project and he had no COI. Then, we have the outing by the IP address. Although, I agree the outing isn't much of an outing with such an obvious username issue. Looking through Mjchipol's twitter stream, he even tweeted to get his followers to Google + 1 his new wikipedia article he created and he linked to the Market America article.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mjchipol has now been trying to remove the IP's comments from the talk page. I have restored and caution/warned him twice now on not removing the comments.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam from "GOOD"

    I have recently started receiving spam emails from something called "The daily GOOD". I have received this spam on an email account that I have never used for any purpose except replying to Wikipedia emails, so my email address must have been obtained by abusing the Wikipedia email service. I have only used the account to email a fairly limited number of Wikipedians. If anyone else has received spam from the same organisation then I will be very grateful if they can let me know. That way we should be able to work out which Wikipedia account has been abused in this way and block it, including disabling email access. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's more likely that the off-wiki email account of someone you replied to has been compromised, and your address harvested from it. Whether your reply is directly from the email account or through the on-wiki email system, your email address is included. If the person you replied to put your address in their address book, it's even easier to harvest, and use as a forged "sender" address. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, after I posted the above message I thought again and came to the same conclusion. I actually do a very good job of keeping my email accounts spam free by having several accounts for different purposes, such as this one used only for sending Wikipedia emails. Once I get spam on one account it's quite easy to ditch that one and replace it: much easier than it would be if I had loads of contacts to that email address. I have to do this on average about once every two years, and the rest of the time I am 100% spam free. Scarcely anyone I tell about this believes me, as it's a "well known fact" that no matter what you do you will get lots of spam. However, I can assure it it really works. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User using Wikipedia space as a course overview?

    Resolved

    Prof M Johnson (talk · contribs) seems to be creating user space "articles" for use in their classroom courses. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yepp, and that's what the particular subspace is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? We encourage non-encyclopedia use of Wikipedia? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me two clicks to find out about this. You could have done the same — no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be a jerk. You could have pointed that out without being nasty. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to be a jerk indeed. I see you apologized. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Balkans edit warring

    Operation Corridor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and The death of 12 newborn babies in Banja Luka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are the subjects of an ongoing edit war. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Tachfin

    Hi, Could somebody tell Tachfin to stop cursing?

    23:08 16 ago 2011 Tachfin m (16.437 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Bokpasa (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Denisarona. (TW)Bokpasa 23:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

    First of all, you either need to sign your posts with a ~~~~ or fix your signature, per WP:SIG your signature needs to at least link to your user page or user talk page. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored so in general we don't "stop people from cursing" as long as no other policies (such as WP:NPA) are being violated. Finally, this is the English Wikipedia, so please try to address other editors in English, this edit was useless if the editor claims to not understand it. -- Atama 23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You must also inform any user who is the subject of a discussion by placing the subst:ANI-notice template on their talk page.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Really I don't know what he's talking about. He's probably annoyed because I reverted one of his edits which was incompatible with an infobox template format. I don't know what he means by "Cursing" and if he understands what this word means. This user has many other issues but I don't want to expose it here. Take a look at his talk page to see what other editors have been telling him about his editing patterns.
    Tachfin (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello,

    The problem here is that Bokpasa doesn't accept the fact that his edits are PoV, against consensus and simply irrelevant.

    Here are some discussions that prove that he doesn't care about sources or consensus, and that his main goal is to include his OR on Morocco related pages on WP (the list is as long as the time we spent trying to convince him to stop his tendentious edits, cf. starting on 2006):

    This previous case shows the same thing again:

    Note that he was indefinitely blocked on ES.WP and FR.WP for the same reasons on the same articles ([105] & [106]), and already blocked two time on En.WP for (again) the same reasons ([107])

    And at last the archives of his own talk page: [108] [109] [110]

    These lins can show the admins how tendencius are Bokpasa's edits, and that the problem in this isn't Tachfin's edits but Bokpasa's ones.

    Regards,
    Omar-Toons (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete gone bad

    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.
    boldly closing this. Request has been fulfilled, nothing more to do here.--Jayron32 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if it's appropriate to take this here, but I'm desperate for some help. We've got a Deletion review going at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16, and editors in good standing are asking for templates that were speedy deleted to be restored. This has been going for over 12 hours, and none of the admins responding has restored the templates while the conversation is ongoing. The problem is that nearly every infobox, navbar, and template in the Writing Systems WikiProject uses these deleted templates, which means that we have hundreds of pages with limited functionality. I commented out the calls in the project infobox, but we are currently scrambling to deal with an admin who deleted templates without checking dependencies, and nothing works right now. Can we get some help? The templates are:

    Template:ISO 15924

    Template:ISO 15924/name

    Template:ISO 15924/alias

    and Template:ISO 15924/numeric

    Sign added. 23:25, 16 August 2011 User:Vanisaac User talk:Vanisaac Oops, sorry. VanIsaacWS 00:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Hello? Anybody here? Helllloooo????? VanIsaacWS 01:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Please help. The admin has refused to restore templates that are used in several other templates (see template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode for an extreme example), and which were more than half created by editors in good standing, but speedy deleted under G5. I reiterate, he is refusing to restore templates that were erroneously deleted under G5 criteria, whose deletion has broken other templates. We need help. Please. VanIsaacWS 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Uninvolved non-admin) I have to say, reading the DRV doesn't paint Ironholds in a very good light. I agree that a short-term restoration should be carried out until the DRV is resolved. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can say that reading the DRV paints me in any light you choose. All I know is that it being demanded that I do my job and fix things, following accusations of bad faith and followed by statements and complaints that I'm a disruptive and abusive administrator, with a nice dash of forum shopping on the side, makes me want to fuck off and leave this to be someone else's problem - and to avoid ripping every person at that DRV a new one, that's precisely what I did. Ironholds (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that everyone who comes across the discussion seems to think that a short-term restoration is warranted. Unfortunately, none of them can press the "restore" button and have it work. VanIsaacWS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that neither Ironholds nor Gfoley4 had been notified of this thread, as is required. I have now done so. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did inform Ironholds on one of the threads about this discussion. I didn't even know about Gfoley's involvement. VanIsaacWS 02:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as Gfoley4 deleted one of the templates in dispute, you would think he counts as "involved". :) Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that Ironholds had deleted the thread from his talk page. I also talked about this ANI in the actual Deletion review as well. Thanks for your assistance and perspective, Strange. VanIsaacWS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have restored the templates. As far as I know I am completely uninvolved except as an admin. The situation seemed to warrant having the templates undeleted during the DRV, in my judgment. If the DRV says the deletions were sound, it it trivial to delete the templates again, and nobody needs to notify me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost an edit there. I wanted to thank you, CBM. Now we can actually talk about the substantive issues concerning a user who violated a block - actions I am not particularly thrilled about. VanIsaacWS 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Notwithstanding the argument over the merits of the delete, I think VanIssac's behavour in that DRV is pretty damn embarrassing. Honestly, I probably would have just ignored any request to speedy restore the templates because of your attitude alone. And if I was dealing with you, I would not have been half as reserved in my responses as Ironholds was. Next time you get that angry, walk away for a while and let level-headed people deal with it. Resolute 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably not an entirely unfounded assessment. Shocked (at templates suddenly not working), frustrated (at a refusal to revert a speedy delete on request), and tired are not particularly good combinations. I've tried to move the discussion forward. I think we can probably close this guy down. Thanks for everyone's insight and perspective. VanIsaacWS 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unban of Tobias Conradi? re:#Speedy delete gone bad

    If these templates are to be kept, then we need to seriously consider an unban and unblock of Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs), as it is clear that he will continue to return to make apparently constructive edits in which users do not want deleted. –MuZemike 05:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this incident is a perfect example of exactly how disruptive he can be. Nobody ever said that he didn't make constructive contributions, he was banned because of all the collateral damage he causes. A lot of things had to go wrong for this particular incident - a failure to recognize the contributions of others in a G5 speedy delete due to an admin not fully understanding templates, brusque and increasingly agitated editors responding to effective (not intended) vandalism of important project templates that they cannot revert, etc. A different admin, a bit more tact on DePiep's part, a bit more sleep and perspective on mine would have probably have deemed this incident null. VanIsaacWS 12:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that would end much differently to your nomination of Template:Cleanup-link rot at TfD the other day.
    Still, I'm confused as to why is is that the templates broken by these deletions weren't just rolled back to their pre-August revisions. It's not as if we're talking about edits from years ago here: they all worked fine a month ago so far as I can see. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple reason? Because the pages transcluding template:infobox writing system had been updated to the new template syntax, meaning that reverting the template would have removed content from at least 160 articles (not all transcluding pages used the broken part). VanIsaacWS 12:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The job queue could get through 160 articles in about a tenth of the time wasted on drama so far here. The argument for overturning the deletion was that "pages were broken", and that could readily have been fixed in the interim while discussing how to proceed. We obviously do not want banned users to be able to turn G5 into a suicide pact, but nor should it be ignored lightly. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's ban Tobias Conradi as a sock of his latest banned sockpuppet instead. I haven't seen these "apparently constructive edits" of which you speak, I just see a stream of what turn out to be socks, which were heading for independent blocks & bans anyway because of their obsessively POV-pushing editing styles. Why are TC's socks laundered so quickly? It's because they have a bad editing behaviour of themselves, and it's also quite a distinctive one. If there are "apparently constructive" edits out there, I'm not seeing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we able to do an IP ban? Or is he accessing from too dynamic a place? He obviously has contempt for WP and policy, I'm just wondering if there's any way to prevent all his SOCKs. VanIsaacWS 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This line of thinking confuses me greatly; are you saying someone can be as bad as they want as long as they throw in valid edits from time to time? Tobias had a great many legitimate edits. He also went crazy. The negatives of him outweigh the positives (for an early example of this, see User:Wik), especially now that I see he's been socking for years and appears to have not changed. (Though I admit I need to read more about the situation.) --Golbez (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, even banned users have come back as productive members of the community on multiple occasions. We need to encourage editors who want to work productively here to come back in through the front door rather than just socking for the rest of their lives. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose unbanning him. This is one of those WP:UCS situations. Yes, banned editors are not allowed to edit, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we can never include something useful to the encyclopedia merely because it was first created by a banned editor. Take it to the extreme; imagine if it turned out that George Washington was created and heavily edited by a banned editor; do we refuse to include an article about him merely because the banned editor has his hands all over it? This is a case of "cutting off our nose to spite our face". Yes he is banned. Yes his edits get deleted or reverted. WP:BAN states (bold mine): "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." In other words, we should always revert banned editors. Always. Except when doing so does obvious harm to the encyclopedia. In cases where editors-in-good-standing are willing to stand by the edits, I don't see where deleting them does the encyclopedia good. This is clearly one of those cases where it must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and attempting to apply a rule so strictly that it cannot have exceptions is always a bad thing. In this one case for this one banned editor the templates should probably remain at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we he should be unbanned, that we won't revert him in the future, that other banned editors will be given similar exceptions, or anything else. It just means that in this one isolated case it is better for the 'pedia to keep these templates. That is all. Don't try to make this a bigger issue, when it isn't. It is always a bad idea to try to change policy based on the edge cases. --Jayron32 13:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Jayron's common-sense approach. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would it help if editors-in-good-standing who come across useful edits by banned users were to revert those edits, and then self-revert with the edit summary: "self-revert, adopting these edits as my own"? That will show other editors searching out the contribs of the banned user that they should not delete those edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If they want to, I guess they can. If there's a reasonable expectation that someone else might revert it simply because it was a ban violation, despite the helpfulness of the edit, why not. I don't think we should suggest that this be standard behavior, however. -- Atama 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case (as I've said in DRV) the "good for the encyclopaedia" approach to resolve this is certainly the way to go. Unlike many examples of article text where we could reasonably expect someone else to come along and write a different version, the nature of these templates where it's data from another source (not collected from diverse sources) in a form pretty much dictated by media wiki, someone else can't come a long and do a completely different version. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin help with Non-contentious housekeeping

    Resolved

    Many years ago I created the Juramentado page in my sandbox then let it languish. A few years later, I noticed that the search term returned my sandbox as the lead hit on most engines. So I moved it to pagespace, and built it up to a bare start. Someday I'll make it better. However, I'd used that sandbox previously for a bunch of totally unrelated stuff, mostly ACW, and I noticed all of it in page history. So I need any uninvolved admin to go into the history, verify I'm not trying to be disruptive or deceptive, and do revision delete at this five year-old diff. There's no rush and I have no reason to imagine doing revision delete on my own sandbox would be controversial. Thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Silly edit war

    This seems so trivial to take to ANI... but the heck with it. Talon2k9 (talk · contribs) keeps adding misguided and inaccurate content to Joint Task Force 2 and Canadian Special Operations Regiment (two cruft magnets). I've tried to initiate discussion with the user, first on his talk page, then on the article's talk page (which I linked to on his talk page), yet, he seems to refuse to engage in the discussion, and reverted an other editor who removed his addition, with the edit summary "explain why is it wrong?". At this point, I'm not sure to what the correct course of action is. Thanks - CharlieEchoTango 01:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review

    I just blocked 72.181.213.221 (talk · contribs) for this which looked like a legal threat to me. I'd like a review of the block and if the consensus is it was not a legal threat, feel free to reverse it without consulting me. Toddst1 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The block looks good to me. We are choosing to link to a website, http://fsi-language-courses.org, which offers the FSI language courses for download and asserts them to be in the public domain. This would be our default assumption anyway for work of the US government. The IP seems to be unhappy with us considering them to be in the public domain. Maybe he should take that up with the owner of fsi-language-courses.org. I checked the PDF of one of the language manuals that the site provides for download. It says it is published by the State Department and it carries no copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The one caveat to that is a statement in one of the scanned manuals: "The DLIFLC may not have full rights to the materials it produces." The DLI, and the government in general, doesn't always indicate or acknowledge from whence a particular work originated. Still, if FSI Language Courses is asserting public domain due to government publication, it would likely be they who would receive the heavy end of the hammer if a copyright-infringement case were initiated regarding the DLI books and/or tapes. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR/sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – reporting editor made aware of WP:Blanking and benefits of registering. Toddst1 (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I was blocked today by user Favonian for removing some silly banner from my discussion page. I suspect that user WWGB might be a sockpuppet, since that user posted the original warning, then out of no where Favonian appeared. All my edits are in good faith (though no one seems to agree), from my IP. I simply don't understand this user(s) utter refusal to engage in discussion and insistence on totalitarian methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:108.132.92.8&action=history

    --108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not your talkpage, it's Wikipedia's, and you may not remove the ISP tag; it's one of the few things you can't remove from a user talkpage. I note that this was explained to you on the talkpage. WWGB and Favonian are not sockpuppets, and you're not being oppressed. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is your user page yours or wikipedias? I bought a static IP from my ISP, that's how I choose to identify myself. Your response is scornful. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read WP:BLANKING? Tiderolls 02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @108.132.92.8: If this bothers you, you can make it go away if you create an account. While I understand that some people may choose to not create an account, understand that in making that choice, you also forsake the benefits of having an account, which includes control over your userpage. As an unregisterred editor, control over your userpage is something you have less of. It is part of the tradeoff you get for not registering. You are free to edit Wikipedia articles while not registerred, but other things which come with registerring an account (including a watchlist, the ability to maintain your own userspace, the ability to create new articles, etc.) are unavailible to you. Again, no one says that you have to register to edit articles. But you shouldn't complain about not getting access to the other rights of a registerred user if you don't choose to register. --Jayron32 03:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the consequences of allowing unregistered editing is that the point of origin of unregistered edits is associated with the IP in the history. Wikipedia's talkpages are associated with the IP or a registered account as a consequence of the attribution required by the Creative Commons copyright. The content of those or any other WP page is governed by Wikipedia policy and community consensus: that includes registered users' talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    98.210.215.121 on the Oakland article

    IP 98.210.215.121 continues disruptive editing on the Oakland, California page. Originally posting long-winded diatribes on the talk page, disagreeing with any language was perceived as negative toward the city, and making travel-guide like edits, the user is now engaged in edit-warring, section-blanking with unexplained removal of content, and reverting all good-faith restorations of said unexplained removal. He/she has already been warned on their talk page. The user is currently on a tear this evening, edit-warring with several editors on the page, as the history page will show [111].--Chimino (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is calling me conflicted and manipulative, supposedly in bed with San Francisco interests writing against the city of Oakland (my home town!)
    I don't know what good this noticeboard entry will do, but the person behind the IP is editing from a mistaken understanding of what motivates other editors. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Winward (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries) is continually breaching WP:OVERLINK and will not listen to anyone who tells him not to do it. Will not talk about, just stops for a day and then keeps going. He has been told here, here, here and here. The last one was my message to him yesterday after I cleaned up going through 400 of his contributions and having to revert 100+ of them because they were against Wikipedia policies and I checked his edits again today and see that he's doing the exact same thing. [112], [113], [114] (some examples and there will be more if nothing is done). Atomician (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    He also introduces mass edits without consensus (and per this discussion, the consensus was actually against him), and given his recent contribution at some AfDs, I am concerned that this user does not understand basic notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's been told not to do that many times, but he doesn't listen to anyone unfortunately. Atomician (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although mainly nuisance edits, his blitzing of celebrity and movie star articles causes a lot of remedial work. Is he stopping or just taking a rest? Someone giving him a Barnstar is also illogical and tends to reinforce the "non-consensus" behaviour... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    He gave the barnstar to himself. Atomician (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and obviously been campaigning on his behalf in other forums, (sigh...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    Barnstar self-presented with this edit. GiantSnowman 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Too funny; I am resisting the urge to be derisive... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    The only time I can see him communicating (other than talking about going for adminship) with another user is saying "thank you" when somebody wished him happy birthday - but 11 months after the initial post! Very odd... GiantSnowman 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side note, he was blocked by MuZemike for sockpuppetry in Feb 2010 and then again in March by Phantomsteve. Without his input at all (I've put a message telling him that it's difficult to communicate without him talking), there is no way of deducing his intentions as of right now, I suggest that he inputs. If he could reassure us that he isn't going to go on mass edit sprees, doing changes against policy and against consensus then perhaps nothing will need to be done? User seems to be quite obsessed with his edit count, which I would recommend he stop (he updates his user page every 100 edits, a fourth of his edits are user page tweaks because of it!) User needs some firm advice. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    He's currently running through his own contributions history and self-reverting everything he can. It is unclear if he is doing this because he finally heard the message and is trying to clean up after himself, or if he's just pitching a "hissy fit" and overreacting to the situation. --Jayron32 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest he's doing it to increase his edit count. See above. Atomician (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted my third (and might I add final) invitation to contribute: [115] around quarter an hour ago. This time firmly implying that he should come and talk here. Atomician (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    SYLAR16 and Sorbid11 BLP hoaxes

    SYLAR16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding hoax information to multiple BLPs, including an entire lengthy fake BLP article Mark Warrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Another brand new user account, Sorbid11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has produced a related fake BLP article, Stephen Freed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The two accounts are almost certainly operated by the same individual. I've CSD'd and rolled back his hoaxes, but it looks possible that this individual - quite likely an existing banned user - is attempting to add false information to Wikipedia to discredit it. Recommend a block and a checkuser on the IP to see if there are any more socks. Prioryman (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorbid11 is a  Possible match to SYLAR16. TNXMan 13:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This has Jake Picasso's neon fingerprints all over it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. Digging back some shows that SYLAR16 is  Confirmed as Jake. Sorbid11 is on a different ISP/computer, same geographic area. TNXMan 15:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Defamatory comment on Talk:Christopher Hitchens's critiques of public figures about subject. Should be deleted?

    Hi,

    This edit made defamatory and vulgar remarks about the subject of the article, a BLP. My immediate reaction is to delete it, but I'm exactly how to go about it. Can someone handle it asap, please? Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I went back to delete it myself, but User:Atomician had already done so. Perhaps an admin can delete the edit if he has time? Best,
     Done It Is Me Here t / c 12:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    146.179.213.110 -sockpuppet of Mikemikev

    Resolved

    This IP has been been disrupting WP:AE for over 12 hours with abuse of all sorts. Please could an administrator block this account to prevent further disruption. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Kostas Novakis - Admin intervention needed

    Can an admin please take a look at Kostas Novakis. Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs) is using every argument under the sun to justify his/her actions. It is an extensive issue, which has been partially discussed here. The user is under the apprehension that the the Macedonian ethnicity "is an invention. It is not real. It is pseudo" [116], and has used this biased POV to cause havoc on the page in question (including putting it up for an AfD). The issue regarding the language which Kostas Novakis speaks the and ethnicity he espoused was a while back, as is made evident on the talk page. Many thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I see you were both discussing just fine, no need for administrative action, I am slightly alarmed that you called him racist and he quite civilly, ignored the comment and kept discussing. This post will boomerang if you pursue it. Atomician (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll add to that by pointing out that this may fall under the general sanctions regarding Macedonia, since that ARBMAC decision included the phrase "broadly defined". If it can't be worked out on the article Talk page, I'd urge one or both of you to take it into the dispute resolution process. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nipson's comments certainly do look a heck of a lot like nationalist POV pushing, and if so, it's a serious problem that should be dealt with; however, this board isn't really good for that sort of thing. Arbitration enforcement for the ARBMAC case will likely be more useful. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism on "Pallet" article

    Resolved

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallet

    There is some blatant vandalism in that article, apparently from an actual pallet maker or shipping company.

    Apologies if this is the wrong place for reporting; I'm neither an editor nor interested in becoming one. I've spent over 10 minutes now just trying to find out how to report or flag an article for review, with no success. The "talk" page of that article, as recommended in one place for vandalism reporting, is not editable to me.

    Thanks for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.248.24 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam removed and spammer blocked. Thanks for reporting this. You should be able to use the "undo" function from the article history page to remove such edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin killed him with a forklift. –MuZemike 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ziiing. Atomician (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That must have left someone feeling a bit flat. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure someone will transport them away... Atomician (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DEEP HURTING. Syrthiss (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppets on TMNT template

    Resolved

    Could you please check IP 70.48.112.235 if he is a sock puppet? If he is, you may send him to SPI. If not, just wait until he becomes a sockpuppet. Thank you. StormContent (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Technically yes. He's a persistent anonymous vandal who IP hops (usually in the 67.xxx range), always adding the same intentionally wrong vandalism. I first noticed him at the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles articles (check the history of Template:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to see what an pain this guy is) but more recently he's expanded into outright BLP violations. As he'll show up on a new IP while his previous one is still blocked, he is technically socking to evade a block, but as he's never, to my knowledge, actually used a username, he's impossible to indef/ban (though he absolutely should be). Most of he's repeated targets are currently semi'd, but that'll expire eventually, as will the blocks, and we'll do it all over again.
    The only real solution I can think of is to treat all IPs he edits from as the same user (which is absolutely obvious), and all blocks issued be automatically 6 months, not 31 hrs. Yes it may be the first time that IP has edited, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it's the same vandalizing, trolling asshat. I'm just tired of dealing with this douchebag. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 70.48.112.0/22 blocked for 3 months, practically nothing useful recently off that range. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]