Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Hounded by an admin for the past six months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [1]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Ceasing of any contact between the involved parties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that Direktor's heart is in the right place, and I consider him sort of acquaintance. I joked on his talk page several times [3]. But he simply cannot cooperate with others. We have witnessed his appearance at ANI about once a month in past years: and no, not all of it was just him defending Balkanic POV_pushing: it was just his self-applied role, which he played oh so well. But not this time: Fainites got into the heart of the matter, and I consider the sanction well-deserved and well thought out. To know Direktor's ways, you must spend some time in the debate with him. No, I don't think Fainites qualifies as an "involved" admin here. Even if he does, the end result is about right, in my opinion: when someone cannot edit according to WP:CIV and WP:CONSENSUS despite several attempts to make him correct his ways, he must be shown the door. No such user (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please note I am involved in this matter, but I believe that DIREKTOR's conception of collaboration with other editors is somewhat lacking, see [4] for one example. I think he means well, but in my experience he will only work with those with whom he agrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage. It is difficult to explain what Fainites is arguing for, or against, without going into the details of the content dispute, which is why I will be posting only the more obvious examples that do not require a detailed understanding of the complex disputes. Again, however, virtually his entire involvement there constitutes direct or indirect criticism of myself, and whatever position I may advocate in each the three main issues of the dispute.
  • [5]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [6], after having been arguing for days :).
  • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [7], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
  • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
  • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

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

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

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

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

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

Possible sockpuppetry involved

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

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

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

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

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

Re "Involved"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIREKTOR, this history of my "violence and abuse" is in fact history of accusations against me that were not proven (and you can also see that these accusations were raised by some users who are blocked indefinitely). I was blocked only 2 times in 2006 and 2007 for 3rr violation and revert warring: [10]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [11] If you think that I am "conducting violence against you", you are free to open new thread about my behavior. PANONIAN 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Experiment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(mostly) uninvolved editor comment

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

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

There is this problem with this editor La goutte de pluie and this has been going from months on pages related to Singaporean politicians/politics, in particular those related to PAP (People's Action Party). The precise affected pages are Teo Ser Luck, Tin Pei Ling and Vivian Balakrishnan. I really do not know what is her problem and I seriously believe she should have her tools removed as she is unable to do neutral edits on their pages.

The incident I need to pinpoint is currently happening on Singaporean general election 2011 where La goutte de pluie is back to her old ways of editing of the subheading related to Vivian Balakrishnan. For some reason, she seems rather persistent to change the subheading from "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "suppressing video" to "Balakrishnan accuses SDP of "gay agenda". This happened because of what happened at Vivian Balakrishnan's page earlier, where La goutte de pluie had wikilink words like "agenda" to gay agenda" and the idiom "come out of the closet" to "coming out of the closet". I had spotted it and removed it because I did not feel it was right to insinuate instead of letting readers judge by themselves when they can simply read up the references. She went back to revert it several times. It wasn't until User_talk:Zhanzhao who intervened that the matter got settled.

When I checked on the Singaporean general election 2011 page in early July, I spotted the same wikiwords insinuating gay issues and subheading "addressing "gay agenda". I then edited the subheading to a more neutral tone to fit the issue which surfaced from a video and removed the inappropriate wikiwords. However La goutte de pluie just couldn't accept and again started another reverting war regarding the subheading. Zhanzhao had more or less settled it in the Talk section and now it's August and once again, La goutte de pluie has started reverting back.

The other issues :

1. Page Protection Violation on Teo Ser Luck by User/EditorElle which resulted after a dispute with her for adding trivia matter and attempting to support it with a less-than-convincing reference. She attempts to add it back again after the issue was finally over.

2. La goutte de pluie's ilogical edits on Tin Pei Ling page which has caused the page to appear more like a tabloid page, packed with trivia quotes. She also seems to hate her so much that she bothered to upload the image here and another on Tin Pei Ling's page which I have requested it to be checked and removed.

I would like to clarify I am not a sockpuppet. I was on the IP 218.186.16.x and now am usually on the IP add 202.156.13.x. The dynamic IP also tends to flip between 2 from time to time. This clarification is here just in case you confuse me with the other anonymous IP users on Vivian Balakrishnan's page (which added his photo). I am not related to those IPs in any manner.202.156.13.11 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

User notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a chronic problem with this admin. I almost blocked her a few weeks ago after she violated 3RR on Teo Ser Luck. There were some calls for an RFC/U and desysopping at that time since she edited through full protection to continue her edit war on this topc. I'd support a topic ban on singaporean politics at a minimum. This problem is not going away by ignoring it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

for the record, I never came close to violating WP:3RR on that article, and I repeatedly asked for a discussion. You should note that the same IP repeatedly tried to delete my comments off that talk page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the question is - what administrative action does the original poster want? A topic ban requires a community discussion, removal of tools requires a request to Arbcom, and we'd probably want an RFC/U first. Has the admin in question done anything actually blockable? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

If true, wouldn't the "edited through full protection" claimed by Toddst1 be immediately blockable? (Unless it is something admins don't immediately recognize because of the ability to edit still being present) If such changes weren't reverted immediately after discovering the accident, then what is the point of 'full protection'? -- Avanu (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That as I said, was a mistake. I posted on Toddst's talk page, saying his protection was a mistake, that the anonymous users involved were reluctant to engage in discussion and use the talk pages; most dispute blocks expire within 72-96 hours (as is the norm and the policy -- do not issue protections of excessive lengths) -- Toddst, who is an active admin, didn't reply to me within 72-96 hours, so I thought he had seen my proposal to restore the disputed edit if the IPs didn't use the talk pages within that time. And they didn't -- in general, they only reverted when their desired version was not on the page, never checking the talk pages when their desired revision was in place; they did not understand policy nor were they willing to engage in compromise in discussion, whereas I was seeking compromise and understanding with every step. It was my expectation that within that time protection would be over. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Response

My personal agenda, if I have one, is in protecting Wikipedia from conflict of interest agents that have descended upon the article lately; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011, where an absurd amount of sockpuppetry and anonymous IPs -- some which trace back to government institutions and ministry addresses -- do various things like remove various criticisms without explanation, add in promotional material of their own (for various ministries or programmes). The Young PAP by the way, have long been suspected by the Singaporean internet community of being hired trolls. It is very clear for example, that User:Eggsauto99 and others are "public relations managers" -- note the high-resolution official photos uploaded, and constant reversion to their favoured language, blatantly taken from government websites -- I would simply like for these editors to declare their affiliation and their COIs.

We have good evidence that these users are part of a government-endorsed smear campaign, by trying to include the accusations of "gay agenda" on opposition politicians' articles, but deleting all mentions of such accusations from politicians who made them, i.e. Vivian Balakrishnan. It is a terrible twist on BLP policy when homophobic accusers are allowed to escape "scot free" while their accusations are freely piled on on their victims' articles. See: contributions of one such user to Vincent Wijeysingha, where this user tried to add material accusing Wijeysingha of having a gay agenda (to scare off religious voters) at the same time his proven sockpuppet removed "gay agenda" material from his employer's article (this diff accessible to administrators only).

That Vivian Balakrishnan accused a Singaporean opposition politician of having a gay agenda is well-known issue among Singaporeans (shown by any google search). To reduce the summary of his actions (as titles are supposed to do) to "suppressing video" is nothing more than a government-supported attempt at whitewashing the article. I would like to draw attention to the matter I am drafting an RFC about this; the only reason why no one pays attention is because most editors hail from the United States. If a Congressman or a US government entity were doing this, there would be immense uproar: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress.

elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, citing a random-uploaders prob (c) YouTube clip, and posting WP:OR in an article, with this edit is against many policies; do you accept that, or do we need to explain it?  Chzz  ►  23:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not against policy to cite a television interview by Channel 5 (Singapore). In fact, I kept it as a reference, without the link, if only to avoid potential copyright problems (but even then, fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link). There's nothing wrong with using Youtube videos as a source, if they are not self-published sources. Since when was a television interview a self-published source? YouTube is merely a host. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, it seems evident from your own statement just above that you have too much COI in this general issue to use admin tools in this area. If people need to be blocked, or articles protected, or edits made on protected pages, you really should let other admins do it. If the troll situation is as bad as you say, the most helpful thing you could do is to use your experience to bring the various COI editors and sockpuppets to community attention in the appropriate places, instead of dealing with them personally, just as you would if you did not have admin tools. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have used my tools in this very sparingly, precisely for the concerns stated. I have repeatedly made pleas on various noticeboards, but usually people are a) new to the dispute b) do not realise I am an already an administrator trying to fight a long-term problem (for example, posting to the COI board generally brings a very specific block or remedy, and does not solve the sockpuppetry problem). I was about to make an RFC for this reason, to draw greater attention to this problem.

I do not think I have a COI, unless you take the IPs' word that being LGBT somehow is an inherent COI. My biggest ambition is to make the editors involve learn that a) they cannot make COI edits with impunity b) they should declare their conflict of interest c) some basic respect for the project. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have been invited to comment here by the complaining IP editor on my talk page. I have made my views known previously at the first ANI link he provides above. I have no doubt that La goutte de pluie has a major COI in this area and would be well served laying off these pages, but the same goes for the countless IPs (more likely one user who's been socking; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Geneva2011/Archive) — this is not a one-way street. The IP editor himself has a COI and POV in this area and should likewise be sanctioned here; this to me is a WP:BOOMERANG case. Both sides are strongly at fault. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the link has proven that I am a sockpuppet or part of the government conspiracy that La goutte de pluie has been insisting is happening.202.156.13.11 (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not as I'd like it to, because CheckUsers don't like linking accounts to IP addresses. So, it really is impossible to tell unless I take your word for it, which I'm sorry to say I'm not prepared to.

At this moment, I would strongly support a ban for both La goutte de pluie and the IP editor, certainly at the very least from interacting with each other; and in the longer run a topic ban from Singapore politics. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 00:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Get someone to check then. I am not afraid. Kindly advise why I should be banned then. I do not see how this is fair. You have semi-protected Tin Pei Ling page and Vivian Balakrishnan page to deter IP editors from editing on several occasions and each time La goutte de pluie would go back to revert back to her edits. As I have have pointed out earlier, the problem with her edits lies with her POV which can never be kept neutral. I would also like to point out I am constantly updating Singaporean presidential election, 2011 at the moment but once again La goutte de pluie feels the need to question the anonymous editors on the page. Is there a need to declare government conspiracy on every single politician talk page and threaten semi-protection each time I do an edit on someone's page?202.156.13.11 (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

These issues would be easily solved by getting an account, but you have refused to do so. What is my POV/COI, may I ask? The only reason I use semi-protection -- and I have used it sparingly -- is to prevent abusive sock/meatpuppetry when it is especially rampant on some articles, as your allies are wont to do. Get an account. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps some ground rules would help. These are standard for all admins and all articles:-

• You can't admin and edit in the same article

  An admin may not semi or protect an article where they are editing the article. If the page is being vandalised, take it to RFPP

  An admin may not edit through protection to put their own preferred version in an article, and the admin who protected it may not edit the article AT ALL while it is protected.

  If you think a user is a sock, make a sockpuppet investigation request

Elle, if you breach these rules, you are likely to end up without your admin tools.

At the same time, it does sound as if the area could do with more eyes to help achieve neutrality. Any volunteers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elen of the Roads (talk • contribs)

I don't actually think your "ground rules" match current practice. Simple non-controversial admin actions such as anti-Vandalism work (including routine semiprotection, vandal blocks, obvious sock blocks etc.) have always been exempt from "involvement" rules. What admins need to avoid is using their admin status to further their own position in a content dispute; where there is no content dispute -- e.g. with vandals or banned users --, involvement problems don't come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought we could take it as read that normally editors would not have a problem with an otherwise involved admin dealing with a vandal who replaced the entire lede with the word 'penis' 5 times. However, this is not your standard vandalism, is it. What we have here is an admin reverting content edits and insisting that they are vandalism by agents of the government, I think the instruction to post a request at RFPP is one that the community would expect as de minimis to avoid the appearance of bias. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think if the users in question end up using sockpuppets and rapidly switching IPs ten times in a row to circumvent 3RR, then anti-IP-hopping action can be taken. In the past, these users' IPs were blocked for using open proxies, and would, despite my requested entreaties, refuse to use the talk page. None of this would occur if the users in question would stick to one IP (the hopping is far from accidental) or use accounts. Some of this action is probably coordinated from the YPAP messageboard (now hidden). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I've always waited for other administrators to come in, i.e. hence my posts at ANI and the COI noticeboard, but the intervening admins treat it as a matter of routine, rather than looking at the overall pattern, so it is quite frequent that they simply block the latest incarnation and mark the issue as "resolved". Sometimes, they issue a rangeblock, but they do not at all address the continuing pattern that government-backed resources are being used to push a certain COI on Wikipedia, and thus many IP ranges are open to these editors' use. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, I see you do not accept that this edit is a problematic effort, and thus unfortunately it seems I do need to explain this very important point of policies;

The point of 'verifiability' is, so that the reader is able to check the facts. If the referenced material is not available (such as, a TV show that was broadcast once, not published), it is not verifiable.

Occasionally, a television station will provide archives, or the broadcast could be available on media such as DVD, or they might have an official YouTube channel.

That is not the case here. The YouTube video was uploaded by a random-person-on-the-internet; we have no evidence to suggest it is free of copyright. That is covered in WP:LINKVIO.

I have no idea what you mean by "fair use can be claimed for keeping a referenced link"; frankly, that makes no sense to me.  Chzz  ►  12:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, your demands above, that users get an account, are totally inappropriate. This is the encyc. that anyone can edit; registration is not required.  Chzz  ►  12:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That video was actually linked via Temasek Review and Google News; plus CNA does actually archive all its news shows. Considering it was an interview with Lee Hsien Loong, you know, the Prime Minister of Singapore. If you are using a video as a source (albeit a primary one) and are not transcluding it in the actual article, it is not violation on our part to simply cite it (as opposed to transcluding any of its content in the article). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a violation of our copyright policies to link to a site that contains a copyvio - that includes in a citiation. This is one of the reasons why YouTube citations are often removed on sight. The question is - is this particular upload part of CNA's archive, or was it uploaded by some random who had recorded it off their tv? Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That video does have an arguable claim for fair use though. It is less than 5-10% of the entire work (the episode). YouTube videos have been used as verifiable sources for various articles (see Christine O'Donnell and "I'm not a witch"), and very short clips from interviews and parodies are cited. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you see that's a complete misunderstanding of what the copyright policy says. The YouTube clip is a copyvio. We cannot link to copyvios. Non-copyvio videos can be a source - the organisation I work for hosts an entire set of videos on YouTube. Those are not copyvios. Those could be linked to if they provided a source for something. None of the Christine O'Donnell clips are copyvios because they are genuine transformative fair use. Ripping off the first 10 minutes of a 50 minute programme is not fair use, it is a copyvio. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I already amended my citation to not include a YouTube link, just to be sure. I would have clipped the entire clip to a 20-second-statement if necessary, but there is nothing wrong with the citation itself. It still is a reliable source. My beef with the IP is that he was out to game the system; he did not actually care about the spirit of the policy he cited; he did not try to change material to comply with policy (i.e. simply removing the link, rather than the entire reference), rather he cherrypicked policy to push a POV. We do after all, have Template:Cite video. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I had removed it because of copyrights and because it was totally redundant towards bulding up her page. I find it most absurd that you argued for it to be placed there just because "It's a comment made by the revered and mighty PM Lee. How can that not justify an inclusion? ". PM Lee made remarks on overseas politicians. Why don't you try to add it on their pages?202.156.13.245 (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Temasek

Should we really be using this "Temasek Review" as a reference? It's 'about' page says it is an internet socio-political blog, and their tagline is An Online Community Of Daft Singaporean Noises.

Currently, the article in question has a whole section dedicated to this purported "Cooling-off day controversy" - as I understand it, it's about a controversial comment posted on Tin Pei Ling's Facebook page, and the question of who posted it, with Tin saying it wasn't her, but an admin. The ref we use from Temasek declares this a lie, because on an election declaration, Tin filled in "moderator" as herself. This seems like tabloid pap, and I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia; at the least, it seems WP:UNDUE, and weakly-sourced for a strong BLP claim.

I apologize in advance, as I do realise this is a content concern, not normally for ANI; but given the above, it seems specific and apposite as an example, in relation to the actual complaint. Plus, of course, as a BLP issue it deserves our consideration.  Chzz  ►  15:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't, imo, and this has previously been reaffirmed at WP:RSN. It's been my experience that La goutte de pluie insists this and another anti-government site, The Online Citizen, are legitimate reliable sources, although this has been rejected in the past at RSN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? So far, what we have here is a lot of pebbles going down a mountain, rather than a single clear offence that is by itself sufficient for any action. As such, an RFC/U followed by an RfAR if required, is looking like the correct way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

electronic Singapore press sources at RS/N (drive-by link) 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a supplementary source, which is supported by a primary source taken from a government website -- the election forms themselves are public. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain which policy/guideline applies to use of such a 'supplementary source'? Or do you accept it is OR?  Chzz  ►  18:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The rationale given to avoid using these 2 sources are rightly explained in the RSN link. Especially with many of the articles there written by "Anonymous", reliability and verifiability is a big issue. Even when they claim to have a board of editors overseeing the content. The forms are indeed validly linked. However its the reported controversy surrounding the alleged offence on which the forms are based that is the point of contention here, specifically the accusation made by the blog, that is in contention here. As I recall, the incident was also reported by the mainstream press, so those sources are preferred. DanS76 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, DanS76, but - the mainstream covers that posted on FB and that the police are investigating re. 'cooling off' but... they don't talk of this form, and the ""Tin Pei Ling is the ONLY approved moderator of her Facebook".

Again, sincere apologies for fixating on this example, but if we could establish the actual problem with that one case, which La goutte de pluie seems to say isn't problematic, perhaps we could make progress.

Maybe we cannot, and maybe an RFC/U is necessary; I admit it looks likely. But if we can avoid it, by getting somewhere re. the specifics, that'd be better. Right now, I think La goutte de pluie is misunderstanding several important policies; I was hoping through some discussion they might agree voluntarily to stepping away from this, from avoiding WP:INVOLVED, to adhere carefully to RS/V/BLP, and so forth.  Chzz  ►  18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Anonymity is a necessity because of the government's reputation of prosecuting political opponents. (I'd like to remind everyone that the press freedom of Singapore has an international rank of 154....i.e. very very bad.) I see no reason why the references from both sides of the dispute should not be included. The "mainstream press" has a well-known pro-government bias. Normally TR sources have borderline issues, but if they file an Exposé supported by verifiable sources, then I believe it deserves to be reported, as an important check on the mainstream press. That's the problem with sources in Singapore -- all sources in Singapore have issues. Fann Sim is a professional journalist hired by Yahoo (who by the way, writes very professional articles), who, on the topic of Teo Ser Luck, reported what everyone was thinking, but journalists working in Singapore Press Holdings were more reluctant to say. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize to some extent but, frankly, that is not Wikipedia's problem. If there are no RS, there are no RS, and we cannot fall back on user-generated content. You can't make the rules.

The journalist isn't important. If the most-respected journalist in the world writes on her facebook page, it's not a reliable source for news.

La goutte de pluie, can you think of a way forward here, other than RFC/U, to resolve these issues?  Chzz  ►  18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

But I argue that it is not user-generated content, given that TR already has a journalistic reputation, and that government censors pay a lot of attention to it, and has repeatedly tried to bully it into submission (by restricting its donations). The New Paper is not any less tabloidy than Temasek Review, if not more, and yet it is also treated as a reliable source. Surely it cannot be worse than MoveOn.org (which AFAIK, is also a verifiable source) or sources from well-known activist organisations. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My gosh, La goutte de pluie, you are not still fixated on that satire piece by Fann Simm, are you.... Yes, I call it that, because I doubt a serious news piece would include these lines "Teo Ser Luck transformed himself into somewhat of an overaged, over-enthusiastic cheerleader during one of the PAP rallies by yelling all the names of six-man Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC team. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports saved the best for last when he shouted for the estimated 1,000-crowd to chant his own name. The response was, er, less than encouraging.". Or in any case, it should not be taken seriously as was done in your edit here [12]. Which was already discussed to death in the subject's talk page. I think what we have here is a general confusion about what is/is not acceptable as a reliable source, on top of everything being discussed here.DanS76 (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles and blog posts from well-known journalists, despite scathing language, are frequently accepted as sources (see The Guardian, Huffington Post, The Register, etc. etc.) Furthermore, I reported as an opinion, rather than as a fact. The most important thing is editorial discretion, which Yahoo News! Singapore clearly has (after all, the tagline of their series is "Fit to Post"). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

A wildly uninvolved editor

The only reason I have seen this is because I was following my posting to this board. As far as I know, I have never interacted with anyone posting in this section beyond the drive-by link I supplied earlier.

Having said this, I think User:La goutte de pluie's actions have been beyond the bounds of a WP Admin. "elle" has been involved in edit warring, page protection violation, source protection argument, primary sourcing...

Editors must trust the Administrators as they are Administrators, yet I do not trust the Administrator as an editor. Wrap your brain around this as you will. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I don't get what's so controversial about reverting blatant copyright violations taken verbatim from government websites, especially when socks are involved. The edit through protection was a mistake, as I explained above. It has been my constant and every desire to have civil collaboration with every editor involved; however when there are anonymous editors editing on the behalf of an employer, whose interests are a higher priority than that of a project (the very definition of a conflict of interest) I cannot help my suspicion. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way forward avoiding RFC/U and following

Maybe we can avoid this getting messy simply by restating policy and asking Elle to confirm that she is fully signed up to it. Elle, would you be amenable to confirming that you understand and agree to stick to the following

Involvement (lifted from WP:ADMIN

• Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.
• Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
• it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards.

Copyright (from WP:LINKVIO)

• If you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Reliable sources (from WP:USERG)

• Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write AND (emphasis mine) the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer

If you can agree to the above, and agree to take any disagreements over sources to WP:RS/N and seek wider consensus, then I believe the community will be reassured.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am of course agreeable to all of this. I would also like for the community would pay more attention to the matter at hand. That has been my every desire -- my approach so far has been to wait several days to see if anyone would intervene -- posting on noticeboards if necessary. Can I ask the community to notice:

• Pay attention to the entire issue, especially the COI involved:
• Notice that long-term abuse, and widespread IP-hopping is involved

Other Singaporean administrators have been inactive. I have been taking it to other noticeboards, but what happens is that intervening administrators issue short-term remedies and then I am left at a loss when perpetrators switch to a different IP range, hit a different article (after it has been semi-protected by an intervening admin) or try a new way to game the system. It has been my every desire to avoid using the tools in an involved manner. In the rare cases where I do use my tools in the area, it generally has been to follow-up on another administrator's similar, but incomplete action.

The IPs involved have a very interesting conception of "abusing the tools" -- being queer, or posting one's suspicions on a talk page -- count as guilty for these IPs. At one time, the IP constantly reverted my additions to an article talk page (see the page history of Talk:Teo Ser Luck), and I saw it as uncontroversial to reinstate my own comments.

My suspicion is that if this were a matter concerning Western politics, there would be widespread attention quite quickly. More vigilant (and complete!) eyes is what I ask for. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter that other administrators be Singaporean to be eligible to intervene? In fact, by getting non-Singaporean administrators involved, the likelyhood of COI is greately reduced, as they can remain more objective. And Elle, although you do make use of the talk pages, there have been cases when you dont and basically ignore discussions when editing. I.e.this edit when I had already for a discussion of the content on the talk pages. Plus the edit history basically shows an war in progress. And its not that other administrators have not taken action. They have been issuing warnings to both the IP and Elle, but both sides are choosing to ignore the warnings. Would you have them take punitive action immediately ratther than engage you in dialogue?Zhanzhao (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait what? I waited for a reply from the intervening IP on that talk page for weeks...which never came. I made two reverts, one was because the reversion by the IP was given without explanation, and the second time was with my own explanation. Upon getting reverted once more, I promptly ceased.

It seems to me that the IP simply has no interest in the project, other than that of his employer's. All that matters for that IP is to ensure that his/her employer is not associated with the remarks he himself made. I consider this especially grievous, since the accusation was splattered all over Vincent Wijeysingha's page by accounts linked to the government (User:Alverya was declared a "likely" sock of User:Geneva2011, and both edited from government IPs). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The call for discussion was made to any and all editors who were making the changes/revisions that I asked to be settled in Talk before another edit war occurs. Which it did again. That includes both the IP AND you, Elle. If you had responded earlier, and not now, only the IP would have been guilty of not following protocol. As it is, both you and the IP are basically just warring with each other and reverting the exact same changes repeatedly, which if occuring within 24 hrs would have been an outright 3RRR matter. As it is, its still a 3RRR in spirit. As an admin, pardon the cliche, with great power comes great responsibility to do what is right. This is not the first time the issue is raised to you. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a gap of 2-3 weeks in which the IP never returned to discussion, satisfied that the right version had been reinstated, and never responded to my arguments. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x some,

It sounds very much as though you are saying the ends justify the means; that you believe it acceptable for an admin to disregard policy, guidelines, consensus and due process because of exceptional circumstances. It is not.

I am sure that a number of us here sympathize with your concerns over freedom of the press in Singa. However, that is not, will never be, an excuse for disregarding WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:INVOLVED and other policy/guidelines. You cannot make claims, without proof. You cannot make accusations such as "socking" without launching an SPI.

Right now, here, we are teetering on the brink of requesting formal procedures toward sanctions, to enforce regard for established guidelines.

We're trying to find a way to avoid it. You'll need to make considerable concessions; perhaps agreeing to not edit any articles in this area for some time. You'll also need to accept that the aforementioned policies are not to be disregarded "because you think it is RIGHT".  Chzz  ►  22:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern is actually not actually who "is right"; my gravest concern is WP:COI; I simply want these IPs to follow policy and I would prefer that the project not gain a reputation with government astroturfers that Wikipedia is an open hunting ground, or that criticisms can be removed with impunity. I disagree with a topic ban, if only because a) the users involved are anonymous b) too little attention is paid in this area. I have been very reluctant to use my tools but I will become even more so.

I am quite puzzled by the idea that I am making claims without proof. Users have generally agreed with me, that socks are involved; the SPI was launched by Strange Passerby after it happened after the nth time; I have in fact, posted previous evidence and proof on ANI before. I believe there is also "if it quacks like a duck" principle; initially, in the very early days of the dispute, and because CheckUser would be excessive (especially since it is likely only to catch registered users), I did not file an SPI report. SPI is not very good at identifying links between unregistered IPs.

I have never "disregarded" any policies and I have always considered the issues involved "carefully". For example, when a like to an interview used as a reference reverted by an anonymous user (linked in pattern to those with a likely COI and those who wish to game the system) on the grounds of "no Youtube videos" allowed; I have always double-checked policy to see if there are any grounds for such a removal. YouTube videos are frequently removed because a) of the fear of SPS b) of the fear of infringing copyright. I also read up regularly on fair use case law. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So basically you assumed consensus after a period of inactivity to enter your edit which restarted the edit war. Even though there was already a Talk topic on the area of conflict. I would like to point out that this is almost the exact same pattern of behaviour that got you into the last ANI report, the only difference being that instead of editing through a protected page, you edited in spite of an existing Talk topic that specifically requested input from the warring parties (you included, as yoi were very actively defending your edit), changing what was a safer wording (which was taking directly from the source) to something you SYNTHESISED. Do you see the problem yet? Zhanzhao (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, where did I synthesise anything? My summary was taken straight from news sources. One of the headlines from the mainstream press (TodayOnline) was: "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". I cited this repeatedly (in addition to other mainstream mentions that Balakrishnan basically had a tiff with the SDP over an alleged gay agenda).

I disagree that it was "a safer wording" -- it is something that I believe is being used to whitewash the topic in favour of an employer. I actually don't really care what the title says or "the Truth" -- it is in the intention of the anonymous editing that concerns me most. For example, look at the history of Vivian Balakrishnan/deleted revisions (the original article was deleted because of six-year-old foundational copyvio issues) and look at the unexplained removals from likely government employee User:Eggsauto99 (and his related socks), where similar removals took place in order to whitewash articles that put his employer in a bad light. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

For the others -- you should take a look at the insertions of User:Geneva2011/ User:Eggsauto99 (among his IP allies) regarding text and photos taken verbatim from government sources, or from high-resolution privileged perspectives that betray being a government employee. This, in addition to occasional WHOIS of IPs contributing to socking occasionally turning up government ministries (I have cited the specific instances before in past reports), creates a very strong suspicion of COI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Q what do you mean by "SPS" in the above?  Chzz  ►  22:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources. SPS depends on author, the publishing organisation and editorial discretion; it is not a question of format. YouTube is frequently used to make SPS, but is not always used to make SPS. The IP who reverted me in that instance was out to game the system and cherrypick policy (oh Youtube videos are looked down upon! revert) without looking at the spirit of the policy or guideline, which in this case, is to inhibit the use of SPS. We can reference television interviews which have been broadcast; in fact, sources do this all the time. Under the fair use case law that I have seen, I never seen where already-broadcast news reports have been treated as unpublished material, and the use of citations of interviews and excerpts is supported by fair use case law.elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot reference something that cannot be verified. A broadcast TV interview is, often, not verifiable. Your 'evidence' of a person uploading it to YouTube, apart from almost certainly being a copyright violation, is not a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  22:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is this supported by policy? There are tons of authoritative guides on how to cite TV interviews. The archives are physically accessible in Singaporean archives and libraries. (We have a National Archives of all past news broadcasts and publications, you know, and SPH is owned by the government.) In any case, even if the link to the video was problematic (which I removed as a concession, but I consider our link to it, fair use), its citation is not.

Some example articles where YouTube links to interviews are used without objection:

• Barack Obama
• Christine O'Donnell
• Milton Friedman
• Bob McDonnell
• Virginia gubernatorial election, 2009

Use for cases of critique or commentary, use for informational purposes, and nonfringing market share strengthen a claim for fair use. (The uploader is a press freedom watchdog organisation)elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:44, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:V.

I checked Barack_Obama, and saw uploads from users "BarackObamadotcom" and "MoxNewsDotCom". Those are, apparently, official channels. I did not check the others.  Chzz  ►  03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

If you revisit the source, you will see that the question was targeted at just one party member (individual) asking if he will pursue his "agenda" in the political arena, and the SDP (party) was only asked "about their position on their matter", to quote the article. And yet, you arrived at "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of a "gay agenda"." Where its the whole party itself rather than the person being "accused". I'd like to further point out that the term "accused" was only used with the act of suppressing a videos in the related issue, not in the context of how that one member was questioned. Accused is a strong, and potentially non-neutral word, that should be used carefully.

Yes, Elle, this is a case of SYNTHESIS. What you call "whitewash", I call "safer wording", or insurance against prevent embellishment and exaggeration. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly whitewashing if performed by editors with a likely conflict of interest. That fact concerns me the most.

Zhanzhao, the press source still basically says Vivian Balakrishnan (as spokesman for the PAP -- it is common to use synecdoche in the news) accused the SDP of having a gay agenda. That is their summary -- which they cannot make lightly -- and since we were talking about summaries, this supports my argument to summarise it that way. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. You are trying to explain that your summary says its SDP the party being accused, but the actual source only has one of the SDP members being questioned, while the party was only asked about their position or stance on the matter. I think you are starting to get confused yourself when you try to lump everything together, so thats why, with this case being a good example, it might be necessary to stick to the source wording rather than attempt to do a misleading summary. This could have been trashed out in talk instead of being discussed here. Hence the need for protocol. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the source interpreted this as the entire party being accused. I believe it is correct to use this source's interpretation to support what is clearly obvious to everyone: Balakrishnan accused an SDP politician (and the party he represents) of having a gay agenda. That a press source made this interpretation should be sufficient evidence. The claim that Balakrishnan made his initial "suppressing remark" without consciously trying to insinuate that the SDP had a gay agenda, is a fringe claim and should not be factored in titling the summary. Plenty of press sources make this interpretation, and no press sources make any opposing interpretations.

I am afraid Zhanzhao, what what you are doing is synthesis in itself. The idea then, that based "strictly on their original remarks" that it was possible, however unlikely, that Balakrishnan asked his "question" innocently is an original research statement unsupported by press sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The press did not make any such intepretation. 2 different questions were asked, one to the party member, one to the party. The article mentioned them together because it was from the same interview and on a related issue, but the 2 specific questions (and their targets )were still left separate. This is the exact quote ofrom the article

"The issue is not Wijeysingha's sexual orientation. That is a matter for him," said the team from Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in a joint statement. Rather, "the video raises the question on whether Wijeysingha will now pursue this cause in the political arena and what is the SDP's position on the matter".

You on the other hand, are trying to combine the 2 into a singular sentence that was very misleading, as explained above. which lead to the claim that it was the party that was being accused directly. This should have been discussed on the talk pages, but if you really wish to continue to justify your attempt at SYNTHESIS here, be my guest. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The headline was "PAP: Will Wijeysingha pursue gay agenda? SDP: No, we will not". How can that seriously be "two specific questions"? I would appreciate if you do not make bad faith accusations.

• The mainstream press referred to this accusation (otherwise why would the SDP have to defend itself against a phantom accusation of a gay agenda?)
• Temasek Review, Alex Au, and opposition press sources abundantly refer to this interpretation
• According to the Economist: "Social-networking sites filled up with the rebukes of Singaporeans disgusted at the PAP tactic."
• According to a New Zealand website: "Vivian Balakrishnan, on the SDP’s Vincent Wijeysingha. Balakrishnan via his Facebook and the media began what can only be described as a smear campaign, accusing SDP of having “a gay agenda”."

At some point, it really is a matter of semantics. If not "Balakrishnan accuses the SDP of having a gay agenda", then we can be inspired by The Economist's words. How about "Balakrishnan and the SDP's gay agenda", but that would assume the SDP actually has one. So then I would use "alleged gay agenda", and then "alleged by whom"? A mysterious person who is not Balakrishnan? I think we can use some NPOV and good common sense. In any case, I really would like if you took back the statement that I am a person who goes around sythesising original arguments to articles. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to take back my statement as you still do not see the problem. For the umtempth time, according to the source, 2 different questions were mentioned. One to the individual, one to the party. The problem is that the individual party member did not give his answer (If he did, I may have missed it so correct me if I am wrong here since it was not mentioned in the same article). Instead, it was the party who attempted to answer both questions together. "Let me state categorically, we are not pursuing the gay agenda and none of our Members of Parliament will," said Dr Chee(SDP Secretary General).". Problem is they were not asked if they had such an agenda,, just their position on their member's agenda. They assumed that the party itself was being questioned. The news report had no choice but to report it as it was. Just because the SDP chose to answer the question in that manner does not change the fact that the original question about the agenda was not directed at them. I.e. If I asked a person if he was from Singapore, and he answered that he was poor. Would I stand accused of calling him poor, even though he was the one that answered the question different from what I expected? As for the other points you mentioned, I just explained the mainsteam media bit, other admins already questioned the reliability of some of the sources, and the economist does not say what the tactic was or how it is evidence of the SDP being accused. Until you are able to objectively read what is being said without jumping to your own conclusions, or discern objective writeups from subjective ones, its quite difficult to continue editing like this. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation does not change the headline or the newspaper's succinct summary, and it is not OR to use an existing headline. Furthermore, I have already given you a source which echoes what everyone else was thinking: Balakrishnan was making a thinly-veiled accusation. The Economist uses very good prose -- how explicit does it have to be in order for a reader to link "the PAP tactic" with the accusation at hand? I am saying even if we do not call it an accusation of a gay agenda, it is Balakrishnan hinting that the SDP has some sort of agenda (oh by the way, it's a gay one) and I think it's fairly ridiculous to reject the title in light of three different sources basically supporting that in some way or other, Balakrishnan was adopting coercive tactics towards the SDP, associating it with "gay agenda". If there is a problem, it is not one of OR. I would really really really appreciate it if you would then accuse me of something else other than being a someone who would freely violate WP:SYNTH. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty interesting you should say that, because imo, you just did. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I employed heavy reliance on sources in that addition. Can you explicitly point out which statements are OR? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion for topic ban on La goutte de pluie relating to Singaporean politics

Taking all the above into account; the fact that La goutte de pluie (hereafter "Elle" or "Lgdp") has misused her admin tools while WP:INVOLVED; the fact that Lgdp has edited through page protection to restore her preferred version of an article' the fact that she has repeatedly ignored WP:RSN advice and included unreliable sources and original research; and that she has failed to and refused to recognise her inappropriate actions in doing so;

I hereby move for an indefinite topic ban on La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs) on all articles relating to Singapore politics, broadly construed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've been looking at the evidence so far and don't see a justification for a topic ban. As far as editing through a page protection, is there evidence of whether the edits were reverted or an apology was made? -- Avanu (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me try to wrap my head around this. You're perfectly happy for a page listing what admins have "done wrong" to exist, but when it comes to actually sanctioning them for doing wrong, you're against it? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with sanctioning someone, but I want to be clear it is warranted. The same is true with the other debate. Also, I would tend to err in favor of speech being allowed in userspace (versus mainspace). I tend to dislike topic bans, because I think they are harder to enforce than just a simple block or removal of power, etc. Suppose someone is topic banned from editing about hot dogs, and they edit a page about processed meat, or a page about sausage? violation or not? -- Avanu (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, Strange Passerby. I am unaware of where I have repeatedly ignored WP:RSN advice -- I have constantly listened to advice, but while Temasek Review is indeed a blog, it is a significant and notable one and can be cited in certain circumstances. When I have done so, I have been careful. Citing a TV interview is hardly using an unreliable source. Where I have been notified, I have corrected or made a compromise.

I have tried to use my tools very cautiously, and only in very blatant cases; my default mode of action is to post on a noticeboard or wait for intervention. I am unaware of where I have violated WP:INVOLVED since the last notice; the one case that I remember was an IP involved as a copyvio sock where other copyvio socks had been already been blocked by other admins -- I would also like for the community to note the circumstances where page protection was mistakenly edited through (most protections do not last more than 4 days, and I explicitly petitioned for discussion in multiple fora). elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie, did you revert your edits when you edited through page protection? If not, why, and what was your action instead, and how do you justify it? -- Avanu (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

See my request to Toddst1 here-- after 3-4 days, he never replied and I thought he saw my message. When it was first brought to ANI I was initially puzzled -- especially since I thought I had notified Toddst beforehand -- but after realising I had mistakenly edited through protection I wanted to wait to see if he agreed or not. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. La goutte de pluie makes positive (adding & updating content) & negative (breaching WP:OR) contributions to Singapore-related articles; the negatives are not on a scale where a ban is justified, and most of the time is dealt with swiftly by other editors.

A word of advice for La goutte de pluie: Your intransigence is digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole. I understand and admire your zeal in trying to prevent government-linked accounts from making COI edits and copyright violations, but you are losing the battle of wits against them by overplaying your hand. You misused your admin tools and were warned about it, in addition to being advised by multiple admins to keep in line with WP:RS, WP:LINKVIO and WP:OR. Instead of heeding community advice, you keep making exceptions for yourself, blaming the Singapore's lack of free press, which is really utterly irrelevant in Wikipedia. In fact, in most of the controversial articles you have been involved in, I noticed that most of the negative information on the subject you wished to add can readily be sourced from reliable internet news sites (like Yahoo! News). Your refusal to humbly accept other admins' courteous advice is making you look arrogant, and is probably what led to this topic ban proposal.

Your attitude has brought you on the verge of being topic-banned, which can only be good news for the government-linked COI and CCI violators. See what I'm saying? Sometimes you have to take a step back before you can move forward. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 02:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I'm sorry if I seemed arrogant. I am simply trying to explain my individual actions, and how I had carefully considered policy each time. In fact, initially -- having returned from a long break, I assumed many of the policies of 2006 were still in place, and then independent websites had less issues in being used as sources, albeit with the knowledge they were potentially partisan. With time, I used an assortment of different sources to give different positions on the same issue. I want to emphasise that I do take advice very seriously -- I am simply explaining my own position. I in fact intended to take many things to the RSN noticeboard, especially to challenge the idea that TR and TOC, etc. should never be cited (to me, they are comparable to such activist sites as MoveOn.org, which are citable), rather than argue endlessly about sourcing on talk pages, but due to real life, I simply did not have time to. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support but only to a temporary topic ban. She has been a good editor in other areas, and the election fevour may still be in the air, sitting on the sidelines for a while would allow her to cool off. But if possible, her admin tools in these same areas should be withheld for a much longer period than the topic ban jist in case. On our part we other admins and editors must pay more attention to the legitimate complaints that she makes rwgarding NPOV edits made by the IPs and take action on her behalf more actively. StrangePasserby and Todd are 2 that attempted to help her before, and their lack of COI made their action more objective based, which should be continued. Can I suggest that some senior admin be designated as her "conteoller/advisor" in a more permanant basis for the duration? By having an objective admin step in for legitimate concerns we are maintaining the neutrality of wikipedia while also making Elle tone down on her over-enthusiasm in this area if she has to ask properly and make convincing arguments to get action taken rather than herself making drastic and possibly COI action in the edits and administrative tool usage. Zhanzhao (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support - the user has been disrupting that area since they returned - seems to think he is defending against some conspiracy that hasn't been an issue till he showed up. As a clear political activist and a single purpose account in regard to attacking the opposition politicians using dubious picture uploads, youtube links and blog citations, (all of them living people and BLP articles) a topic ban is a very good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, Rob, she's "attacking" the government politicians, not the opposition. Not that it makes a difference, of course; either way her actions are questionable at best. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Whoa, what? Single purpose account? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 15:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'll hate doing this but Support – disruption would be blockable, when we get to discuss it, we could do the final decision. We shouldn't start something too big. ~~Ebe123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• I was planning to support this, as I have very definite feelings about admins using their power or prestige in matters involving COI, but looking over the discussion, I think she now understands, and no further purpose would be served by a formal restriction. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Elle/La goutte de pluie is still making edits over at Singaporean presidential election 2011 (which currently I didn't spot any COI between editors, I suppose it was targeted towards me), Vivian Balakrishan's page (I find nothing wrong with the line "elected unopposed", but Elle seems to like to introduce sarcastic remarks like "enjoyed a second walkover". "Enjoy"??? Seriously? Aside from that she's adding new references from Scoop. Refer talk page) and on Tin Pei Ling's page (where she re-added the reference link (youtube video). I had brought it up that it had no relevance much earlier on the talk page and she could not even back up with a proper claim on why it's required.)202.156.13.10 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, there's no Youtube video cited in that link. I cited the news report directly (as with the original). Also "enjoy" is not sarcastic in this phrase has multiple meanings, including "benefit from". elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I'm supporting the topic-ban, as I think it could help with the immediate concern. However, I hesitate to do so, as I believe it will not resolve the core problem - that La goutte de pluie seems to continue to think it is acceptable to act outside of accepted practice because of the actions of others. The above requests, asking La goutte de pluie to agree to abide by policy/guideline norms, have been side-tracked by discussions of the IP-users. As StrangePasserby said, it's not a one-way street; however, two wrongs don't make a right, and a defence of I disagree with a topic ban, if only because a) the users involved are anonymous b) too little attention is paid in this area are not valid rationales for opposing this; again, it's WP:NOTTHEM. The user continued to add controversial material, even during this discussion [13] and their apparent misunderstanding of RS and copyvio still concerns me - even though it has been explained by several users above, e.g. still thinking it OK to cite something that was broadcast, despite it not being verifiable, just because we've got a "Cite video" template; also claims it is somehow more acceptable to use a non-RS when it is a 'supplementary source'; also saying blog posts from well-known journalists, despite scathing language, are frequently accepted as sources (which worries me particularly, in terms of BLP). The above specific discussions regarding SYNTH/OR belong on the article talk-page, not here - but, the concern right here is, that - despite past cautions about the same issues - the user continues to impose their interpretation without working towards consensus.  Chzz  ►  13:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with any legal or academic opinions in which broadcast items can be considered "not published". In all fairness, looking at various copyright case law sources, being broadcast is equivalent to being published. Furthermore, my use of "supplementary source" was an attempt at compromise; additional sources published from heavily-censored environments can be considered when cross-referenced with more reliable sources. I think this is a fairly reasonable thing to propose.

I would also request a clarification why you think I do not work towards consensus, a comment I am fairly surprised at, when that has always been my goal. I have always tried to compromise -- it is fairly easy to work with established editors. However, anonymous IPs have a tendency to revert without explanation, or the use of compromise. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: per my comments above. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Admin and editor are two different hats, and the bulk of valid points in this complaint appear to be relating to actions taken by the user while wearing the admin-hat (ie. admin tools misuse). The issues related to the validity and interpretation of the sources while the user is wearing their editor-hat don't warrant a topic ban. Deal with the admin-hat issues through appropriate channels, there's not enough to justify simultaneously sanctioning the user's ability to act under their editor-hat as well. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Re La goutte de pluie's use of sources, all I have to say is that I think we need to allow considerably more latitude in sourcing articles about a country where its government controls what appears in its "mainstream" media. More important is that, like others here, I also have the strong impression that our articles on Singaporean politics are the target of a coordinated government propaganda campaign, and that anon IP hoppers are a large part of that. It would seem naive to me to imagine that editors who act in opposition to this campaign, as La goutte de pluie does, would not be attacked by anonymous users in such a context. Also, while I recognize that using a named account isn't required, it doesn't impress me much when I see long-term established editors attacked here by IP users. If someone isn't committed enough to our community to even create an account ( e.g. to allow proper scrutiny ) then I generally apply a pretty steep discount to their credibility re a complaint like this one. That seems particularly called for in this subject area, where objectivity is so consistently and aggressively threatened by COI edits from socks, paid government propagandists, and IP hoppers. Having said that, I'll also say that these comments are not meant to apply to any particular user, and certainly not to any registered and long-established users, whose good faith I have absolutely zero basis to doubt or question.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. While Ohiostandard raises mentions the valid possibility that the IPs are possible coordinated attacks, these can be easily controlled by a semi-protect. But then how about the need to protect the page from named editors who have anti-government sentiments, or worse, admins who can edit through normal protection as La goutte was shown to have done? She said it was a mistake, but still, it would not have been possible if she was not an admin in the first place, and as pointed out by a few others above, has COI issues to boot.

Lets not forget that wikipedia is a literally a free-for-all battleground for both sides. I speak from past experience from having to keep another unrelated page neutral from the actions of a anti-government leaning editor who was so blatant that he was even recruiting meatpuppets from external forums to wage their ideological war here, so I know such editors exist. The case is clearly "chronicaled" in my talk page if you guys care to read it.

Also, I note that from La goutte's edit history, she only resumed active duty around the period of the general elections (the last one and the current one). Even her user page comments on her desire to be more vocal regarding politics. That, plus her habit of using selective sources and attempting to bulldoze her way through via wikilawyering makes her a questionable editor in the political articles. Sometimes she even uses guidelines in opposing ways to support her objectives. Her quoting copyvio on the V.Balakrishnan articles is acceptable, but then she switches tact and plays free and easy with copyvio when she wants to insert something that is copyrighted [14]. Who watches the watchers?

Especially since she was already warned recently in another ANI of similar behaviour which is still being highlighted here. I suppose we can go through all this again if yetanother report is raised about her. After all, she does not seem to take corrective criticism to heart. Or a serious warning can be given to her this time, something that she finally has to take seriously. DanS76 (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. La goutte's seems to have a clear conflict of interest, just as her opponents, but just because your opponent is in the wrong doesn't give you license to do the same. Either Elle continues to use admin tools on Singaporean articles and refrains from any content changes, or contributes to content while refraining to use admin tools. She can't have it both ways. A topic ban, therefore, is a milder approach than outright desysopping. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alternative: Put disputed articles on 1RR+semi

An alternative proposal to consider: Given the above-established facts, and noting the repeated edit warring between Elle and the anonymous IPs, all additions to the contested articles: Vivian Balakrishnan, Tin Pei Ling, Teo Ser Luck, Vincent Wijeysingha and Singaporean general election, 2011, are to be put under a one-revert-rule per user per article per 24 hours. On the IPs' side, this would mean semiprotection, with any changes to be proposed on the talk page. This much more sufficiently deals with the fact that this isn't a one-way street and only sanctioning Elle will not work in the long run. Elle would not be allowed to use her admin tools in this area. This will hopefully foster a more conducive environment where all additions, contentious or otherwise, are first discussed on the talk pages. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support 1RR on the contested articles and a full administration ban on Elle on the contested articles for the duration of the sanction. Considering it appears the flashpoint here is a current event, I'd support a sanction length of 3 months. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. In part for the reasons I gave above re SPB's initial proposal, but also because I think semi-protection would be a much more appropriate response to deal with the problem. I don't see that any other action or sanction is at all called for at this point. I don't edit in this topic area, btw.  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support We are heading in the rigth direction here as we are putting in some form of control. Admins should stay uninvolved, and know when they cross the threshhold. Whatever works. I feel that a semiprotect unbalances the playing field though. For example, I see that 202.156.13.10 is an IP that appears consistently and frequently, which means it is possibly a static IP, so it is unfair to him/her. The other IPs are quite random and e edits are outright disruptive without being participative so for all intent and purposes we can take them as one single bunch which can be ignored. Is there anyway we can do selecrive filtering of IPs for the semiprotect? DanS76 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the 202.156.13.10 editor has been hopping across several other IPs too (self-admittedly), and actually claims that simultaneously other editors have also been on this IP of his, so it's both shared and dynamic. It's long past the point where for this person to insist on his "right" to edit logged-out has become disruptive. He needs to get an account and stick to it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm you are right, I was only basing off the frequency of the IP appearing but guess I was off. In which case it still does not change my vote, but the the semiprotect would cut down on the warring from one side at least.DanS76 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I dislike reverting more than once, and I would like it if some accountability was stressed on the part of the IP editors. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Disagreement with content should be resolved in Talk. As for the semiprotect, I guess this is unavoidable and I have no objections to it as I had already previously pitched the idea to them to register so as to faciliatate easier communication, plus this makes it easier to keep track of diacussions with him/her/them. Zhanzhao (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Elle should be free to take administrative actions that need to be taken (such as enforcing 1RR). ~Amatulić (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support. A more balanced and constructive approach which will prevent troll-like reverts by the IPs. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 21:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Question: If one side is an "IP-hopper" (or group of them), how can you block to enforce 1RR? Would it be more accurate to state that this is imposing both wide semi-protection to stop the IP problem, along with 1RR for confirmed editors? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right. A rangeblock here is bad, since Starhub and Singtel have big active clusters. I've updated the proposal slightly to make this clear. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the "semi" part of 1RR+semi solve that? The IPs won't be able to post at all without an auto-confirmed account. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit review request

Can someone please review Off2riorob's revert of my revision here. I already tried to compromise, and I would like him to explain what is particularly wrong with that revision, since I added both the self-published statement from the politician himself, as well as an article from TodayOnline. Cheers. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikistalking by anonymous editors

Can I ask for some intervention against wikistalking here by one of the anonymous IP ranges. For example, I just noticed this IP reversed the uncontroversial revert I made (I had removed agenda-pushing linkspam from The Clinton Chronicles). I am not sure what interest user:220.255.1.100 had in The Clinton Chronicles except to stalk my contributions. This is just one case out of many. In cases like these, I would see it fit to block on sight, since I would deem this incontroversial. In the past, when I have referred this other noticeboards, they taken very narrow remedies, and the editors involved are free to switch to some other IP range; I would like some help in dealing with these anonymous editors as a whole. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't semi-protection deal with it? I can see in context of this discussion that you'd rather not apply it yourself, but just let me know on or off wiki and I'll do it for you, in anything unrelated to singapore politics at least. I just did it for this one. I'd also block, but if they switch to other ip ranges, what would that accomplish? DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like some help (a more aggressive CheckUser) or perhaps some way of separating the IPs in question. I am definitely not in favour of WP:OUTING any individuals, but given that Eggsauto99 and Geneva2011 were in all likelihood, editing on behalf of some organisation, I would like help in determining what that organisation is. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, semi-protection wouldn't solve it either, given that switching to another article is also easy, but thanks. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I find it funny you constantly like to play victim when you are the one doing wiki-stalking. Reverting edits I've made, undoing the IP talk pages which I've cleaned up. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You cannot clean up IP talk pages that you don't own, especially if you are deleting comments left by established members of the community. Individuals are allowed to patrol the edits of problematic IP such as yours, especially since it's a public IP. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 23:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was told it's fine to clean up. 202.156.13.10 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That only applies to users who do not share accounts, or with unique identities. With public or sockpuppeteering IPs, it is less clear; it is better to err on the side of more info. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OhioStandard in the sections above at least about one thing: the IP trolling needs to stop. Sure, it's one of our principles that we don't require registration, but that principle is meant to enable newcomers to quickly and easily make some uncontroversial fix here and there. It is not meant to enable people to engage in long-standing, personalized disputes with other, registered editors, while themselves evading WP:SCRUTINY. If you want to uphold a sustained presence in a dispute, especially in an area where disruptive sockpuppetry has already occurred, and especially if you are also willing to edit-war, and if you have repeatedly been asked to create an account, then you should damn well stick to an account, or be discounted as a malicious element. So, official admin warning to 202.156.13.10/202.156.13.11/202.156.13.226: stick to an account or be blocked. (And I encourage fellow administrators to respond to any more disruptive IP editing with liberal use of blocks and semiprotections). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule that I must get an account. I have already explained why the IP jumps and that it is beyond my control that they flip even within seconds. It is you and LDPG who do not believe in it and the latter often accuses me of using some IP-jumping equipment. I would like to ask why LDGP couldn't keep her hands off articles I'm editing in then and start accusing me of sockpuppetry whenever she can even when I was reverting edits made done to vandalism on S.R. Nathan page. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm replying here since I can't seem to add it in at the top where La goutte de pluie questioned why I deleted her comment in Teo Ser Luck's talk page. This isthe comment which LDGP added with her sockpuppet (obvious sockpuppet since she reverted back to LDGP's edit to include the Yahoo! article). Was it wrong to remove a baseless accusation? So is she going to bring your government conspiracy talk to every single page? I see that LDGP have done so by adding COI in Tony Tan Keng Yam when there wasn't even much going on. And when COI was removed by another editor, LDGP's reply was that "Tempwikisc works in Tony Tan's office (by his own admission). hard to think of a more explicit COI." Baseless accusation again. As it isn't bad enough, what's with changing a perfectly normal heading "political career" to "rise to power"? Are you writing about Hitler? LDGP has some serious anti-governement issues. 202.156.13.11 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

And this is the true basis of your complaint? That you think La goutte de pluie has "serious anti-government issues" is what you're really complaining about? You'll not find universal sympathy on that basis here, I believe: We're not discussing a morally-neutral question, some matter of personal taste, like whether one likes broccoli. Most of us consider the civil liberties on which our respective national governments were founded to be intrinsic human rights; most of us would have what you call "serious issues" if our governments censored our media or manipulated our elections so that they became a sham.

To admins: Will someone please block/rangeblock this IP and semi-protect the relevant articles? I'd feel differently if our friend who brought this complaint would avail his edit history of the wp:scrutiny that the person he's complaining about is subject to. But given that he refuses, and given the seriousness of the disruption from anon users in the topic area, this has gone on long enough.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on OhioStandard, that's just whitewashing here. Your personal opinion of governments aside, Elle has been as guilty as the IP of pushing an extreme POV and COI. Sanctioning one side and letting the other get away scot-free, even when many good faith editors have expressed serious concerns, is absolutely the wrong thing to do here. You're trying to make it seem that Elle's edits are all totally forgiveable because of Singapore's media climate. Let's make it clear, they're not. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can I have some explanation of how I have been pushing "an extreme POV"? I have been doing my utmost to comply with policy. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 03:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

@SPB: It may be that you're aware of actions that I'm not? I agree that the specific examples LGDP asks for to support the charge of pushing an extreme POV would be helpful. But please understand I do take the concerns you've expressed seriously. The only objection I have is that they appear due in large part to what I consider a misapplication of NPOV policy. That policy doesn't always demand that an editor blind himself to all moral judgments: We don't require editors to present a "neutral" view in our article about murder, if you'll allow the that example. The lead there unapologetically includes the value judgment "the commission of a murder is highly detrimental to the good order within society".

Similarly, La goutte de pluie evidently edits from the belief that a person's right to govern others derives only from their collective consent, and that attempts to derive that consent based on sham elections of the sort that overwhelming evidence documents as the status quo in Singapore are likewise "detrimental". YMMV, but I can see nothing remotely inappropriate in such an editorial perspective when the facts it's based on cannot be seriously disputed and when the values that support it are so nearly universal. Nor can I see that acknowledging any of this is a matter of "personal opinions of governments" at all, or that doing so violates NPOV in any way.

On the contrary, elections subject to the kinds of manipulations that feature in Singapore aren't elections at all; they're public relations exercises carried out to justify the effective appointment of compliant supporters. It thus seems inappropriate to me to require editors to write about them with the NPOV we employ for legitimate elections, or to require that our articles about those individuals that the corrupt process there puts in power have the same popular mandate that genuinely elected officials in other countries rightly enjoy.

I doubt that anyone is operating at the top of his or her form under the stress of this extended conflict, and the reinstatement of the notice that Future Perfect describes below does seem to demonstrate that. But from my perspective, the broader charge that La goutte de pluie's actions have been "pushing an extreme POV" can be supported only by accepting a misapplication of NPOV policy.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

More problematic admin actions by La goutte

I hate to have to report this, but it seems LGdP hasn't really got the message about her admin actions yet. Here's what happened just today. LGdP had blocked the IP editor 202.156.13.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) last week. Yesterday, I again blocked that user, together with his other IP 202.156.13.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for disruptive editing (according to my warning in the section above). Two other admins have so far declined unblock requests by them. So far so good. But now LGdP comes in again. The IP had been removing a talk page notice by LGDP made in the context of the now stale block discussion from last week. The talk page notice had no objective function any longer in the context of the present block. Nevertheless, LGdP decided to edit-war to re-instate it, while the unblock discussion of the present block was ongoing. She broke 3RR over it, and then decided to semiprotect the IP's talk page. By doing so, she was effectively preventing the IP from further requesting an end to the current block; a block which was made essentially to protect LGdP from the IP's trolling, and to which LGdP was thus clearly an involved party. I must say I find this highly troubling. I have undone the protection now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The review was related to an unblock request; and one admin had reverted the previous removal before. I did not think it would be controversial. Since it is a public IP, aggressive and selective removal of notices should be flagged, in the very least. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 07:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This notice was not of a kind that it would have been necessary to understand the context of the blocks; in fact, it had no function whatsoever at this point. Of course, the IP's decision to make a fuss over removing it is itself also a sign of a silly "I'll-remove-this–because-I-can" battleground mentality, but your decision of "I'll-restore-it-because-I-can" is not much better. In any case, nothing of what you said affects the gist of the argument about this being an illegitimate involved admin action, and a breach of 3RR at that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I certainly did not want to make any controversial edits; I did not see grounds for removing my comment, and I noted the user was combative even towards User:Jpgordon. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 08:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Elle, read WP:BLANKING. Removing warnings is expressly allowed. This is a highly concerning new development. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

We allow the removal of warnings, because when a warning is removed the assumption is that the editor is acknowledging receipt of the warnings. An admin of all people should know that. -- Atama頭 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

I'm having a problem with a disruptive editor. On Celtic F.C. supporters, Adam4267 (talk · contribs) keeps inserting information that is not reliably sourced or not notable, as a consensus on the talk page indicates. See the history: I made three individual edits ([15], [16], and [17]), edit summaries and all, removing mostly puffery based on company sources. Adam4267 reverts, without rhyme, reason, or explanation, here, I revert and explain why here, and so on, until he finally asks for an explanation on the talk page. Adam is apparently incapable of reading edit summaries, and does not write them gladly. Funny thing is, the talk page already had extensive discussion of the sources and statements involved.

Another point of contention, raised on the talk page by another editor, was some claim about Celtic having the third-largest fanbase in the UK, based on this link--which obviously says nothing of the kind. That also was removed, with a consensus on the talk page and no participation from Adam--and they reinstated it, together with all the Celtic fan puffery, in this edit--without edit summary, of course.

This pattern of not listening, not paying attention to consensus, not explaining, and not taking into account relevant policies on reliable sources and original research, he exercises also on Green Brigade, where he continues to remove sourced information (as he did again today, here), despite broad talk page agreement on most parts of the content--and also keeps inserting an image that violates our OR policy.

I'm tired of dealing with this person, who has managed to rub a lot of feathers, and I will notify those editors, as well as the editor who warned me for edit warring on Celtic F.C. supporters (just for fairness' sake). Possible administrative solutions I could conceive of are a temporary block, or an injunction to stay away from at the very least the aforementioned two articles. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• (ec with Warburton) Or maybe someone can tell him what the problem is--apparently I am incapable of doing so, and I have lost patience. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for any bans in this case they way forward on this matter is already laid out on the talkpage of the article in question the way forward is through discussion on that. Both users have there own points that they see as valid dispute resoloution would be a better way to deal with it a ban is not appropriate. Warburton1368 (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Warburton, and I appreciate your attempt at diplomacy, but that was laid out yesterday already, if not earlier, and today's edits suggested that it didn't help. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time for a complete reply to Drmies as I am about to go, but one point I would like to make is with this why did you choose this edit for your example and not my next edit here In which I stated 2 edits per WP:BRD. I have given my opinion of your editing style here. I do not appreciate your editing style as I made clear and it seems I am not the only one. I appreciate you said this was a joke on your talk page but it was not nice. Your response to me may have been sarcasm if it was then it is an example of the style which I do not like. If it wasn't then I am glad you will consider my opinion. And while some of your jokes are funny there is a time and a place and serious discussions are not the place especially when tensions are already running high. Anyway as I have already stated (too many times) I am going to the Celtic match so I may be on later tonight to see what has happens. I will try and get some pictures and hopefully they will meet wiki standards. Adam4267 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am dead serious about WP:OR (the image on Green Brigade, for instance) and WP:RS (the staff about Celtic's huge fan base in Kenya, for instance). That you don't like my editing style, well, that's neither here nor there. You should address the issues at hand. I am not the only one who's troubled by your editing. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies here. Attempts at discussion have gone no where. Adam bluntly refuses to follow wiki guidelines about dispute resolution.

I think User Adam suffers from a serious case of COI in this subject. He states he is a Celtic fan and even leaves comments like this [18], reinforcing this COI. For quite a while now I have debated certain aspects with Adam on both Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters where by he bluntly refuses to get outside help for disagreements even after being pointed to the correct place to ask.

In the debate surrounding sources on Green Brigade it was left up to myself to go to the RS noticeboard and get some outside feedback, after Adam made this reply [19]. He has also left a reply like this to an extensive reason as to why some sources and other material is not suitable (especially an image which has been reinserted by adam about two dozen times)

On the Celtic F.C. supporters I attempted to alter some information that was not neutral and add some tags to show where the article was not up to standard but Adam continually removed them Stating that they were irrational and petty even though since then the tags have proved to be correct. For my trouble of adding tags I was reported for edit warring. Which has put me off editing the article. I also see Adams staunch views and editing has put others off even attempting to improve the articles.

It disappoints me that it has come to this but after going over and over the same points with Adam about where his general contributions and editing fail wiki standards it does not surprise me.Monkeymanman (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the underlying problem is that Adam is clearly very passionate about Celtic and sees Wikipedia as a way of promoting the club. This leads to a kind of spin doctoring approach whereby he vigorously pushes anything he sees as positive and vigorously challenges anything he sees negative. He pays scant attention to wikipolicies on areas such as reliable sources etc. The irony of this is that it leads to a one-sided approach that doesn't read well as people will see it isn't balanced. Hearing the other point of view makes both stronger. Puff pieces are simply not convincing.

The second problem, again probably because he has strong feelings on the matter, is that he isn't really taking on board what people are telling him, pretty much presuming that any critisism is some form of personal attack. Or, the alternative is that he really doesn't understand some of the core wiki policies.

The third problem is that he bears a grudge. A number of us, including Adam, Monkeyman and myself, have had disagreements in the past. Where as the rest of us have taken lessons onboard and are, i think, editing with more diplomacy and greater attention to wiki policies, Adam is still ploughing the same old fields. He has to learn to take olive branches when offered, compromise and accept sometimes things will not go his way.

He has, in my opinion beyond any doubt, become seriously disruptive. I would suggest some form of mentoring would be the way forwards, with an editor who knows the ins-and-outs of wiki policy, which seems few and far between TBH (I would have suggested Drmies!). Certainly we need to put a stop to this behaviour and move forward in a more constructive manner.

One exercise that taught me a lot abbout wikipedia was editing the page Vang Vieng where I was tasked with putting forward the positive side of the argument, even though my own opinions are more to the negative. These things really help to focus on making wikipedia better, rather than trying to turn it into a soapbox. Mattun0211 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Would WP:DRN not a be a better way of dealing with this. Warburton1368 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing about that noticeboard Warburton is that it will likely redirect to other noticeboards that are relavent i.e. Reliable sources noticeboard, ANI etc. I myself alone have repeatedly asked Adam to go to these noticeboards if he disagrees (e.g. if sources are reliable). He has never done so, not once. It was left to others. The main problem raised here is Adams general editing, i.e. reverting numerous times when viable reasons have been given on discussion, reinserting material that has been justifiably disputed etc.Monkeymanman (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I hadn't thought of the COI being a real issue. Since I haven't plowed through Adam's other edits, I have no basis to judge, and as far as I'm concerned it's not the most important thing. For the record, Mattun has, in the past, come to my talk page to ask me to look at articles and edits (see my archive) ever since we butted heads on Green Brigade--I think I notified them about edit-warring, but I don't remember who the other involved editor was. I think Monkeymanman was involved in that dispute as well. But Mattun and others have clearly learned from the experience and are, in my opinion, helpful and productive editors.

Warburton, I considered DRN, or some other kind of resolution, and have urged involved editors to go that route, and they have--all but one. That means that dispute resolution in that fashion is not going to work. Now, I have tried, as Mattun suggests above, to mediate, and initially (on Green Brigade, a while ago), that seemed to have worked, but by now I am too involved to be independent, which is why I come to this board rather than continuing to warn and perhaps block for disruption. Surely there must be some seasoned editors who care for footy (what a silly word--just call it voetbal) and who are not fans of Celtic, or their rival, or the IRA, or whatever, and who can apply their knowledge of WP to come to judicious decisions--but those can only be attained if all participants are willing to play by the rules, the most important one of which is, in this case, to abide by consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per WP:COI. --John (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI warburton, Adam seems to shy away from the resolution noticeboards. But if he's reading, this from WP:COI is very relevant I think. "If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party, independent published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back, reassessing your edits, and discussing your intentions with the community. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously."

If he took that onboard, I think this issue would be resolved. Mattun0211 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We would not normally refer to a fan as having a conflict of interest. That term is reserved for situations where the individual has a financial interest, a commercial or business interest, an interest concerning their academic reputation, a family relationship or similar. Which is not to say that a fan will edit neutrally, just that COI is not the problem you need to address - WP:NPOV is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Note: though claiming others are acting as if they WP:OWN the article, Adam seems to do just that here[20] where undoing others' changes, he claims he will continue to do so and is unwilling to discuss such - but that the other editors involved need to discuss undoing his changes. "No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board. You two do not own this page and have no right to attempt to make me do so. I will continue to make additions and if you have a problem with anything I add or any references I use feel free to bring it up here". That leaves, in my opinion, the (his) issues of "ownership" and unwillingness to collaborate the more important issues - issues that may indeed warrant the article/topic ban if they cannot be resolved. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason I said that is because when I made an addition it was removed then had to be discussed to be re-added. If one of the other three editors made an addition it was kept and had to be discussed to be removed. Which I think is unfair. Adam4267 (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Someone employed WP:BRD. You were bold, someone reverted, then it's time to discuss. Perhaps this can be cleared up by you reading that link. And remember, if the article isn't perfect for a few days while you all hash it out, it's no big deal. As for another editor of the three, after having discussed the changes, implementing them... that's a bit different. Fact is, you may not get your way... or you may. But this is a collaborative effort. The only winner should be Wikipedia. Hopefully after you read up on WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY (via reliable sources, you'll have a better understanding of what's been happening. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Elen that this isn't really a COI issue. But we don't need a COI established to issue a topic ban. If Adam is being disruptive and is incapable of editing in a neutral manner on this topic, a ban from this topic might be warranted. -- Atama頭 17:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How long a topic ban would be appropriate, do we think? I propose six months in the first instance. --John (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think talk of a topic ban is a bit premature. It hasn't even been established whether I am being disruptive or not, (for the record I don't think I am) or if I am editing in a non-neutral manner. I will admit that a few of my edits might not be perfect, but on the whole I think I am acting in a neutral manner. Adam4267 (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this latest post demonstrates the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentioned in the header for this section. A number of people have discussed problems with your editing, and suggested ways forward, but no one thus far except yourself seems to think that the problem has not been clearly demonstrated. Perhaps you might want to read this section again, and rethink. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The fact that Adam is so blind to what he is doing further reinforces the claims being made here. "I will admit that a few of my edits might not be perfect, but on the whole I think I am acting in a neutral manner." That statement, contrasted with what Drmies illustrated above, seems to encapsulate the problem succinctly. -- Atama頭 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that their has been disruption, but I don't think I am much more responsible for this than anyone else. I disagree with people saying I am not neutral though. On occassion I have made edits which weren't completely neutral. But I think on the whole I have tried to act neutrally. If you wish I can find examples of other editors acting non-neutrally and being disruptive. I don't really want to do this but if a six month ban is the alternative, then I will. Adam4267 (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

An appeal to WP:NOTTHEM is a poor strategy. At best, you'll find others sharing the ban. Your best bet is to acknowledge the problem, explain how you will change, and then demonstrate that change. I think it's clear that you think you've been editing neutrally, which is a large part of the problem, it's not necessary for you to repeat that claim. -- Atama頭 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• User seems immune to clue. I suggest a 3-month topic ban at this point; hopefully during that time Adam will re-examine his approach and come to understand that if everyone else is saying his edits are POV and disruptive, his opinion that they are wrong may well be in error; at the very least his view represents a vanishing minority view. I suggest that learning how to write for the enemy might be helpful, or perhaps writing for subjects he cares less about. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  If you look at the talk page you will see that consensus was moving towards keeping the sources I put in [21]. Are you seriously considering blocking me without even looking at my edits, which no-one appears to have done so far. It concerns me greatly that administrators would block someone without even looking at their edits. Adam4267 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  Why on earth would you assume that we have not examined your contributions carefully before commenting here? That is standard practice for administrators, to the point that no one bothers to say "Having examined (user's) edits...." You are clearly unfamiliar with standard practice for admins commenting on ANI. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Three month topic ban, broadly construed, with recommendation to edit other articles and gain wider experience of how things work here before returning to Celtic-related articles. --John (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. And for the record, of course I reviewed Adam's edits, I did so before my first comment. I would not support any kind of sanction or editing restriction without doing so. -- Atama頭 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well if you have examined my edits and are going to block me. I would at least like to see an example of the edits which are non-neutral, I would then be able to review them and work out how to change my editing style if I decide to return. As I pointed out above consensus is moving toward having those sources I wanted in the article. Although Mattun thinks none of them should be in. You are correct that I am unfamiliar with ANI but I don't believe you have examined my edits fully, seeing as I almost soley contribute to this topic you would have to review at least 1000 edits. And unless you are a super administrator I don't think you could have done that. If you like I will bring up a few of my edits that I beleive were non-neutral. Adam4267 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  The remedy under discussion right now is a WP:TOPIC BAN not a WP:BLOCK. This is why we are suggesting you write for the enemy and gain wider experience of how Wikipedia works. Please read the linked pages; we do not link them for our own amusement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this topic ban entails Football, Celtic, fans of Celtic, either of the first two would be a block for me as that is basically all I edit on. I have actually contributed to Rangers articles before, I have removed vandalism and helped update pages. So I'm not entirely sure why you are brining this up. I thought you had reviewed my edits? Adam4267 (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Both John and myself are recommending that you edit articles on other subjects and learn more about how Wikipedia works during the 3 month topic ban. Are you saying you plan to ignore the recommendations and basically stay away from Wikipedia during that time, if the topic ban is enacted? This will not help your case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't really care about Wikipedia. I know how it works, I have been editing here for a long time, I think the proposal to ban me is based on a few edits which don't really show the full story, as I stated consensus was moving toward including the sources I proposed on the Celtic supporters page, but this entire discussion is mostly based around these edits. I do like editing on football articles and if you review my contributions you will see I edit quite a lot on articles which don't relate to Celtic. I also edit a lot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football participate in discussions there, and remove lots of vandalism, but it would be very hard/impossible to simply stop editing on Celtic articles but keep editing elsewhere. Again, I'm still not sure what this proposed ban is for, I agree that I have been disruptive but not to a considerable degree more than anyone else. If it is for my supposed non-neutrality I'm afraid disagree entirely. Adam4267 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I spent a short time trying to help some of these parties achieve some consensus. I think Adam is an extraordinarily passionate editor, and I think ultimately, he can be a good contributor to the project. As I myself have experienced in the past, it is very easy for something you feel passionate about to overrule all else, including building some consensus. In my opinion there were two issues: one was a failure to work within consensus, and in the case of a disagreement, to use the tools available to examine a broader consensus. The second issue was also extrapolating from information in sources (a few of which are noted above). I think that it would be a good idea for Adam to step away from editing about Celtic, and use that time to focus on editing other articles, and examine how his editing there can help his ore unbiased editing in Celtic articles when he comes back. Adam certainly has been an editor here for a while, however so have I, and I know that I don't always know everything there is to know. It might help to review procedures on how to handle disputes in the future. During this time, Adam could continue I would presume, to help with Celtic articles by continuing to find references and edit in a sandbox for later inclusion, or request edits based on references that he finds. I think this could be a tie to also examine how other editors approach editing, and I have found that to be educational in the past. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Adam asked me to comment here, which I appreciate and take as a good sign. Again, let me make clear that I am not too bothered by any allegiance to any club. I see some recognition of disruption, but I also see him claim that it's not considerably more than the disruption of others. That suggests to me that there is a lack of real recognition. Disruption here consists of (in no particular order, and perhaps not exclusively) combative editing, edit warring without seeking recourse to the talk page while accusing others of it, re-adding edits that are not supported by WP:RS and involve OR, etc--but most importantly, not caring for, listening to, or abiding by consensus. I've only glanced at his contributions to other articles--if he does good work there (and I don't see any evidence to the contrary) then a temporary ban for these two articles is not a death sentence. Moreover, such editing will perhaps make more clear that consensus is the only way to go.

  In short, until I see more evidence that he realizes what others (not just me, evidently) find problematic in his editing and until he indicates that this will change, I am not ready to let this pass. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I have been disruptive, but I think other users have also done the same things that Drmies listed above and that they should have to answer exactly the same questions I should. This dispute has been going on for a long, long time (before I joined wikipedia). And I think to pin this all on me is a bit unfair. Adam4267 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• We have three supporting a 3 month topic ban, of Celtics and related articles. I see no objections (other than the expected objection from Adam.) I'd prefer to see a bit more input; does anyone else wish to weigh in? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already said my piece further up the page but i would like to ask Adam something here for the record. Adam has shown he can be a very constructive editor, and a topic ban of celtic and celtic related articles would probably be impossible for him to follow (due to the fact that he has really only edited from what i can see football articles mainly relating to celtic). Adam in the future would you be willing to use noticeboards and go through the relevant dispute resolution process to get other opinions on matters which editors cannot agree upon? (and abide by what the outside opinion is). Monkeymanman (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Killer, thanks for your call for input and closure. Like Monkeymanman, I am waiting on a better response than the one I got above (that the dispute preceded his coming to WP, and that "to pin this all on me is a bit unfair"). If that is not forthcoming (and I think it won't be--we have asked often enough, even in this very ANI thread), then I am supportive of a topic ban, though regretfully so (and yes, I know I started this thread...). Drmies (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I am willing to use the appropriate boards when no consensus can be found through discussion, and abide by what the outside opinion is. I think me and Monkeymanman can agree on the majority of things, with a few exceptions. But most of our discussions can be worked out between us. To be honest I do find it hard to work with Mattun though. While I don't think he is a bad editor I feel that he has a very strong POV when it comes to certain things and it makes it hard for him to edit neutrally. I still don't think a three month topic ban on all things Celtic is a good idea. I contribute a huge amount to that area almost all being constructive (the exception being these articles), and if anything a three month ban on the two articles in question would seem more sensible. In any event I think dispute resolution is needed on certain areas and even if I am away for three months I can't see these issues being resolved when I return. I still think this topic ban is premature, [22], [23] at least several editors were stating that there was some merit to what I was saying. Adam4267 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(I was asked to comment here by Adam, having previously commented as an uninvolved editor at Talk:Green Brigade) Adam's editing at Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade has been problematic. A topic ban from those may be useful. A topic ban from all articles with a connection to Celtic, however, would also remove his most productive edits, such as those to articles like Scott Brown (Scottish footballer). I see enough ability and potential in that side of his editing for a mentorship to be productive. If those commenting here (and of course Adam himself) also think it would be productive, I'm willing to put myself forward as a mentor, as football is my main editing area. The offer would be conditional on Adam agreeing to keep to 1RR. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate Oldelpaso's offer and I am sure he could teach me a lot. I don't really feel as if I need a mentor. However, I feel like there needs to be some sort of "higher power" with these two pages he could possibly act as an arbitrator to solve disputes. Maybe in conjunction with another editor (Drmies?). But I would be happy to keep my edits to 1RR on these pages. Adam4267 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Adam has been a very helpful contributor to football articles particularly in relation to scottish football and also at scott brown page in getting it up to a good article standard not easy to do and shows dedication. He means well and is a great help to wikipedia in general. I feel a topic ban to all football articles or all celtic articles would be unconstructive as the vast majority of those edits are very good and help full. The very nature of the article in question makes it difficult to source and why i appreciate some of the behaviour detailed above isnt great i feel a full topic ban would be unhelfull as he has a lot to contribute, A ban maybe on that page for a short time to let things cool down and the help offered above by Oldelpaso which should be taken and 1RR i feel would solve the issue with an agreement that if he fails to keep to that then a full topic ban will be imposed automatically. As i say its obvious that some things have been wrong but if adam is willing to change which i feel he is then i think a full topic ban at this time would be to heavy a ban for now. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Koavf

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

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

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

---

edit conflict with Tom Morris from above

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neat - see by section demo2 here.

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

User:ALifeOfVictory, Spider Ledesma, and Talk:Spider Ledesma

Ok this might be a bit complex, but by parts. I came upon this article via recent changes, Spider Ledesma. When I read it and saw the editing history, it was immediately clear there were major WP:OWN and WP:COI issues, as well as a number of content issues. I tagged the articlediff and explained briefly the reasons for the tagging in article talkdiff. During this process, I realized that User:ALifeOfVictory's latest edit was not a good one in my view, and I self-reverted the tagsdiff, undid his editdiff, and then restored the tagsdiff. I also proceed to notify him of WP:OWNdiff and possible WP:COIdiff in his talk page, and responded to his message on my talk pagediff and notified him of my responsediff. He removed the article tags and reverted contentdiff, and I rollbacked him (under reverting a 3RR violation)diff, I also notified him of the 3RRdiff.

What followed next is quite simply one of the worse violations of WP:NPA I recall seeing in Wikipediadiff.

Not only does this editor freely admit to WP:COI and WP:OWN, but sees no problem with it, and furthermore, disdains completely long-standing views on reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. I would have normally pursued different channels of DR before getting here, but the level of vitriol and unwarranted textual abuse is over the top, and out of the ordinary, making extremely difficult for me to continue to assume good faith with a straight face. This needs community attention ASAP, IMHO, as this is well beyond whatever editing dispute we might have and into the realm of the pure misbehavior. I see nothing in the way I approached this questions to warrant the response I got.

I am not clear, bu there might also be a WP:NLT violation, but I am not saying there is, I need a other eyes to tell me if there is. If he is making a legal threat, you know what has to be done.

I know I should notify him, but can someone un-involved please notify him of this thread, as I do not feel comfortable doing so at this time due to the threatening nature of his response in talk - me notifying might escalate rather than de-escalate the situation.--Cerejota (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User notified. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated!--Cerejota (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The autobiography is dreadful, though I hope not quite as dreadful as it was before my recent edits. The autobiographer is indeed very excited. (So much so, that I begin to wonder whether it's really him, or perhaps instead somebody else's prank.) But certainly Cerejota's work can't be faulted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I warned the editor for uncivil comments...but I wasn't sure at first, it looks like a joke. If it is him, he isn't doing any credit to himself.--Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're actually feeling threatened, please disregard this, Cerejota, but I thought that was very funny. I wish I had ever had such a fine elaborate rant directed at me, over all these years — I'd treasure it. :-D Bishonen | talk 02:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

He's returned to the article and reverted it three times. I've warned him about 3RR. -- Hoary (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a weeks block for this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I like how so much of his anger seems to be in response to a perceived questioning of his religious dedication. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I think your response to the "Fuck you - you self-righteous creep." comment is gold. --Cerejota (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Why isn't this user blocked for violating the username policy? Drmies (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tried but got this. Seems blocked accounts cannot be reported even if the report is for a different reason.--Cerejota (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Ownership, incivility, and other poor editing habits by User:Daniel Christensen

Daniel Christensen has been overtly taking ownership of the article Kingdom Tower. In the process of this he has been incivil making edits like this one. He has been badgering the reviewers in edits like this one, accusing the reviewer, H1nkles, of taking time to sip tea and being the "hardest reviewer in all of London". I don't know specifically what can be done here, but he appears to be gaming the system by trying to badger the reviewers into accepting the review. More links [24] [25]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the GA reviewer on this article. My review is here. Originally I think User:Daniel Christensen assumed this article would breeze through GAC and when it did not he was upset and demonstrated his frustration here. I was called James Bottomtooth and accused of "pooping" on the article. His response to this question [26] is also indicative of incivility. I have a thick skin and name calling doesn't really bother me, but it is inappropriate for editors to display this behavior with no apparent provocation. I have never had a dispute come to this forum so I am unsure of how to proceed. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

User should be given a warning for incivility, by the way. Probably not a template warning, but a cool reminder to lay off the attitude he seems to have a problem with. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, some was meant to be a joke, my incivilties were not pointed. I also said that I appreciated the extensive review for the better it would make the article in the long run. I see thatis not stated here. None the less, I think I've had enough. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, your appreciation wasn't stated because stuff like that doesn't generally get mentioned here, I guess. Anyway, your "incivilties" came across as mild, and not malicious or indeed pointed in anyway. It's probably best indeed to back off from it for now if it's getting you a bit worked up. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I did leave a warning, and a word to the wise, here. H1nkles, you may proceed as you like--if you want to stop the review, you can; if you want to continue (you strike me as a pretty friendly person), that would be appreciated, even if not always by the reviewee. For now, I would proceed, if I were you, by waiting a little while and see if there is any further commentary by the reviewee. BTW, I was looking at that GA review--great work, by you and Vessey. People who haven't reviewed something themselves usually don't really know how much effort it takes: thanks on behalf of all of them as well. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope a precedent doesn't get set to start calling me "Vessey" now . I think we can call this resolved because of your comment on his talk page. Thank you Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ooooops...sorry. Feel free to slap a templated warning on my talk page, and you can have one free insult. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with how things are going I'll continue the review and should have it finalized tomorrow. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I have had no problem with Dan. In the past, he has struck me as sometimes a little keen, but he has developed into a good editor who usually behaves in the manner expected. He did ask if I wanted to review Kingdom Tower - I declined because I am on holiday and probably unable to devote the necessary time to what would be my first article review. I was a little surprised at his response to my question yesterday, though it is nothing I cannot deal with in my own way - which will probably be to check the sources more thoroughly before commenting on that specific matter again. As for accusations of ownership, I think that is still a "maybe", and instead perhaps it is just Dan's slightly keen nature coming through. He has had a good go at bringing this article to the standard it is today, and has devoted a large amount of time to the article (for example: apart from a bot he was the sole editor between 7 Aug 14:00 and 8 Aug 05:55 and he spent little time doing other things on Wikipedia during that time). Perhaps it is time for him to step back for a short while and see how it develops. Astronaut (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:[27]

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

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

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

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

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

The problem has been going on for years.

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

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

History of past problems

ANI archive Circuit dreamer (then User:Circuit-fantasist) brought an action against User:Zen-in on 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ANI/Archive570; The action concerned Zen-in's reverting CD's edits to the articles: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance User:Ecoman24 proposed some compromises. CD (19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)) promised the following: I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense. He has been reminded of these promises: User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder Also in that dispute, Zen-in has agreed not to revert CD. The relationship between CD and Zen-in is clearly strained. Talk:Negative resistance#Edits to the lead CD made this edit.[28] User:Oli Filth reverted and started the thread on the talk page. Oli Filth claimed the addition was so wrong it was not worth editing. CD defended his addition as starting point, but Oli Filth demanded reliable sources for it. CD developed his own classification of negative resistance and wanted to find sources for it later: Let's first build the classification; then we can find sources that second it (if there is such a need). Here is my proposal. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC) User:Spinningspark told him it has to work the other way around: It is completely the other way round, find sources first and then write from the sources. Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits CD inserted some material including some figures in Negative resistance some time ago, but his edits were removed for lack of consensus. After waiting some time, CD reinserted his figures and added new text. Around 2 July, 2011, SpinningSpark asked CD to self revert. Support from User:Johnuniq, User:Glrx, User:Zen-in, and User:Steve Quinn. CD found no support. CD did not revert his edits. (Steve Quinn recently backed them out.) Electronic oscillator Back in January 2011, CD added new material to Electronic oscillator [29] I reverted the edit.[30] CD restored.[31] I reverted [32]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus CD restored. [33]; edit summary spoke of "great truths" I reverted. [34]; 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. [35] CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[36] I revert [37] CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [38] 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[39] Baker clamp Back in April 2011, User:Dicklyon and I searched for sources the Baker clamp. The term is used loosely, and we wanted some solid sources to identify what circuit configurations were properly Baker clamps. See Talk:Baker clamp#What is called a Baker clamp? Dicklyon then took out some unsourced tangents in the Baker clamp article.[40] CD restored the tangent for TTL.[41] I reverted.[42] The actions were discussed at Talk:Baker clamp#Unsourced tangents. CD wanted the tangents restored even though he knew there were no sources: We will certainly not find sources making these connections but this does not mean that we should not use them to explain to visitors odd circuit phenomena and odd circuits implementing them! These associations serve as "bridges" between apparently different circuit solutions. If it is not so clear, I can explain the written in more details! Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Neon lamp CD and I clashed again at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven. CD made several edits to the article diffs These edits used his terminology for negative resistance, for example S-shaped curve. His edits claimed the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge involved an avalanche. Gas discharges are nontrivial. There are at least 7 distinct discharge modes. The Townsend discharge is already an avalanche. Electrons are accelerated in a field, collide with molecules, and kick free other electrons in a cascade. It is a simple finite gain determined by the field and the path length; there is no feedback. The glow discharge (normal glow) is a breakdown. It is a positive feedback phenomena: each electron that leaves the cathode can ultimately causes >1 additional electrons to leave the cathode. Consequently, an arbitrary number of electrons become available. Sources vary about the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge. Some term the transition a "subnormal glow". It is clear that the distribution of ions is different between the Townsend discharge and the glow discharge. Many sources describe a neon tube in the saturation discharge (Geiger counter mode) and Townsend discharge conditions. Many sources describe a neon tube in the normal glow condition. It takes time for heavy positive ions to move. These slow ions must reorganize for a normal glow. During normal glow, there are distinct regions such as the cathode fall and the positive column. Most sources ignore the details and characterize the transition as a state change (ie, breakdown). The IV (current and voltage) characteristic may be graphed as a discontinous jump. Some sources refer to the transition as unstable. A few sources refer to it as a negative resistance region. (GE, for example, says it may be a negative resistance or unstable.) There are exotic sources that attempt to map the instability of the subnormal glow characteristics of a gas discharge. The IV characteristic may not be single valued. There are operating regions where the IV characteristic is not static but rather oscillates. I removed the reference to negative resistance, the S-shaped jargon, and confused claims. [43] CD did not revert, but did open discussion on the talk page (the link above). Those edits were his OR. He reinserted his diagrams. His diagrams don't have the load line found in the usual sources (such as GE), but they have his own terminology of "instant resistance". I objected to his OR and SYNTHESIS. Wien bridge oscillator The latest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research. Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; CD copied the material from an earlier discussion at Electronic oscillator. CD claims the material is difficult: I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all. Three years ago I managed to reveal how the more sophisticated LC circuit does this magic. Despite claims of being a challenge for a mere mortal, CD offers no sources. Zen-in objected to his characterizations CD claims he searched for and found the truth; he wants help to find more truth [44] I stated his OR was inappropriate. [45] Starting 29 July 2011: CD introduces three unsourced views of how the Wien bridge oscillator works. There are factual errors. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback. CD does add one source: a TI application note by Mancini and Palmer. CD does not understand the application note. He uses a quotation, but the quotation is out of context. His text does not describe any limiting process; the TI AN addressed the output voltage running into the rails. I removed CD's edits (2 August) diff and started editing the article CD reverted. diff I reverted diff claiming Zen-in as WP:3O I started talk page thread Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material CD reverted diff I cannot continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him. Zen-in cannot support my reverts because Zen-in has agreed to never revert CD's edits. I marked CD's added sections as disputed. I open WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator The discussion at NORN makes it clear that CD is providing his views. CD is asked for sources, but CD states: IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing. User:Dmcq states It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts. Not only is CD's material unsourced, it is seriously wrong. CD does not understand how oscillators work. User:Constant314 is continuing to engage CD at Talk:Wien bridge oscillator, but CD continues to show a failed understanding of basic oscillators. CD continues to believe the lamp resistance "must vary (quickly) as well in a response to voltage variations for a more principal reason - just to obtain sine oscillations". Sources such as Meacham (1938), Bauer (1949), and Strauss (1970) use the lamp to nearly balance the bridge; the sources expect the lamp resistance to vary slowly; the sources do not use the lamp to obtain the sine wave. CD does not understand the material, yet he believes he is competent to describe the material to others without the benefit of sources. WikiProject electronics edit war discussion about Circuit dreamer Others have had WP:RS and WP:OR problems with CD.

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

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

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

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

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

SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

arbitrary break for length

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

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment by initial reporter.

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

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

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

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

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

Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page.[46] 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.[47]

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[48]

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)

Please block vandalism only account

Can someone please block the blatant vandalism-only account User:Unknown1118? They've made 2 edits, both the same and both clearly childish vandalism with no obvious intent to be productive. I reported to AIV, and received an "insufficiently warned" response. I see no point in spinning my wheels issuing 1,2,3,4 warnings to a clear vandal-only account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's that blatant, a {{uw-vandalism4im}} warning might have been appropriate. Regardless, AIV is the correct venue for that report; this noticeboard is not for routine vandalism block requests. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So the blatant vandal will continue due to bureaucracy. That's ok with me, I just want to know so I can stop reporting vandals. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on two edits that the account is vandalism-only (though maybe my AGF threshold is different from other users'). That said, the warning should be escalated; if he comes back with a level 3 warning on his talk page and vandalizes again, then a block is justified. —C.Fred (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Nobody said to stop reporting vandals, because it is appreciated. Simply that warn, then report WP:AIV tends to be more effective. ANI is better for editors with longer term/repeated issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If a user is blatantly, repeatedly and solely vandalistic, there's no need to issue 4 warnings - the folks who monitor AIV will take care of it. However, if a vandal gets reverted a couple of times and then stops, typically no action is taken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about that Bugs ... I have had situations where vandal only accounts (and I'm not talking childish vandalism, I'm talking overtly racist/homophobic/insert other prejudice) got three graduated warnings, where the third was a level 4 "last time" ... when I took it to AIV, I was told that I hadn't used the proper graduation procedure. I have found AIV to be as frustrating as it is useful, depending on which admin swoops in. In this case you have two cases of overt homophobic vandalism ... stuff like this almost never leads to anything productive. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to use their judgement in deciding how and when to issue blocks, and despite what others might think, we don't share a hive mind, so inconsistencies will occur. -- Atama頭 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

LonelyBeacon, if the edits are that severe, you can easily "graduate" it to level 4 by simply skipping other levels. It should be a rare occurrence (at least I hope it should only need to be rare), but it is allowed. I have filed numerous AIV reports, and none have ever been denied; and a few of them were direct escalation to Level 4. Again, only a few... but point being, with a variety of moppers reviewing them, the persons in question have always been blocked.

Burpelson AFB: what BWilkins said, with the addendums C.Fred and I added to the discussion. AIV is a much quicker method of dealing with vandalism. The gang who patrols there is there solely to deal with such issues, and there's usually at least one person there for solely that purpose at any given time. You can find more details on how to report, what to report, etc at WP:GAIV. On a side note, using an automated tool such as Twinkle makes doing so very easy. Failing someone handling that queue, there are other ways of getting something very serious dealt with immediately, such as IRC. You can find out how to find admins that are online at WP:IRC. Failing a speedy resolution of an AIV request for serious issues such as credible threats of violence or items that speedily need to be revdel'd, going to the appropriate IRC channel to find an active, online admin is probably suitable. For just regular vandalism, let AIV run it's course. And remember, reverting for blatant vandalism, blatant attacks, etc; is not covered as a WP:3RR violation. I've actually run into that myself once, while an admin and I were scrambling to delete things of that nature and he was putting the ban in place. As opposed to getting warned for 5 reverts, I got a thank you (as I hadn't violated 3RR which did not apply to the situation). But, as with all things vandalism, best make sure it's blatant first. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk page troll(s)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tnxman. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

While eavesdropping on Jimbo's talk page, one talk page troll gets blocked, Special:Contributions/Randnotell, and a new one pops up, Special:Contributions/Robbie_Ottley. Very suspicious.... Please block the new one I guess, I wonder if a checkuser would produce any sleepers.... Never a dull moment, gotta love it. --64.85.216.175 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Tnxman blocked them. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats by dynamic IP editor

Threats made [49], [50], and most explicitly [51]. IP's used: 99.12.180.203, 99.25.218.98, 99.88.145.8, 99.59.98.144, others. Notice of this listing will be given to 99.25.218.98 and at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ralph_Nader which was started by this editor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Article disputes remain active, thus, disputes still require article improvement and impartial community involvement. Technically, no legal threats were made, such as "I will sue you," etc.; rather, integrity notification of reporting data and evidence to legal department was provided. Additional data and evidence have been submitted. That said, in accordance with WP:Legal threats, "If someone is blocked for legal threats it is important to ensure that any possible factual basis for such a threat is not ignored or obscured." Furthermore, the WP:OUTING violation mentioned on article talk page must also be addressed. 99.90.145.204 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The content dispute may very possibly remain, and it should be dealt with if possible via further discussion on the article's talk page. Proposing to block someone per WP:LEGAL does not mean the complaints are being suppressed — only that the complaints need to be dealt with in the proper forums. And I'm confused about the WP:OUTING comment, because as far as I'm aware, the only place "outing" was brought up was in a cautionary comment by me after the IP editor mentioned that he believed he knew the real-world identity of the person he has been accusing of being a sock. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"That's so interesting that Richwales brought this point up. There are several pages on Wikipedia that cite a RW person as the contributor. The pages were not amended or deleted, nor was the user citing outed. 99.25.218.98 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)"

The proper forum for article and edit disputes is disputes noticeboard, as stated by Markvs88. Since the dispute is active, and ought to remain active on board until resolved. Bringing forth WP:Legal threat appears, to me, to be a separate issue. Furthermore, openly referencing notifications to the Wikimedia Foundation legal department and WP:legal threats are hardly mutually inclusive. Principal dictates that one report activities found odious or otherwise prohibitive. So, if I understand correctly, I've addressed all matters through the proper channels. "Blocking," to my knowledge, hasn't even been proposed here, merely that policy dictates that data and evidence shall not be ignored or obscured. I also note that, per WP:Legal threats, any threats made on Wikipedia or other site are to be taken seriously and acted upon by Wikipedia. Action will thus be required regarding Wikipedia user's threats appearing on other web sites, in addition to WP:OUTING violations. 99.186.207.70 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement at the third link, above, saying: "The matter extends far beyond Wikipedia, articles and edit wars. It is also illegal activity in the real world." is, even without the mentions of material being provided to the Wikimedia legal department in the other links, far more than enough to be perceived as a legal threat and that's enough under WP:LEGAL to cause it to be treated the same as an actual threat. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a factual statement, not a threat. 99.186.207.70 (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected ANI for 24 hours, and I have semi-protected Ralph Nader and Talk:Ralph Nader for 3 days. The Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is clear, in that if legal action has been taken, that person is not allowed to edit Wikipedia until legal proceedings are resolved or otherwise withdrawn. –MuZemike 19:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Question: Is it a really good idea to semi-protect this page when several IP editors come here to attempt to get help, when the IP editors are invited here to respond to challenges made against them? I'm sure we can apply WP:RBI to make this IP hopper be quiet.Hasteur (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not when he's persistently and willfully IP-hopping to continue disruption and threats, and rangeblocking will do no good. Currently, this is the only way to handle such disruption, such as from Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 21:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

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

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

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

Links to past discussions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor problem

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Situation seems to be resolved. Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I have a problem with User:Orlady. It started with Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas where I nominated an article that I started for DYK where she said comments like "Now that it is clear that you consider DYK to something you are entitled to, I guess you aren't likely to get much more help or advice from other volunteers." and "You are giving me the distinct impression that your main interest is complaining." while also comparing the article to trivia. I repeatedly said that I wanted the DYK withdrawn not just because I gave up on the article, but because of other problems that have to do with DYK. Apparently closing the nomination is such as hard thing to do because Orlady just had to keep dragging the discussion along. Orlady posted on my User talk:Joe Chill#RE:How much has DYK changed? with "Joe Chill seems to have been concerned about Template talk:Did you know/Ants of Kansas. And apparently I am not going to be added to his list of members he admires." On the DYK nomination and my talk page, I repeatedly tried to explain that the DYK nomination was not my only problem. The only thing that I want is for her to stop continuing a discussion that has already ended especially with false accusations. That is the only administrative action that I want taken. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems more context into this issue can be had by reading the DYK page and related talk pages. That aside, as you've withdrawn your nomination, and thus there's nothing to discuss about it, would you not think that contacting Orlady and simply asking Orlady to cease such discussions with you (and you doing the same) might have resolved this without going to AN/i?

On that note, you may wish to remember that you do need to notify people you mention at AN, especially one so directly involved. I have done that for you[52]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was about to, but you got there first. Thank you. I'm not sure what will resolve it and admins seem more well versed in this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've had dealings with Orlady before (all pleasant), and have seen their work/comments elsewhere. I think either restarting the conversation on a pleasant note, or asking Orlady to cease conversing with you would work. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on her talk page. DYK is not the place for me like it use to be - there is so many changes, debates about changes, this incident, and a member said on the DYK talk page that I am an unproductive DYK creator because of one article that was too close to the sources that I was unable to fix because I took a break from Wikipedia. It's not just complaining like some members may believe, it is just that I'm tired of it and it is too frustrating. Joe Chill (talk) 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This should be closed, it isn't really worthy of administrative attention. Atomician (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is - it isn't clear what is worthy of administrative attention. Mass copyvios are not apparently. Telling a disruptive user to f off isn't apparently. Reporting personal attackers isn't allowed on here at times. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have a word of advice on the post you put before this one... if you are becoming tired or frustrated with Wikipedia, try staying away from editors for a while, stick to articles and stay off talk pages for a little, then come back when you're ready? And it's not as if the editor you've reported is not being responsive. Nothing will come of posting this here, you should probably leave it. Good luck with further editing though, Atomician (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I will leave this discussion and I will stay away from ANI also. If someone attacks me, I will let them at it or if they attack someone else. If someone comes across it and decides to report it, they can feel free too. I guess I'm not good at phrasing stuff since I had to create this account a long time ago in order to "protect" myself. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion has resolved itself without my participation. It is probably best for me not to comment, as it seems that Mr. Chill does not to want to interact with me. --Orlady (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with interacting with you once this is settled and it appears to be. I would not mind working with you again, I just have a problem with the DYK discussion being continued. Many editors seem to look highly upon you which I really do respect. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

User_talk:77.255.150.72

User_talk:77.255.150.72 Has broken 3RR rule - generally changing images without discussion then reverting without discussion (after having been reverted) even after having had reasons explained for revert of their edits. Is also removing references http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drogomy%C5%9Bl&action=history - no clear reason for behaviour - not talking to other editors. Please explain it to them. Thanks/

NB possibly good faith edits from a non-english speake (polish?) someone speak polish? Imgaril (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I speak Polish and I have to report, that this user uses various similar IPs to make pointy and disruptive edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for that on Polish Wikipedia and Commons. See e.g. these links: [53], [54], [55], [56]. - Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 24 hours for repeated vandalism after several warnings and personal attacks on my talk page. - Darwinek (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

User dispute assistance request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:JordoCo

This user was reported here a few days for ago for possible disruptive editing ([57]) but still seems to be exhibiting the same behaviour. I have blocked this user to slow him down a bit and give us some time to look into this. I was just about to go to sleep so can someone look into this? Feel free to lift the block if I made an error of judgement here. Cheers, —Ruud 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Reincarnation of FireTool87?

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

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

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

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

Ohconfucius and date formats

Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) has been asked repeatedly to stop removing yyyy-mm-dd formats.

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive676#Ohconfucius.2C_MOSNUM_edit_warring_.2F_ARBCOM_Date_delinking_case_revisited. (1 March)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive695#User:Ohconfucios_mass-changing_date_formats (14 May)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive709#User:Ohconfucius.2Fscript_altering_accessdate.3DYYYY-MM-DD_in_violation_of_WP:DATERET (30 June)

Depite warnings, Ohconfucius' continues to remove yyyy-mm-dd dates that are acceptable under the guidelines. Currently yyyy-mm-dd is allowed, and accessdates may be yyyy-mm-dd when publication dates are mdy or dmy.[58] Ohconfucius has a proposal pending on MOSDATE to change the guidance on date formats in references. Even under Ohconfucius' proposed change, date formats in references could still be uniformly yyyy-mm-dd.

Nevertheless:

• In [59] and [60], the only date format in the references seems to have been yyyy-mm-dd
• In [61] and [62], all accessdate(s) used seem to have been yyyy-mm-dd. They were changed. (In the last link a URL with an encoded date is also changed, presumably breaking the link.)

Request that Ohconfucius be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Would a topic ban not have been a better suggestion? Not that I'm condolning that path at all. Ohconfucius is a very important editor. Atomician (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Atomician, do you mean that, or is "condoning" what you had in mind? –Noetica ☺

Touché sir... tou... ché. Atomician (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You do realize he's using an automated cleanup script right? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Gimmetoo: Do not confuse boldness with brazen disregard for proprieties. Your dispute with Ohconfucius does not belong here. He is a very serious and committed editor, acting in good faith, while you have seemed to prefer a laissez-faire approach that will allow all manner of inconsistencies, inconveniencing readers. I submit that there is no case for sanctions against Ohconfucius. I would advise both parties to slow down and back off a little, for a while.

Noetica^Tea? 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I see very little wrong with Ohconfucius's actions and it doesn't seem to need other people to do anything about it. Atomician (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with Atomician and Noetica. I note also Gimmetoo’s language: Depite warnings. Yet, looking at his contributions, I see precious little discussion and debate and interaction with Ohconfucious attempting to resolve differences on this issue. I found this post on Ohconfucius’s talk page, but it turned out to be nothing more than a notice that Gimmetoo filed this ANI. I see insufficient effort at resolving differences and too much knee-jerk ANI combined with some tar and feathers from ANI’s dredged up from rather old archives going back to #676. I suggest both editors discuss things on the relevant talk page(s). If the issue is more than a mere tempest in a teapot, other editors will weigh in. Once a consensus is established, I’m sure we can count on both parties to this dispute to abide by the consensus view. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Greg, I have asked Ohcon a few times to stop this. The actions are contrary to the result of a RfC that had considerable involvement, and contrary to the DATERET guideline to retain the existing format of articles. This is not an issue between parties as if the two of us are the only ones "involved". I am not the only editor who objects to Ohconfucius' edits, and I personally find the attempt to characterize it otherwise as disruptive. This is an issue of Ohconfucius' refusal to follow existing guidelines over a period extending at least months. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't see a problem with it, in that it isn't making anythign worse.

2) He's using an automated script to clean up articles. It's not like he woke up and said "let's change everything everywhere", he's using a script that does good things like delink "U.S.", and that script also changed the date format.

3) That stuff about not running straight to AN/I also applies. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"That stuff about not running straight to AN/I"? I'm going to remember that. So coming to ANI when a user refuses to follow Wikipedia guidelines for months (at least) is "running straight to ANI". Asking an editor to comply with Wikipedia guidelines is a mere 'dispute' and apparently requires extensive discussion and debate. I and other editors have asked Ohconfucius to comply with Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly over a period of at least months. I would have to look up the first times I discussed this with Ohcon, it was probably more than a year ago. But apparently that's not enough before requesting censure? Good to know. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing said discussions, and I'm also not seeing said other editors who have had negative interactions with OConfucious. Produce evidence of previous attempts to resolve the issue in a sane matter (because let's face it, AN/I is almost never sane), and produce people that are willing to support your argument. Discussion is most effective when facts are brought to the table, and thus far your facts have utterly failed to impress. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – I checked the four problem links given; in each case, O changed the dates to be consistent with each other, when they were not before, and chose a format based on what was there already. Gimmetoo has missed a few subtleties in looking for what was there before, like in the infobox on the first one, which doesn't appear the way it is in the source. Yes, there were some errors, since fixed; and yes, maybe someone else would have done differently in one case, but basically he seems to be implementing the MOS call for consistency, with fairly high accuracy and not much questionable. If you want to question some, do that, rather than attacking the editor. Dicklyon (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

[63] is the reference section in the first link, before Ohcon's edit. There are three dates present there, all consistently in yyyy-mm-dd, which is an allowed format. After Ohcon's edit, the dates in the ref section are all Month dd, yyyy. This is an unnnecessary change, in violation of WP:DATERET. There was a lengthy RfC on date formats which - even according to Ohcon - resulted in "no consensus to eliminate .... yyyy-mm-dd date formats from articles, in particular the reference sections". Ohconfucius is, contrary to that, regularly and repeatedly removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from articles, even in articles where the reference section is already consistent, which is in violation of DATERET. This has been going on for months, and it is again at ANI because Ohconfucius refuses to follow DATERET, MOSDATE and the RFC. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• All this drama over such minor edits could have been avoided if Gimme contacted me in good faith. His previous message on my talk page was rather confrontational, saying he's going to take me to ANI without further warning. I counselled against being so aggressive. All of a sudden he explodes into this dramafest over such minor mistakes.

  Of course there will be the occasional disagreement because our backgrounds and our baggage are different, but the ongoing RfC is not very relevant to this complaint against me. On reviewing some of my previous script edits, I now see that Gimme has boldly corrected errors without referring to me. I thank him for not troubling me in those cases. Such an eruption is unsettling to me, for through his actions following our disagreement at MOSNUM, I receive the impression that he wishes to impose yyyy-mm-dd date formats at all costs by complaining about any attempts I make to harmonise date formats as required by MOS. I focus on getting dates consistent and already I do try to avoid making 'the wrong edit' by choosing articles carefully. I never said I was perfect, and all the errors that are notified to me are always rapidly addressed. Same is the case of errors he points to above, which received immediate attention. We all work here for nothing, building the project, so a little less hostility goes a long way. I think it would be reasonable not to have to receive threats and intimidation, because such raises the temperature to little or no productive end. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Ohconfucius is a skilled, careful, and socially responsive editor of inconsistencies that most editors don't want to fix manually; (2) it makes us look unprofessional and sloppy to have inconsistent date formats in reference sections; (3) Gimmetoo is well-known for having a bee in her bonnet about these yyyy-mm-dd formats that are double-Dutch to most of our non-expert readers, although are common among experts in a few fields. sTony (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Looking at [64], I notice that there are two dates in the body of the article that are formatted as MMMM DD, YYYY, one directly after the name stating the DoB and the same date in the infobox. If MOS:DATEUNIFY is to be taken seriously, then all of the dates in the article, including those in the reference section, should be a consistent format. Ohconfucius's edit appears to do just that since the dates in the article's body cannot be changed to YYYY-MM-DD do to the last point in WP:DATESNO. If there were no other dates outside of the references, you may have a case. but in the examples you presented, you do not. —Farix (t | c) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Falkand Islands

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harassment from Tao2911

• Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been alleging a user was the subject of an article (and personally attacking) after being asked to stop.[65][66][67] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[68] They persisted.[69] Block please. Jesanj (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The same user has attacked me as being a both a sock puppet and a meat puppet[70], despite never initiating an investigation or providing any evidence as to why I may be either, accused me of an edit war and being in bad faith[71], and has been overtly rude with myself and a number of other users (notably, just about anybody who attempts to improve the Marisol Deluna article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is Tao's standard operating procedure. Rudeness, name calling, sarcasm, covered over with a sprinking of alphabet soup. I've had a similar run-in with this editor, and there were many before me. Apparently it hasn't changed. Anyways, since I have a past with them (and since, as it turns out, we've both edited this particular article), I won't be stepping in with tools--but I do want to note that the above two editors, exasperated and all, have a point, and I think it would behoove an uninvolved administrator to look a little bit deeper than this recent spat. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block of Tao2911. Fat chance anything is going to change about his behavior. While Tao2911 was technically not found socking on the last SPI round, [72] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [73] so he may have just become good at it.) It's entirely possible that the other camp in this dispute is also socking/meat-puppeting, [74] but that does not excuse the consistently abusive behavior from the Tao account. This has all the signs of an outside WP:BATTLE being continued on Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Accusations of socking when found not to be socking, and trying to say "his hardline friends" were socking is a grossly insufficient reason to indef block anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of sanctions would you support for the user who, in case you didn't read it from above, says things like this[75]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And this[76]? Jesanj (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Tao, do you think saying "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous"[77] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[78] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Xwomanizerx & Ending-start

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

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

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

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

Whilst I haven't actually looked at the sources to see if they contain the actual information that Nickyp88 is adding, the musicnotes.com and allmusic.com references that you removed [79] are definitely reliable sources. Can you explain why you removed them? Black Kite (t) (c) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COI issue on Roc Nation

A few self-professed "affiliates" of the company persist in adding company information to Roc Nation, claiming that various unencyclopedic edits (company fluff, but also MoS violations such as flags) are correct because that's what the company wants. I've reverted that info a few times already, but I'm up against two editors, User:LanbrinsonWorks and User:MarkMysoe, and will stop before edit-warring. Asking for protection is of no use: these are not new editors, and they have a track record of edits on articles associated with the company and its artists. Also, I may be too strict in my attempts to keep the article neutral and in my reading of MOS:FLAG, and would appreciate another opinion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're up against _two_ editors there -- SPI report filed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sarek! I had my doubts, of course, but you know me--I see the glass as half full. Cheers! Drmies (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Impolite behavior

I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[80] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[81]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[82]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.

I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[83] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was hoping you could help me resolve an issue with a deleted page

The page that was deleted was located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brian_J._Esposito. I was trying to work with the administrator Spartaz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spartaz), who was very polite and professional. The page was credited by many sources including Microsoft, Hearst Publications, and was soon to have added a book that was published by Microsoft and the Small Business Association. Through my two companies we have accomplished so much, especially during tough economical times. The page listed major events and milestones, such as being listed as one of Inc 5000 fastest growing private companies in the US. I read over all of Spartaz recommendations, however I am not quite sure that the page was in any violation or what could be altered to change their opinion. I hope you can help and thank you very much for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjesposito (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

One page which you should read is WP:COI. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at the AfD and the article history, but this is the wrong place. You can file your case at Wikipedia:Deletion review, but I have to warn you, I think your chances are pretty slim. The article was puffy, and even with an additional book (published by Microsoft? that's not very promising) as a source I don't see how it would stand up under scrutiny. I mean, "On June 29, 2011, Mr. Esposito announced AVEYOU.com[1] as one of the first companies to integrate the Facebook[2] Like ® button and comment Box within its product detail pages", sourced to this, that's not encyclopedic content. But good luck, and perhaps someone can close this, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

user:PANONIAN blindly revert warring

Can someone take a look at user:PANONIAN's actions here [84] On the talk page he tries to feign "discussion" but this time the "discussion" makes it clear he is not even looking at what he is reverting, for example talking about info "4. Some of the mentioned regions (like Baranya, Partium) are today also part of Hungary, so why you removed this info?" that wasn't removed. look under Baranya, Partium Or in the present version as well. How can I discuss issues with someone who will revert me without even looking at the version I edited (and thus failing to even notice that I didn't revert him fully and preserved a large part of his changes). The only admin action I want here is a mild suggestion to him to stop doing this. Hobartimus (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is false accusation. I answered this issue here: [85]. I posted my comment on talk page before I saw what user Hobartimus reverted (in 14:23), and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit. When I later checked what he actually reverted, I saw that he did not reverted my whole edit, but I reverted him (in 14:26) because he did not provided any explanation on talk page even for that partial revert. Please look at his explanation why he reverted my edit: [86] - this user actually thinks that templates are files and that they should not be edited by anybody else instead their "original uploader". Can some administrator please mediate this issue? I elaborated on talk page why "original version" of the template is inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_%281920%29#Hobartimus PANONIAN 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help requested with AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Mobile

Can an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polar Mobile and act accordingly? Quick summary: Polar Mobile was created by an employee of the company. It is a very spammy article - typical of most COI articles. There has been some activity both on the article and on the AfD from multiple accounts and IP address that are almost certainly connected to each other. I will stop short of saying they are sock puppets because it is feasible they are simply other employees of the company rather than the same person. But both the article creator and the IP address registered to Polar Mobile have both posted on the AfD stating that they would like to see the article deleted. The irony is that it turns out Polar Mobile probably does meet the notability guidelines for a company and so perhaps a solution, rather than completely delete the article would be to reduce it to a single paragraph stub taking out all the current COI/peacock/puffery content. Thanks. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AIV could use attention

Ahem. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vindictive/malicious edits by user Yworo

I have created article Desktop Cyber about 3.5 years ago. The article describes in a neutral point of view an open-source emulator for a historic Control Data mainframe called CYBER. The Control Data CYBER architecture has been developed by Seymour Cray famous for his work on supercomputers in the 60s and 70s. I am the author of the emulator and at the time did not realize that under Wikipedia's policy someone with a direct interest in the subject of the article should not contribute. Nevertheless the article has been unchallenged for 3.5 years and contributed useful information for anyone interested in CDC Cyber and its predecessor CDC_6600. Other editors have contributed small changes and added links to/from the article. In July 2011 user Yworo has discovered the article. He started by changing capitalisation of the mainframe from "CYBER" to "Cyber" which is incorrect as all Control Data literature refers to the mainframe as "CYBER". This (and all of Yworo's subsequent edits) occured without any discussion on the article's talk page. As at the time I was un-aware of Wikipedia's policy on capitalization, I undid Yworo's change and unleashed a barrage of personal attacks followed by vindictive and malicious edits from Yworo including being called "stupid" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yworo "CYBER" vs "Cyber"). His latest attack accuses me of "advertising non-notable products" when clearly the software has been open-source since December 2002 [[87]]. It is true that I have been trying to commercialise newer versions of the software between 2006 and January 2011, but the software remained open-source. Yworo has also undone my recent edit to List_of_computer_system_emulators claiming that it was "spam". It appears that Yworo is stalking me and interfers with all edits I do. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to contribute useful material and am keen to learn but feel hounded by Yworo.

Your sources are no good to be honest, they verify that the software exists but nobody is questioning that, there isn't anything in there that indicates any type of notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please intervene. Thanks Cdccyber (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just now Yworo has removed links to Usenet articles hosted by Google announcing the open-source release of the emulator. Intervention is becoming quite urgent. Please help! Cdccyber (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me. You created the article 3 years ago, but you're new to Wikipedia? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am. Please have a look at the small number of edits I have made prior to August 4. Please see Cdccyber contribs. Cdccyber (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is under AfD consideration at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop Cyber

Calling another user "vindictive" is a personal attack, one you've done at least twice.

He didn't call you stupid, he said "We don't use stupid capitalization even when the company does."

Which implies that I am stupid if I do. Cdccyber (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You've provided no evidence of stalking. Yworo's removal of your edit to List of computer system emulators was appropriate.

Could you please explain how it was appropriate. For example a few lines below there is an entry for SIMH which is a very similar emulator for DEC machines. Cdccyber (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You've edit-warred to add it, which is wrong, particularly when you acknowledge you have a conflict of interest.

So, let the AfD run its course. If you continue to make promotional edits, edit war, or make personal attacks, you'll be blocked from editing.-- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 17:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article while at the same time Yworo is deleting edits a few minutes later. Cdccyber (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)