위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive715

클라우디오 산토스, 양말, 우생학, 안락사.

드라마판에 실타래를 치고 싶진 않지만, 이곳이 아마 가장 좋은 장소일 거야. 왜냐하면 그곳은 순수하게 3RRR이나 순전히 투박하지 않기 때문이야...
클라우디오 산토스(말·연락가)는 안락사, 우생학 &c와 관련된 주제에 대한 편집전의 [1][2][3][4][5][6]의 오랜 역사를 가지고 있다.불행하게도, 몇몇 블록들은 단지 하나의 편집 패턴의 변경만을 야기시킨 것으로 보인다; 그것들은 현재 3RR을 얻기 위해 IP 주소를 사용하고 있는 것으로 보인다.예를 들어, 설정 편집과 설정 편집을 비교하십시오.RfC on Talk를 포함한 토크 페이지:192.172.14.99는 "안락사와 관련 주제, 광범위하게 해석된다"는 클라우디오 산토스의 주제 금지 바로 그 경계에 있는 계획된 부모와 우생학 사이의 유대관계를 강조하려는 클라우디오 산토스의 사명을 지지하는 소수의 목소리 중 하나를 제공하는 것으로 나타났다.Special에는 더 많은 예가 있다.기여금/192.172.14.99.이런 종류의 삭발, 편집, 헌터파킹은 매우 도움이 되지 않는다.Claudio Santos는 확실히 여러 번 그 규칙들을 상기시켰고, 많은 여분의 기회도 주어졌다.이 문제를 해결하는 가장 좋은 방법이 무엇일까?또 다른 한 주의 블록으로 인해 혼란이 다시 재개되기 전 일주일 동안 다른 편집자들이 생산적일 수 밖에 없을까 봐 걱정된다.보브라이너 (토크) 16:17, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

"경계 바로 위에"는 관대하다.'계획된 부모'의 리더는 그들의 낙태 사용에 주목하며, 여기 "낙태는 산전 안락사일 뿐, 안락사는 산후 낙태"라고 말하는 의견 있는 소식통이 있다.제산지 (토크) 2011년 8월 5일 16:28 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 그가 낙태를 위한 지역사회의 1RR의 일반적 제재에 저촉되지 않을까?그것과 주제 금지를 끝내기 위한 명백한 시도 사이에 클라우디오산토스가 엄청난 이익을 얻고 있는 것처럼 보인다.N5iln) (대화) 16:57, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 소크푸펫의 사용에 대한 악의에 대한 괴롭힘과 잘못된 비난이다.나는 미국의 우제닉스와 연계된 계획적 부모자매의 포함/배출에 대한 토크 페이지의 내용을 논의하도록 강요했기 때문에 전쟁을 편집하는 것이 아니다.나는 또한 RfC가 호출되어 언급하고 있었다.사용자 배제 등을 통해 관점을 강요하기 위해 ANI를 악용한 것이다.낙태가 안락사라는 것을 암시하려는 예수님의 노력은 유명한데, 그는 분명히 그 조항들에 포함시키지 않고 오직 나를 위한 금지를 연장하기 위해서만 포함할 것이다. -- 클라우디오 산토스?

필자가 내 토크 페이지에서 지적했듯이, 우리의 안락사 기사에서 낙태에 대한 유일한 언급은 안락사에 대한 한 가지 정의가 "낙태와 안락사를 구별하기 위해 태아를 특별히 할인한다"고 언급하고 있다.주류는 두 가지를 동일시하지 않고, 우리의 기사도 지금 이 순간에는 동일시하지 않으며, 클라우디오산토스가 같은 견해를 표명하거나 둘을 동일시하려는 시도로 기사를 수정하려고 하기 전에는 주제 금지가 침해되고 있다고 보지 않는다.(다른 관리자들은 그 점에 대해서는 얼마든지 나와 동의하지 않을 수 있다.)우생학은 안락사와 훨씬 더 충격적인 연관성을 가지고 있다. 나는 이 두 주제 사이에 거의 아무런 연관성이 없다고 본다.반면에, 만약 어떤 주제와 상관없이 실제적인 양말 작업이 진행되고 있다면, 허용되어서는 안 되는 금지 사항이 있더라도, 조치를 취하기 전에 증명되어야 한다.1RR 위반에 대해서는 아직 조사하지 않았으며, 그것도 제재가 될 수 있다. -- 아타마 17:06, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 RfC와 근본적인 콘텐츠 분쟁에 대해 아무런 의견도 갖고 있지 않지만(나는 양 당사자가 최소한 몇 가지 타당성 있는 주장을 했다고 생각한다) 미국의 우제닉스에 대한 편집전쟁은 용납할 수 없다.나는 3일 동안 그 기사를 철저히 보호해 왔다.나는 또한 편집 전쟁을 위한 192.172.14.99 (대화 · 기여 · 블록 로그)를 차단했다(여기서 매우 구체적으로 경고받았다).— 사토리 손 17:20, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 나는 클라우디오산토스가 192.172.14.99 anon 계정을 사용하여 편집했다고 믿지 않는다.이 주소는 미국 미시간주 파밍턴으로 보내진 반면 클라우디오 산토스는 남미에서 편집하고 있는 것으로 보인다.— 사토리 손 17:28, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이미 내가 IP가 아니라고 탐구했다.그리고 나는 보테스타킹에 어떤 삭푸펫도 사용하지 않을 것이다.그것은 전적으로 잘못된 믿음의 가정이다.그리고 며칠 전부터 편집하지 않았던 미국의 우제닉스에 대한 편집 전쟁에 내가 관여하지 않았다는 것도 여기서 알아 두어야 한다. -- 클라우디오 산토스? 17:36, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

'계획된 부모'를 살펴보니 24시간 만에 1명만 되돌아오는 것이 일반 제재 위반은 아니다. -- 아타마 17:45, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

Just FYI, 192.172.14.99(토크)는 USAISC에 등록된 미군 IP 주소다.최근 활동이 계획적인 부모들을 공격하는 데 초점을 맞추는 것처럼 보이긴 하지만, 많은 사용자들이 이 프로그램을 공유했을 가능성이 높다.나는 이 IP의 블록은 아마도 그것을 통해 접속하는 다수의 사용자들이 있을 것이고, 따라서 문제가 재발한다면 특정 표적 페이지의 반제어가 더 나은 접근법이 될 수 있기 때문에 부수적인 손상을 초래할 것이라고 추측한다.내 2센트, 그리고 확실히, 나는 계획한 부모님의 논쟁에 연루되어 있다.마스트셀^Talk 19:01, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

그 기사의 반보호가 최선의 접근법일 것 같다는 것에 동의한다.그리고 나는 Claudio Santos에 관한 이전의 언급을 철회했다; 그 에피소드는 너무 많은 사람들의 마음 속에 아직도 너무 신선하게 남아 있는 것으로 보인다.RFP는 다른 사람이 이미 가지고 있지 않다면 지금 넣겠다. --Alan the Robing Ambassador(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 19:08, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 반보호에 반대하며, IP에서 72시간 블록을 지원한다.익명 편집자에 의해 야기되는 유일한 활성 장애는 이 단일 IP에서 발생한다.이 IP는 지난 3일 동안 일관성이 있어서 앞으로 3일 동안 차단해도 크게 걱정하지 않을 것 같아.이 마지막 IP가 중단된 곳에서 다른 IP가 계속된다면, 반 보호가 보장될 것이지만, 우리는 보통 단일 계정으로부터의 방해로 인해 기사를 보호하지 않는다. -- 아타마19:15, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

응, 방해하는 사용자를 차단하고 넘어가면 돼. 인과수이 22:11, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

IP 블록에는 동의하지만, 클라우디오 산토스의 주제 블록으로부터 조금 더 거리를 두라는 경고가 내게는 적절해 보인다.안전한 쪽으로 해, 클라우디오바람의 밤 23:29, 2011년 8월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

커뮤니티 제재를 제정한 행정관의 토크 페이지에서는 낙태와 관련된 주제가 아니라고 판단한 토론이 있었다.나는 그것에 동의한다. 그리고 나는 지역사회의 제재의 저자였다.

만약 그가 기사 기준에 의해 지장을 받는다면, 그것은 실행 가능한 것이지만, 제재는 많은 것을 포괄할 뿐이다.조지윌리엄허버트(토크) 2011년 8월 6일 01:06 (UTC)[응답하라]

Claudio Santos(토크)는 편집 전쟁으로 인해 차단되었고 그들의 토크 페이지에서 그 블록에 대한 검토를 요청하고 있다.— 사토리 손 18:03, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

토크 좀 볼 수 있을까?계획_부모님#임파시스_온_유제닉스?그것은 엉망진창이고, 예를 들어 다른 편집자들이 기사를 세탁하는 것을 고발하는 등 의심스러운 행동을 보였다.Falcon8765 18:05, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 클라우디오 산토스의 행동에 대해 나의 사용자 토크 페이지에 있는 대화를 통해 경고하려고 노력했지만, 그것은 잘 작동하지 않았다.그는 자신과 의견이 다른 사람은 계속 반감을 사고 있다. -- 아타마 16:46, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이틀 전, 그들은 계획된 부모님의 자녀양육에서 1RR 제한을 위반하여 7일 동안 차단되었다.(그들은 그들의 토크 페이지에서 그 블록에 대한 검토를 요청하고 있지만)일단 그 블록이 만료되거나 해제되면, 그들의 행동을 감시할 필요가 있을 것이다.— 사토리 손 17:15, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:Siouxsherat

이 사용자의 사용자 페이지는 wp:user 페이지의 명백한 위반으로 보인다.다만 사용자 페이지 이슈를 다뤄본 경험이 없기 때문에 이것을 그룹의 관심에 가져와서 추가지시를 해야겠다고 생각했다.해당 사용자는 사르코이드시스 기사의 "외부 링크" 섹션에 자신의 사용자 페이지를 추가하기까지 했다.삭제되었으므로 문제가 되지 않지만 사용자가 프로젝트를 진행하기보다는 개인 블로그로 사용자 페이지를 사용하고 있음을 보여주는 데 도움이 된다.Rklawton (대화) 14:22, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

WP처럼 보이는 것에 동의함:UP#관련되지 않은 과도한 콘텐츠, 특히 WP:UP#PROMO. 나는 그것을 낮추고 있고 내가 한 일과 그 이유를 사용자에게 알려줄 것이다.나는 이미 전화번호와 이메일 주소를 삭제했다. 나는 사용자가 직접 그 전화번호들을 거기에 놓아둔 것처럼 그것들을 과대평가할 가치가 있는지 의심스럽다.토니왈튼^Talk 14:36, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

@Rklawton:악의는 없지만, 그의 연설 페이지에 대한 첫 번째 편집은 이 ANI 스레드에 관한 것이었다. WP에 관한 메모였어야 했다.UPNOT 그리고 그녀의 응답을 기다린다.ANI가 제공하는 것보다 더 나은 "WP에 환영" 분위기를 보낸다. --64.85.217.47 (대화) 14:42, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

:::사용자가 자신을 "그녀" 이상의 "수잔 엘리자베스"라고 부르는 것을 감안할 때, 토니월튼 15:24, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[답글]

IP 편집자의 의견에 동의합니다, 여기...아마도 그들의 사용자 페이지가 단지 WP와 상충될 수 있다는 것을 설명하는 친절한 메모일 것이다.UP 또는 심지어 템플리트된 메시지(저희는{{uw-userpage}} )는 더 나은 행동 방침이었을 것이다.하지만, 이제 그것은 끝났다; Siouxshherat가 어떻게 그리고 어떻게 반응하는지 봅시다.이 경우 극한비는 WP:MFD... 살비오 14:54, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이제 대담하게 그것의 대부분을 제거했고, 그들의 토크 페이지에 WP에 대해 설명하는 꽤 길고 희망적인 친절한 메모를 남겼다.UP#PROMO 및 WP:UP#USERB입출력 및 WP와 관련하여 기여자가 될 수 있도록 초청:OR 및 WP:NPOV는 특히 자신의 의료 상태에 관한 것이다.아무 소리도 들리지 않거나 사용자로부터 피드백을 받을 때까지 해결된 것으로 플래그를 표시하지 마십시오.수쉬랏.토니왈튼 15:24, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

피드백 고마워.나는 wp:user 페이지에 uw-user 템플릿 제안서를 추가하겠다. wp:user 페이지에 그것이 가장 유용할 것이다.Rklawton (대화) 16:49, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:에 대한 링크를 삭제한 사람은 나였다.Sarcoidosis와 Sarcoid의 Siouxsherat.두 경우 모두 내 편집 요약에는 "rv: 외부인 척하는 내부 링크며, 기사는 어떤 사용자 공간 페이지에도 연결되지 않아야 한다."라고 쓰여 있었다.사용자 대화에 템플릿을 추가하고 싶었는데:수셰랏, 그러나 WP에서는 적당한 것을 찾을 수 없었기 때문에 그렇지 못했다.TUSER. --Redros64 (대화) 16:56, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이런 상황에서는 의사소통이 필수적이다.적합한 템플릿이 없는 경우 자신의 단어를 사용하여 적절한 메시지를 작성하십시오.행동을 시작하기 전에 자신의 행동을 어떻게 설명해야 할지 생각나지 않는다면, 행동을 다른 사람에게 맡기거나 행동하기 전에 좀 더 경험이 많은 사용자로부터 도움을 구하는 것이 가장 좋은 방법일 것이다.그래야 모든 사람이 배울 수 있는 기회가 있다.그러나, 의사소통을 위한 템플릿에 의존하지 말아라; 대부분의 사람들이 양식 편지를 받을 때 어떤 감정을 느끼는지 생각해보라. 그리고 실제 개인적인 메시지는 없다.리스크 담당자 (대화) 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC) 17:09 [응답]

물론 그 위반이 무엇인지에 달려있다.만약 이것이 단순히 Vic의 Viagra Shack을 홍보하기 위해 사용자 페이지를 이용하려는 17번째 시도였다면, 간단한 "스팸메일로 차단되었음"은 아마도 충분했을 것이다.이건...건배, 토니왈튼^Talk 18:21, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 사용자의 편집 내용을 되돌릴 때 항상 템플릿을 만드는 것은 아니다. 특히 한 두 개의 인스턴스만 있는 경우 편집 요약으로 충분하다고 생각하는 경우가 많다.만약 그들이 그 행동을 반복하거나 이미 몇 번을 반복했다면, 나는 템플릿 박스에 손을 뻗을 것이다.내 경험상, 사용자를 템플리트로 만드는 것은 사용자를 자극할 수 있다. WP:DNIV. 이 경우 13개의 편집이 있었지만, 사용자가 시행착오를 기준으로 링크 구문을 명확하게 작성하고 있었기 때문에 두 가지 사례로 간주했다(13개의 편집 중 3개는 항상 허용되는 자체 리버트, AFAIK).내 생각엔 내가 이걸 발행할 수 있었을 것 같아.{{subst:uw-test1}}. --Redros64 (대화) 2011년 8월 6일 19:15 (UTC)[응답]

새로운 사용자가 편집 요약을 항상 찾을 줄 아는 것은 아니다.다른 중간 편집이 있었다면 감시 목록에 나타나지 않을 겁니다.네가 할 말이 있다면, 나는 그 토크 페이지를 사용하는 것이 믿을 만하다는 것을 알게 되었다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 21:11, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

좀 더 일반적인 논의와는 별도로, 수셰라트는 그녀가 많은 노력을 기울였고 그것은 Sarm 공동체 내의 다른 곳에서 유용할 수 있기 때문에 원본 페이지를 그녀에게 제공해줄 것을 요청했다.

사용자:Sioussherat/Old User Page, 사실상 샌드박스.토니왈튼^Talk 23:10, 2011년 8월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

샌드박스에도 사용자 페이지 규칙이 적용된다고 확신해.Siouxshherat가 만든 것은 위키피디아와는 아무런 관련이 없으며, 비록 그것이 다른 이유로 어떤 다른 그룹에게 유용하더라도 위키피디아에 의해 주최되어서는 안 된다 - 아무리 많은 작업을 투입하더라도.나는 수셰랏에게 그녀의 작품을 복사할 시간을 주고 샌드박스 페이지도 없앨 것을 제안한다.Rklawton (대화) 12시 50분, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

여기서 나는 너의 의견에 동의할 것이다.이 사용자는 2년 동안 16건의 기사 편집이 있고, (의도가 좋은) SPA로 나타나기 때문에 여유가 없다.WP:사용자 페이지#다른 사용자의 사용자 페이지에는 "사용자 공간 편집이나 판촉 스타일의 활동만으로 또는 대부분 편집이 이루어지는 사용자보다 편집 기록이 강하거나 사용자 공간 외부에 기여 편집의 대부분이 있는 사용자에게 이와 관련하여 조금 더 많은 여유를 주어야 한다"라고 명시되어 있으므로, 이 내용은 여기에 해당되지 않는다.또한, 그녀는 이 페이지가 유사한 장애를 가진 사람들에게 유용하다고 말했다. 이것은 그녀가 WP를 웹 호스트로 사용하고 있다는 것을 암시한다.관리자가 하위 페이지에 있는 그녀의 사용자 페이지를 복구했으므로, 나는 그녀에게 그것을 워드 문서(또는 다른 것)로 옮겨서 삭제하도록 일주일 정도 시간을 줄 것을 제안하고 싶다.이상적으로는, 코스의 보통 수준과 같이, 같은 관리자가 이것을 할 것이다(Tonywalton).나도 그렇게 보고 있어. (위의 64.85.xxx.xx와 같은 IP 사용자) --64.85.215.50 (토크) 16:34, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 그리고 난 그녀가 오프라인으로 복사해올 기회가 있을 때 일주일 정도 후에 그것을 삭제하는 것을 제안한다.미안, 이미 나 자신에게 송어를 발랐다고 말했어야 했어.)토니왈튼^Talk 15:25, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 삭제됨.토니월튼 09:03, 2011년 8월 15일 (UTC)[응답]

AN3의 백로그

누가 WP를 좀 봐주시겠습니까?A3? 그곳의 몇몇 보고들은 꽤 오랫동안 아무런 조치도 취하지 않고 있었다.응, 내가 제출한 것도 포함해서. --Steven J. Anderson (대화) 00:22, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

동의해. 나는 이미 보고된 사용자 208.127.239.5에 의해 화가 났고 관리자 조치는 취해지지 않았다.안드로스¹³³⁷_TALK 01:22, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

아직 아무것도 없어, 최근 보고서에는 아무런 조치도 없고 하루 중 가장 좋은 시간이었어.이런, 그리고 나는 항상 3rr가 밝은 선이어야 한다고 들었어.부숴버리면 막히게 된다.그 편집 전사들은 그게 얼마나 빌어먹을 농담인지 알 것 같아.나는 이제 마침내 그들을 상대하는 행정관이 보고서가 너무 낡았기 때문에 지금 막을 수 없다고 말할 것이라고 생각한다.물론 안내판이 있어서 필요할 때 관리자 도움을 받을 수 있어 다행이다. --Steven J. Anderson (토크) 08:37, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이제 이상 무.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 11:14, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

앤더슨 씨와 안드로스 씨를 존경하지만, 우리는 모두 자원 봉사자들이야.행동들이 언제 일어날지에 대한 공식적인 시간 제한은 없다.나는 개인적으로 평소 하던 전자렌지 90%를 뽑고 일주일 동안 보냈다.세계의 많은 지역에서는 여름 방학이다.어디선가 자원봉사자가 당신이 원하는 만큼 빨리 행동하지 않았기 때문에 콧방귀 뀌는 말과 비아냥거림이 멀리 가지도 않고 문제를 해결하지도 않는다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

이해한다.네 말이 맞아, 내가 콧물을 흘리고 있었어.나는 좌절했다.사과드립니다.전체 관리단과 그들이 하는 모든 훌륭한 일에 포옹과 쿠도. --Steven J. Anderson (대화) 12:04, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

수 천명이 아니라도 수백 명의 관리자가 있다.때때로 그들 중 몇 십 명만이 실제로 활동적인 것처럼 보인다.←베이스볼 버그스카르티크^{What's up, Doc?}→15:28, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

왜냐하면 관리자는 편집-워링 블록에 관해서 더 자주 비난을 받고, 일부 관리자는 "나쁜 관리자 목록"에 끝내기를 원하지 않기 때문이다.–MuZemike 17:15, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 나는 AN3 블록을 하는 거야, 내 이미지 작업 때문에 이미 나를 적색 리스트에 올려놓은 사람이 충분하다고 생각해;) 블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 19:14, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

2011년 8월 8일 S.G.^(GH) 17:26, 8 (UTC)에 올라갔으면 좋겠다[응답하라].

사용자:페리돈 -빠른 삭제

사용자:페리돈은 여러 사람을 짜증나게 하는 것 같다, 예를 들어 보라.사용자 대화:페리돈/아카이브/2010/1월.그는 WP를 삭제했다.내가 만든 SIA 페이지 WP:CSD#A10과 "최근에 기존 주제인 바하라를 복제하는 기사를 작성했다" - 그러나 이것은 전혀 충족되지 않았다. "바하라"는 한 곳 정도인 반면 인도의 바하라는 WP였다.SIA, 나는 그에게 되돌아가라고 했다.

• User_talk:페리돈/아카이브/2011/7월#바하라.2C_인도
• User_talk:페리돈#2nd_request_Bahara.2C_인도

그러나 그는 되돌아가고 있지 않다.그는 되돌아가서 그것을 정기적인 삭제 절차에 넣어야 한다.그는 심지어 삭제하면서 남긴 요약과 모순되는 "있는 그대로의 장소 목록이었다"고까지 파고든다.보그단 나가첩(토크) 01:19, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:DRV는 저쪽에 있다.T. 캐넌스 (대화) 01:42, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

페리돈에게 알렸어그가 자료를 복구하지 않고 AfD에 등재하지 않으면 삭제 검토서를 열어야 하는데, 이럴 필요가 없길 바란다.—S MarshallT/C 11:30, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워, 위키피디아에 넣었어:삭제 검토/로그/2011년 8월 8일하지만 나는 페리돈의 부적절한 삭제에 대해 조치가 취해져야 한다고 생각한다.보그단 나가쵸프 (대화) 13:43, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 있는 사람들은 WP에 대해 알아야 한다.Sockpuppet 조사/Tobias Conradi; 이것이 다른 것이라는 것은 "거의" 사실이다.FWIW, 그의 양말을 신은 나의 경험은 내 귀에 꽥꽥거리는 소리와 함께 나를 떠나가고 있다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 14:44, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

업데이트: 사용자가 ErrantX에 의해 양말처럼 외설됨.해결되었지만, 권한이 없는 관리자가 DRV를 검토하여 어떻게 해야 할지 파악해야 한다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 15:41, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

비록 금지된 편집자들의 경박한 DRV는 폐쇄될 수 있지만, 이 DRV는 실체가 있는 것 같으니, 나는 그것이 그 진로를 운영하는 것이 허용되어야 한다고 제안한다.DGG는 이미 심오한 성격의 장문의 논평이 있어, 이 문제를 이해한다고 생각하는 사람은 누구나 가서 기여할 수 있다.어떤 편집자(현재 DGG가 지지자임)의 이의는 DRV에 신속하게 착수할 수 있는 충분한 이유가 된다.에드존스턴 (대화) 2011년 8월 8일 18:16, (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 스토킹:자가

[7], [8] [9], [10] ...을(를) 참조하고 나서 SPI 케이스를 시작했다[11].날 프로젝트에서 쫓아내고 싶어 하는 것 같아어쩌면 내가 인도 주제에 대한 편견을 지적했기 때문이기도 하고, 지금은 복수나 이런 것이기도 하다.비협조적인 주장 역시 스페이스맨스파이프가 제기해 왔기 때문에 아마 그와 동맹을 맺었을 것이다.SPI 사례에서 제공한 링크를 통해 합의가 이루어졌음을 확인하십시오.보그단 나가쵸프 (대화) 13:51, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그는 심지어 페이지 이동을 보고 몇 페이지를 이동하는 사용자를 공격할 수 있는 스토킹 도구인 http://toolserver.org/~moving/move_php를 프로그램하기도 했다.참고 사항:그는 "정상적인" 사용자들의 움직임과 관리자들의 움직임을 구분한다.보그단 나가쵸프 (대화) 13:54, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

설명:그 도구는 전혀 문제가 없다. 사실, 그것은 매우 유용해 보인다. Chzz ► 14:15, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 주로 토바이어스 콘라디 양말을 못질하는 데 사용된다; 이 경우, 그것은 정확히 의도했던 것을 성취한 것 같다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 14:45, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그렇다 - SPI를 기준으로 양말을 막았다.비록 그런 생각이 들지만 나는 어제 이 사람과 함께 AFD에 참여한 적이 있다(이름이 종을 울린다는 것을 알고 있었다).그래서 그것을 하기에 가장 좋은 사람은 아닐지도 모른다 - 꽤 논란의 여지가 없는 문제지만. --Errant 15:21, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

삭제 횟수가 많음 - 맞음 또는 틀림?

사용자:Nikkimaria (토크) (출고)는 일련의 "rm" 및 "rc" 삭제된 {{trivia}} 태그가 붙은 섹션들을 보여주며, 의미 있는 편집 요약이 없거나, 일반적으로 WP의 제안을 따른다.TRIVIA 및 WP:처리_트리비아#실용적_단계, 되돌린 후에는 논의 없음.나는 그것을 Dirty Work (1998년 영화) (토크) (역사)에서 알아차렸는데, 그 삭제에는 인용된 내용이 포함되어 있었다.WP를 다시 읽기 위해 요약 편집 조언으로 돌아왔다.TRIVIA는 되돌렸고, 편집자의 토크 페이지에 댓글을 달았고, 기사에서 4살짜리 오래된 토론을 다시 시작했으며, 다시 돌아왔다.지금 이 순간 아직 토론 답변이 없다.나는 {{citation 필요}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

사용자가 대화 시도에 응답하지 않았는가?나는 인양될 가능성이 있는 물질들을 대량으로 삭제하는 것에 대한 당신의 우려를 공유하지만, 논쟁의 첫 번째 의무는 당신이 잘못하고 있다고 믿는 사람과 그것을 해결하려고 노력하는 것이다.기고문에 기재된 기사의 배경에 차이가 있는 점을 감안할 때, 편집자가 각 주제에서 그 분야에서의 "트리비아"의 중요성을 효과적으로 판단할 수 있는 배경이 있는지 의문을 제기할 수 있지만, 커뮤니티의 의견을 전혀 듣지 않는 한, 여기서는 어떤 조치도 취할 수 있는 것이 없다고 본다.여기 게시한 편집자에게 공지하셨습니까?Jclemens (대화) 06:35, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

순서대로 대답하자면, 편집자는 대답하지 않았지만, 아마도 그들은 이미 그날을 위해 그만두었을 것이다.응, ANI의 사용자 토크 페이지에 공지했는데, 여기서 나의 고민을 정리하기 전에 사용자가 (아마도 하루 동안) 편집을 중지한 것을 알아차렸어.삭제량이 많아서 나는 즉시 관리자 검토를 통해 사태를 다소 늦출 정도로 놀랐다.한 가지 직설적인 오류는 편집자가 BRD를 "내가 되돌리기 전에 그들의 토크 페이지에 밝혔듯이, "볼드, 리턴, 토의"가 아니라 "대단히 반복된 삭제"로 취급한 것이다.편집자는 그들이 복귀하는 동안 하나의 3가지 항목 중 하나의 비소싱 부분을 기사의 캐스팅 리스트("Stern 제공 부품")에 통합했다.

하지만 나는 네가 실천할 수 있는 것이 아무것도 없다는 것에 대한 너의 요점을 알 것 같아.뒷걸음질 치고 수십 개의 삭제 내용을 선별적으로 검토하고 되돌리는 것은 내 몫이라고 생각한다.오, 잠깐, 스토킹이잖아!지금도 편집자들이 떠나가는 동안에도 삭제주의자들이 자유 재위를 유지하고 있다는 사실이 몹시 실망스럽다.--렉스테인 (토크) 09:52, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

trystrough for tone --Lexain (talk) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이제 니키마리아의 편집이 더 이상 벌거벗은 삭제주의라고 생각하지 않는다. 내 마지막 발언 참조. --Lexain (대화) 23:08, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

예를 들어 "대중적인 믿음과는 대조적으로 아티 랜지와 노르망 맥도날드는 이 영화의 제작 전에 만난 적이 없지만, 그 이후 몇 년 동안 친한 친구가 되었다"는 구절이 그 기사에 있을 필요는 없다고 나는 확신한다.니키마리아의 삼지창을 제거하는 것을 보면, 대부분의 (그리고 내가 말하지만, 전부는 아니다)가 내게 맞는 것 같다.예를 들어 처음 내가 살펴본 두 가지는 저작권 위반을 제거하는 것이었고, 또 다른 하나는 인용된 정보를 기사의 다른 섹션으로 옮겼다.니키마리아의 말처럼, 단지 어떤 것이 인용될 수 있다고 해서 그것이 기사에 있을 만큼 충분히 중요한 것은 아니다(예를 들어, 그들이 J. C. 뱀포드로부터 삭제한 내용 참조). 그것은 단지 편집자들이 주제와 접선 관계가 있는 모든 것을 기사에 추가한 경우였다.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 12:22, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 문장(1)과 "개잠자는 영화" 항목의 삭제에 동의한다.나는 여전히 릭클스/맥도날드 아이템이 장점이 있다고 생각하며, 생산과 관련이 있기 때문에 출처를 찾으려 하고 있다. --렉스테인 (토크) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

오, 그리고 다른 편집자 페이지에 "기사의 논설위원으로서, 당신의 논의되지 않은 삭제는 환영할 수 없다."라는 메모를 남기는 것은 나에게 좋지 않은 아이디어로 보일 것이다. 특히 그것이 일부 WP를 시사하듯이 말이다.나는 이것이 전에 제기되었던 것에 주목한다.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 12:35, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 WP를 하지 않으려고 노력한다.OWNE, 그러나 도움이 되지 않는 요약 삭제는 항상 실행으로 가는 것처럼 보인다. 여기서 IMHO, "출처 찾기"와 같은 다른 지침, 유용한 편집 요약, 트라이비아 통합, 토론과 같은 기둥들이 우선되어야 한다.3RR 이슈는 OWN에 관한 것이 다른 꽤 분명한 것들보다 적었고, 나는 3RR에서 정리되었다.--Elexain (토크) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 렉서인, "불합치주의자"와 "삭제주의자"라는 문구는 대개 기사 내용에 대한 논쟁이 아니라 기사 전체를 가리킨다.이 경우 기사 내역에 여전히 존재하는 내용이라 삭제되지 않았다.기사 내용에 대한 분쟁이 있을 때 상식적으로 접근하는 것이 논란이 된 내용을 토크페이지에 복사해 거기서 토론하는 것이다.이것을 제거하는 사람이 이것을 하든지, 추가하기를 원하는 사람이 하든지 상관없다.중요한 건 토크페이지로 가져가서 토론하는 겁니다.그리고 저작권 위반이 있는 경우, 다른 유형의 편집을 결합하면 다른 편집자들이 어떤 비트가 사소한 것인지, 어떤 것이 저작권 위반인지를 알아내기가 어려울 수 있기 때문에, 그것들은 별도의 편집에서 삭제되어야 한다.개인적으로, 오랫동안 존재했던 많은 텍스트들을 제거할 때, 나는 기사 토크 페이지에 제거된 것을 보여주는 diff 링크와 함께 메모를 남기려고 노력한다. 그래서 나중에 편집자들은 변경된 내용에 대한 아이디어를 얻을 수 있다.카차롯 (토크) 2011년 8월 7일 12시 40분 (UTC)[응답]

그러나 때때로 그들은 기사 내용을 언급하기도 한다. 분리된 기사들에 대해 삭제주의자인 사람들은 일반적으로 기사 내용에 대해 똑같이 생각한다.그리고 AfD의 결과나 단순한 합병으로 기사를 다른 기사의 한 부분에 병합한 다음, 모든 내용을 신속하고 천천히 삭제하는 나쁜 신앙 관행이 있어 왔다./이것은 효과적으로 기사를 삭제하는 것이다.우리는 기사를 삭제하기 전에 공동체 토론의 안전장치를 가지고 있지만 파괴적인 편집에 의해 레이더 아래에서도 같은 효과를 얻을 수 있다.한 항목이 잘못되어 기사를 삭제하거나 섹션을 삭제하려는 관행도 있다.그것은 매우 조용한 수술일 수 있다.나는 규칙적으로 이런 일을 하는 사람들을 지속적으로 관찰할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 그리고 여기에 주의를 환기시킬 수 있는 좋은 장소가 있다.내 경험상 적어도 4분의 1은 부주의하다. DGG (토크 ) 17:08, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 삭제주의의 보다 넓은 정의에 동의한다.오래 전 관련이 없는 두 기사에서 도움이 되지 않거나 빈칸 편집 요약과 분개한 "토론"으로 꽤 총체적인 내용 소멸을 경험했다.--렉스테인 (토크) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC) 나는 이제 니키마리아스 편집이 같은 행동 수용소에 속하지 않았다는 것을 느낀다. --렉스인 (토크) 23:08, 8월 (UTC)[응답]

문제는 3가지 섹션이 주제와 막연하게 관련이 있는 어떤 것에 대해 무작위로 관찰한 완전히 미신고 쓰레기장에서부터 유용하고 교육적인 관련 정보가 잘 정리된 인용구 섹션에 이르기까지 다양하다는 점이다.후자는 사실 과장된 부분으로 묘사되어서는 안되며, 그것보다 더 낫다; 전자는 무자비하게 다듬기만 하면 된다.이 때문에 '유용한' 잡담이 기사 본문의 관련 부분에 더 잘 옮겨지는 것이다.위에서 말했듯이, 니키마리아의 모든 제거가 완전히 옳다고는 생각하지 않지만, 많은 (저작권 문제, 의심스러운 미결 진술, 위에서 언급한 첫 번째 유형의 부분들)이 꽤 눈에 띄었다.몇몇은 논쟁의 여지가 있었고, 몇몇은 부분적으로 옳았다; 위의 특별한 의견 불일치를 야기하는 부분은 몇몇 유용한 정보를 포함하고 있었지만, 몇몇은 불필요한 것들을 포함하고 있었다.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 17:27, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 이것에 동의하고, 내 것 보다 그것의 어조를 더 선호한다.--lexain (대화) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

트라이비아 섹션의 아이러니한 점은 그것들이 바로 수년 전에 나를 위키백과의 자원으로 끌어들인 것이라는 것이다.WP와 무관하게:NIME의 주장들, 잘 다듬어진 세가지 부분들은 일부 독자들을 끌어들이는 것인데, 그들은 나중에 편집자가 될 수도 있고, 심지어는 어떤 자격으로 지역사회를 위해 봉사할 수도 있다.Jclemens (대화) 2011년 8월 7일 23:00 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 트라이비아라는 단어를 쓰지 않고 당신의 요점을 다시 설명하겠다 - 대신에, 나는 백과사전에 가서 최소한의 사실의 생생하고, 둔하고, 암송하는 것뿐만 아니라, 기사에서 논의되고 있는 현실 세계의 사건이나 사물과 관련된 미묘함들을 찾아낸다.유리에서는 유리가 점성이라는 것이 일반적인 오해라는 것을 알고 싶다.편집자인 IMHO로서, 우리는 사실이 사소한 것이 아닌 맥락을 이해하지 않고 임의로 사소한 사실을 선언한다고 가정할 수 없다.다른 말로 하자면, 모든 사실들은 문맥에서 벗어난 것이다.
• 진짜 백과사전들은 "트리비아"라는 단어를 사용하지 않는 경향이 있다. 대신, 콘텐츠는 세심하게 통합되어 있고, 눈에 잘 띄지 않는다.그래서 나는 내가 중요하다고 생각하는 모든 것을 경험하고 통합하고 소싱했다.개 낮잠이나 랜지/맥도날드 우정 금지.
• 아직 뚜렷한 목적을 위해 요약본과 뚜렷한 편집본을 더 잘 편집했으면 좋겠지만, 위의 댓글을 보면 걱정할 필요가 없었고, 다른 개선 조치를 먼저 취했어야 했다고 본다. --Lexain (토크) 03:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 우리의 사소한 부분을 청소하려는 니키마리아의 야심에 박수를 보낸다.이것은 우리의 약점 중 하나이며 우리는 이러한 종류의 교차 기사 정리에 더 많은 노력을 기울여야 한다.위의 다른 사람들이 말했듯이, 여기서 쟁점은 이러한 사항들 중 어떤 것이든 기사의 텍스트로 다시 결합될 수 있느냐 하는 것이다.이와 같은 편집은 즉흥적이다.유명한 주민들을 위한 구획을 만들고 그 안에 몇 사람을 붙이는 것이 유용했을지도 모르지만, 이것은 대부분 옳았다.내가 보기에 가장 우려되는 것은 이와 같은 것이다.거기서, 그 자료는 부적절하게 제시되어 있지만, 중간 두 가지 점이 향후 기사에 도움이 될 수 있다.그 점들은 기사에 통합되거나 미래의 "프로덕션" 섹션에 대한 토크로 이동될 수 있었다.이 마지막 사례조차도 치명적인 죄와는 거리가 멀지만, 여전히 최고의 편집 관행은 아니다.마지막 조언은 요약 편집...좀 더 서술적이어야 한다.심지어 "제거하는 것"도 단순히 "제거하는 것"보다 낫고 심지어 더 좋은 것은 "대화페이지에 몇몇을 올려놓고, WP에 따라 나머지를 제거한다"."TRIVIA"나 뭐 그런 문제라도 있어.ThemFromSpace 19:51, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

회피 사용자 차단:FAIZGEVARRA / WP:DOK : IP 범위 블록 가능성?

여보세요

사용자:FAIZGEVARRA는 익명의 IP에 따라 알제리 관련 기사를 파괴(again)하는 데 기여하고 있다: 특별:기여금/41.200.2.59 특별:기부금/41.200.24.188 특별:기여금/41.200.5.45.

이전사례 : [12] [13] [14] [15]

SP 사례: 위키백과:Sockpuppet_Investigations/FAIZGEVARRA/아카이브

개입 덕분에, 아마도 이전처럼 IP 범위를 차단함으로써.

오마르-툰스 (대화) 23:42, 2011년 8월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

편집: 추가: 특별:기부금/41.200.0.223 --Omar-Toons (대화) 01:06, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

+1: 특수:기부금/41.200.7.73 --Omar-Toons (대화) 03:26, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 남자는 짧은 시간에 30-60번씩 편집해서 한 주에 한 번꼴로 파괴하는 것 같아.이 레인지 컨트리뷰트 결과를 확인하십시오.불행히도 그의 알제리 기반 IP를 모두 커버하려면 /18이 필요할 것이다.지금 당장 41.200.0.0/18(블록 레인지 · 블록 로그(글로벌) · WHOIS(부분)를 2주 동안 차단하고, 그가 돌아올 때마다 다시 그렇게 하는 것은 어떨까?범위 블록은 애논 전용이므로 등록된 편집자를 방해하지 않는다.에드존스턴 (대화) 03:53, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

아마도 그것이 적절한 해결책인가?6월 25일에 41.200.0.0/18 범위가 동일한 사용자로 인해 차단됨:위키백과:관리자_noticeboard/IncidentArchive707#OR.2Fvandalism_by_multiple_IP.27s / Special:Log&type=block&page=사용자:41.200.0.0/18

오마르-툰스 (대화) 22:36, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과:위키프로젝트 축구/완벽한 프로 리그

IP 사용자 94.2.38.154[16]는 사용자가 하지 말라고 권고했던 목록[17]에서 SFL1 부문을 계속 삭제한다.DOOKISJAMMY 저와 사용자:아담4267과 토론 페이지에서 토론할 것을 지속적으로 권고했다.그는 자신의 토크 페이지에서 경고 태그를 제거한다.그는 또한 WP에 따라 리그와 관련된 선수 기사에 공신력 태그를 추가하기 시작했다.그 부서는 눈에 띈다.그는 또한 IP의 94.2.51.78[18] & 94.14.78.108을 사용하고 있는 것으로 보인다.[19] 모든 시도에도 불구하고 그는 듣지 않는다.그가 내 토크 페이지[20]에 다른 리그의 평판과 관련된 이슈들을 언급하고 있기 때문에 그가 이전 편집자일 것으로 의심하는 대사를 읽으면서 그는 위키백과에서 벌어지고 있는 컨센서스 토론에 그가 참여하도록 초청되었음에도 불구하고 내가 가진 의견 일치와 정책을 고려하지 않는다고 비난하는 것은 그가 이전 편집자일 것이라고 생각한다.위키프로젝트 풋볼/완벽 프로리그.이 리그가 주목할 만하다는 것은 그가 이것이 사실이 아니라는 것을 확고히 하고 있다는 것이다.편집에 지장을 주고 있어워버튼1368 (대화) 2011년 8월 8일 19:17 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 WP에게 이슈처럼 들린다:DRN, 관리자가 해줄 수 있는 일이 없는 것 같아.그 게시판을 한번 써봐라. 당신네와 같은 상황을 위해 만들어진 것이다. -- 아타마호 19:46, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그는 확실히 일단 관리자가 조치를 취할 수 있는 최종 경고가 주어졌을 때 사용자들이 주는 경고를 헤딩하지 못하며, 그는 IP가 탐지를 피하기를 바라고 있다.그는 그 프로젝트의 목표에 지장을 초래하게 되었다.나는 또한 그가 금지된 사용자일 수도 있다는 것에 의문을 제기할 것이다.점검해야 할 필요가 있다.워버튼1368 (대화) 2011년 8월 8일 19:53 (UTC)[응답]

WP로 이동:DRN. 그는 "탐지를 피하려고 IP를 홉으로 치는 것"이 아닐 수도 있다.우리는 그가 어떻게 인터넷에 접속하는지 알지 못한다. 몇몇 ISP들은 정기적으로 사용자 IP 주소를 바꾸고, 1000개의 WP가 있다.AGF는 왜 그의 IP주소가 바뀔 수 있는지, 그리고 그것이 그가 경고를 받지 않는 이유일 수도 있다."그는 단지 우리를 망치기 위해 IP를 깡충깡충 뛰고 있다"는 결론에 도달하지 마라.인터넷에 연결된 모든 사람들의 99%는 IP 주소가 어떻게 작동하는지, 어떤 것이 무엇인지, 또는 자신의 ISP가 어떻게 그들을 "변경"하는지를 훨씬 더 잘 알지 못한다.증거도 없이 곧장 그 결론으로 달려가지 마라.대신, 지시받은 대로 하라: 침착한 토론을 통해 해결책을 보고 WP에서와 같이 상황에 대한 외부 의견을 얻는다.DRN, 그리고 IP 주소가 변경된다고 해서 사용자를 즉시 악마로 만들지 마십시오.대신에, 그 문제를 평화적으로 해결하도록 노력하라.여기서의 나의 논평은 이 사람의 어떤 행동도 실제로 훌륭하다는 것을 나타내거나 그의 입장이 옳다는 것을 나타내지 않는다(그리고 내가 그 말을 한 것도 그가 틀렸다고 생각한다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다) 하지만, 당신이 충돌하는 모든 사람들이 그 시스템이나 그와 비슷한 것을 게임하려고 한다고 가정하지 말아줘... --Jayron32 20:01, 8월 20일.11 (UTC)[응답하라]

내 마지막 요점은 WP를 느끼지 못한다는 것이다.DRN은 대다수의 사용자들이 이에 대해 동의한 사실상의 분쟁이 없기 때문에 도움이 될 것이다.제대로 된 논의에 나서기보다는 뒷문을 통해 파행적 편집으로 정책을 바꾸려는 것이다.그는 3일 동안 세 개의 다른 주소가 있었기 때문에 더 많은 ips를 사용하고 있을 것이다.나는 진심으로 행정관이 필요하다고 생각한다. 나는 그의 편집을 되돌리도록 강요당한 유일한 사용자가 아니다. 적어도 그가 금지된 사용자일 수도 있는 얼굴을 네가 들여다볼 수 있다.대다수의 사용자가 편집한 내용을 되돌리고 있는 사람이 어떻게 그의 편집한 내용을 하나도 최신으로 하지 않을 수 있는가? 모든 것이 한 사용자 또는 다른 사용자에 의해 되돌렸기 때문이다.그에게 경고한 것은 나뿐만이 아니다.그는 두 번의 최종 경고를 받았다.워버튼1368 (대화)20:08, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

리그는 2010년 2, 3부 리그와 함께 지난 달 리그 2, 3부 리그가 복원될 때까지 명단에서 제외된 것으로 보인다.토크 페이지를 적절히 사용한 후, 특히 [21]과 [22]의 출처가 리그의 포함을 지지하지 않았거나 완전히 부정했다는 것을 근거로 다시 삭제되었다.대화에 대한 논의는 매우 진행 중이고 - 내 본능은 의심스러운 포함을 완전히 제거하는 것이지만 - 당분간은 그것을 합리적인 중간 영역으로 간주하는 것으로 보인다.

이 접근방식은 편집 전쟁[23] [24] [25] [26], [27] [28]을 조사하여 "반달" 템플릿의 오용에 의한 위협을 시도함으로써 Warburton1368에 의해 충족되었다 [29] [30].WP를 위해:COI는 위에 언급된 다른 사용자들도 그의 "스코티시 풋볼 태스크포스"의 멤버라는 점에 주목해야 한다.그러나 스코틀랜드의 다른 오랜 축구 기고자들은 프로페셔널하지 않고 지속 가능한 WP의 유형을 얻을 가능성이 낮기 때문에 디비전 1 선수들의 PRODing 기사 [31] [32] 등이었다.WP를 충족하기 위해 필요한 RS 커버리지:GNG.

나는 연맹의 포함을 결정하기 위한 출처들의 고려는 기쁘지만, 나의 "정치적" 동기에 대해 터무니없는 비명을 지르는 것을 원하지 않는다. 94.14.78.108 (토크) 20:24, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 당신이 나를 비난하고 있다고 충고하고 싶다. 나는 당신에게 경고하는 유일한 사용자도 아니고, 당신이 지금 당장은 그 합의가 당신에게 불리하다는 것을 알고 있기 때문에 당신이 토론에 완전히 참여하지 않을 것을 충고하는 유일한 사용자도 아니다. 만약 당신이 의견이 일치될 때까지 페이지에 대한 당신의 편집을 중단한다면 나는 기꺼이 이 중 하나를 취하할 것이다.WP의 합의에 따른 제1부문은 다음과 같다.당신이 그 프로젝트를 계속 방해할 수 없는 새로운 합의가 도출되기 전까지는 풋이가 주목할 만하다.워버튼1368 (대화)20:31, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 내가 맞는지 알려준 선수들도 1부 리그나 2부 리그가 눈에 띄지 않는 한 눈에 띄지 않을 것이다.내가 알아보고 보관해야 할지가 AFD로 완전한 위키백과 과목으로 보내질 것이다.스코틀랜드 대책 위원회는 당신이 토론하기를 원하지 않는 것과 아무 관련이 없다.워버튼1368 (대화)20:35, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 결코 템플릿을 부적절하게 사용한 적이 없다. 당신은 의견이 모아질 때까지 바꾸지 말라는 충고를 받았다. 이것이 공공 기물 파손이다.왜 ip hop을 3일 동안 사용했는가.워버튼1368 (대화)20:37, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 네가 괴롭힘을 당하는 것을 원하지 않아, 워버튼1368, 그리고 조숙한 ANI는 불행하지만, 너의 특권이니까.내가 WP만큼 모든 토론에 기여하고 있다는 것을 확신하십시오.IRL이 허용할 것이다.하지만 이런 공감대를 보여주시겠습니까?나의 기여는 정책과 출처와 일치한다. 단지 당신이 다른 견해를 가졌다고 해서 파괴적이거나 "반달리즘"이 아니다. 94.14.78.108 (대화) 20:50, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• WT에서는 토크 페이지나 그 이상에 대한 합의가 이루어지지 않고 있다.스코틀랜드 풋볼 리그 1부 리그를 명단에서 삭제하기 위해 FOOTY는 사실상 그것을 유지하는 쪽으로 기울고 있지만, 이 IP는 그것을 반복적으로 제거해야 한다고 주장한다.나는 또한 워버튼에게 DRN에 가라고 충고했지만, 그는 점점 더 낙담하고 있으며, 방금 내 토크 페이지에 그가 은퇴할 것이라는 글을 올렸다.우리가 지기 전에 여기 있는 사람들이 필요한 도움. (다른 사람!) 열성적이고 박식한 편집자.자이언트 스노우맨 20:53, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

WP:BURDEN에 따르면, 그 포함에 반대하는 (또는 그것이 소싱되기를 요구하는) 것이 아니라, 의심스러운 물질을 포함하기를 원하는 사람들에게 책임이 있다.94.14.78.108 (대화)20:59, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 하지만 이 리그의 프로페셔널한 성격을 확인할 수 있는 10개의 출처가 있답니다.너한텐 부족하다고?

각 클럽마다 한 개씩. 하지만 그 중 두 개는 검증 실패[33][34.나는 대화와 페이지 자체에 이러한 합리적인 반대를 분명히 표시했지만 스코틀랜드 축구 특별 위원회에 의해 거절당했다.그들은 WP에 대한 그들의 해석이 다음과 같다고 느꼈던 것 같다.상식적으로 WP:V와 같은 불편한 문제들을 극복해야 한다.유해한 자료는 출처와 일부 공정 WP와 논의하려고 시도하지 않고 재삽입되었다.UNIVENDIVAL행동은 좋은 척도를 위해 투입되었다. 94.14.78.108 (대화) 21:18, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

지금까지 편하게 무시하고 있는데 어떻게 공감대를 언급하는지 우습다.자이언트 스노우맨 21:20, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이곳이 아닌 것 같은데 이 공감대가 어디인지 좀 보여주시죠? 94.14.78.108 (대화) 21:30, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

토크 페이지에서는, 그래야 하는 것처럼.자이언트 스노우맨 21:54, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

긴급하게 필요한 관리자 도움말

그는 지금 내 토크 페이지와 사용자:아담4267은 또한 위키백과 강연에서 편집한 내용을 보고 있다.위키프로젝트 풋볼은 사용자들의 반응을 유도하고 있는데 불행히도 그는 현재 1개의 ip주소를 얻었고 그의 3개의 ip주소에 다양한 사용자들로부터 경고를 받고 있다.만약 우리 중 누군가가 부적절한 행동을 했다고 생각한다면, 그러면 우리는 그것을 받아들일 것이다.포함이 적절히 소싱되지 않는 한, WP에 따르면, 이 목록은 이전 안정 버전으로 되돌아간다.그는 그 합의가 그에게 동의하지 않는다는 것을 알고는 전혀 멈출 생각이 없다.나는 WP의 편집자들이 하는 모든 좋은 작품들을 망치고 있기 때문에 위키 편집을 중단할 것을 심각하게 고려하고 있다.footy do. .Warburton1368 (대화) 23:27, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

IP 사용자는 그의 수많은 대화 페이지에서 그의 파괴적인 행동을 중단하라는 충고를 받았으나 여전히 지속되고 있다.IP 사용자들은 합의에 반하고, 수많은 페이지를 파괴하고, 편집자들을 자극했다.그는 지난 2일 동안 스코틀랜드 특별 조사단이 건설적인 일을 하는 것을 막았고, 우리가 적극적인 구성원을 잃기 전에 일부 관리자들이 조치를 취할 시간이다.(★★ DOOKISJAMMY★) 23:43, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 당신이 그렇게 감정적이라면 아마도 WP:WB는 당신과 프로젝트 둘 다에게 이익이 될 수 있다.사실과 관련하여, Ayr United와 남쪽의 Queen이 정규 프로 클럽이 될 수 있도록 지원할 수 있는 자료를 찾거나, "완전히 프로" 목록에 있는 리그의 위치를 보는 것은 간단하다.이는 상당히 합리적이며, 만약 당신이 그 리스트에 리그의 위치가 정말로 자격이 있다고 믿는다면 앞으로 곧장 나아가야 한다. 94.14.78.108 (토크) 23:36, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그것은 더 이상 눈, 아담, 오리재미로서 문제가 아니다. 그리고 다른 모든 사람들은 당신에게 동의하는 것이 당신이 우리를 공격하고 페이지를 파손하는 것에 동의하지 않는다고 말하고 있다.이것은 더 이상 논쟁거리가 아니다. 당신은 기본적으로 다른 편집자들을 공격하고 있다. 그리고 당신은 그것을 알고 있다.이것은 더 이상 당신과 더 이상 논의할 필요가 없으며 나는 분명히 그렇게 하지 않을 것이다.행정관은 당신의 행동을 보고 이것을 정리하는데 필요하다. 당신이 단지 다른 편집자들을 파괴하고 공격하는 것에 대한 합의에는 관심이 없기 때문이다.워버튼1368 (대화) 23:42, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

차단됨

나는 가장 최근의 IP를 31시간 동안 차단했고(동적이기 때문에 더 이상 그럴 이유가 없다) 일주일 동안 Ayr United 기사를 반보호했다.레인지블록에는 사용범위가 너무 크지만 편집자가 다른 IP로 다시 나타난다면 블록 회피로 단순 차단을 제안하고 싶다.블랙 카이트 (t) (c) 00:05, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이해충돌

위키백과의 이해충돌에 대해 다음과 같이 말해줄 것을 요청한다.생성/Zeitbyte Digital Media에 대한 기사는 관리자가 가능한 한 빨리 검토한다.고마워, Nathan2055^talk 22:02, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

우선, 나는 이 편집자가 AFC 과정을 이용하여 피드백을 받고 WP를 준수하는 기사를 개발하기 때문에 우려할 만한 것은 아니라고 본다.NPOV, 그리고 그들은 "라이브" 기사를 편집하지 않고 있다.둘째, 위키백과:이해충돌은 정책이 아니라 가이드라인으로, 금지하지 않는 가이드라인이라 하더라도 '강력하게 단념'할 뿐이다.셋째, 위키백과가 아닌 여기에 게시되는 이유가 있는가?이해 충돌/공지판?어떤 관리 작업을 찾으십니까?^Avic_ennasis @ 00:06, 9 Av 5771 / 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)

WP:코인은 그-a-way이다.북빛의 칼날 (話して下い) 01:23, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자가 편집 전쟁에 참여하여 세 개의 되돌리기 규칙을 위반하고 페이지를 잠근 경우

관리자인 로노텔은 편집 전쟁을 벌이고, 기사를 네 번이나 되짚은 다음, 뜻대로 되지 않을 때 페이지를 잠근다.관리자 편향 및 POV 푸싱의 좋은 예.포함은 소싱되어도 소싱되지 않는다고 반복해서 말한다.관리자 지위를 이용하여 자신의 편집 전쟁을 은폐함. 208.83.63.222 (대화) 23:27, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

어떤 기사에 대해? --Alan the Roving Ambassador(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 23:29, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC) 그 질문은 잊어버려라.편집 전쟁에 대한 우려가 있다면 WP에서 제기하십시오.관리자 관련 여부에 관계없이 NEWNEW.그곳에서 적절한 조치를 취할 수 있다. --Alan the Roving Ambassador(사용자:N5iln) (대화) 23:33, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

IP가 스탠더드앤드푸어스(S&P) 기사를 참조하는 것 같다.(특수:기여/로노텔 ) 그곳의 토크 페이지에서 토론한 내용과 로노텔이 BLP/N에서 한 말을 종합해 보면, BLP 중심의 방어가 있는 기술적 3RR 위반으로 보이지만, 궁극적으로는 제대로 소싱되지 않은 소재를 제거하는 것이다.기술적으로 WP에 따라 도구를 사용하지 말았어야 함:관련되었지만 솔직히 말하자면 그것은 다른 행정관이 그에게 부탁했다면 해줬을 것 같은 일이었다.기술적 프로토콜 위반을 어떻게 처리하십니까?또한, 다른 편집자들은, 3RR을 위반하지 않고, 편집 전쟁 (IMHO)을 하고 있었다. -- 아바누 (토크) 23:36, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 어쨌든 이 보고서에 대해 로노텔에게 통지서를 남겼는데, 그 실마리를 열어준 IP가 그에게 통지하지 않았기 때문이다, 비록 그가 시민에 못 미치는 메시지를 남겼지만 말이다.[35] —C.프레드 (토크) 23:37, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

WP를 위반하는 자재 제거:BLP는 편집 전쟁 규칙에서 면제된다.그리고 추가된 자료와 토크 페이지의 토론으로 미루어 볼 때, 나는 로노텔의 행동을 지지하는 경향이 있다.S&P 모기업 대표의 기부 이력이 왜 이 페이지와 관련이 있는지에 대한 설명이 없다.S&P 사장 자체가 상대방에게 기부한다는 로노텔의 주장이 나오면 우려는 배가된다.내가 보기에 이 모든 것에 완전히 아웃사이더로서 그 자료는 S&P의 최근의 결정에 당파적 성향을 띠게 하기 위해 특별히 첨가된 것으로 보이며, 그것을 정당화하기 위해 살아 있는 사람의 행동을 이용하고 있다.그러므로 나는 BLP당 제거가 적절하다고 믿는다.결연한 23:46, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

맞아, 나도 로노텔의 행동을 지지해.한 무리의 아논들이 우리의 BLP 정책을 위반하여 기사에 이런 것들을 강제하려고 노력해왔고 R은 제거와 보호를 통해 옳은 일을 했다.Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그런데, 로노텔이 이 이야기를 꺼냈어.Antandrus (대화) 23:56, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

로노텔은 여기서 아무 잘못도 하지 않았다.WP별:관련됨, 위키백과 정책을 시행하기 위해 관리자 조치를 강화하는 것은 관련으로 간주되지 않는다.WP를 고려할 때:위키백과 정책은 본문과 관련된 BLP에 대해 Ronnotel이 정당하게 한 것과 사람들이 WP에 복종하기를 거부했을 때 텍스트는 반드시 제거되어야 한다고 분명히 명시하고 있다.BLP 정책, 그리고 그 문제를 토론 페이지에서 토론하면 페이지가 바로 잠겼다.Ronnotel의 좋은 움직임. --Jayron32 00:00, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

엄밀히 말하면, 그것은 매우 가벼운 BLP 위반이다.편집자들은 그 진술들에 대한 일차적이고 믿을만한 출처를 가지고 있었다.문제는 이들이 이런 기부가 일종의 비판으로 인식될 수 있다는 생각을 뒷받침할 믿을 만한 2차적 출처가 없었다는 점이다.그렇다면, 이것은 좀 더 소싱적이고 독창적인 연구 이슈가 되지 않을까? -- 아바누 (토크) 03:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 로노텔의 행동을 지지하라.하지만 멋진 코너 헤딩이네.우리는 더 이상 ZOMG 학대 행정관이 내 새끼고양이를 먹었다는 같은 타이틀을 얻지 못하는 것 같다.보고싶다. --존(토크) 03:36, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 이것은 항상 이 목록의 132번을 생각나게 한다 --Jayron32 04:30, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[답글]

관리자는 BLP 위반을 되돌리고 재발 방지를 위한 조치를 취하기 위해 올바르게 행동했다.그것은 어떤 출처에서도 발견되지 않는 살아 있는 사람의 입장에서 당파적 동기를 내포하고 있기 때문에 BLP 위반이었다.TFD (대화) 04:16, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

자신감을 가져줘서 고마워, 모두.다음 번에 어논 POV 푸셔가 관리자 학대 꼬투리로 나를 쫓아올 때 이 실을 감아서 브랜드화할 거야.로노텔 (대화) 04:46, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 공화당원에게도 투표하지 않는다. 그럼에도 불구하고 나는 여전히 론모텔의 반보호를 지지한다.사람들은 위키피디아를 통해 다른 사람들에 대한 공격을 개시하는 것은 말할 것도 없고 표준과 가난한 사람들의 동기에 대한 당파적인 결론을 내리기 위해 주요 소스를 이용하려고 분명히 노력하고 있다. 즉, 출처의 명확하고 모호하지 않은 종합이다.게다가, 나는 토크 페이지도 이런 쓰레기들에 대해 반비례할 필요가 있는지 궁금하다.–MuZemike 05:50, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

노마 스티츠

관리자가 WP를 확인해 주시겠습니까?AIV re. Norma Stitz(토크 히스토리를 편집하면 로그가 삭제된다)와 Sergeispb-10(토크 · 기여)의 편집. (한 시간 전쯤 보고되었지만 여전히 진행 중인 BLP 문제) - 고마워, Chzz zz 07:24, 2011년 8월 9일(UTC)[응답]

• 나는 한 달 동안 차단했고, Zscout370은 페이지를 완전히 보호했다. - Penwhale 07:50, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

정말 고마워. 그리고 내가 쇼핑한 걸 '잊어버렸다'고 사과해.이 '해결'을 표시하고, 건배. Chzz ► 07:54, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:68.194.239.60 시간 초과 필요

나는 68.194.239.60 (토크 · 기여)에게 다음과 같이 경고했다.

"U CROSTIN BIitch...와 같은 댓글. 왜 자꾸 IJUS가 했던가? SMH LOSER ASS CRACKA WANNO BE PUTOR RICAN"과 "YOU A AREA CRACKA A55 BiTCH"는 여기선 완전히 외면을 벗어났다.

반응은 "이었다.FUCK U."비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 22:09, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

통지됨.IP는 상당히 정적인 것 같다: 모든 기여는 푸에르토리코, 라틴 아메리카 등과 관련된 주제에 관한 것이었다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 22:11, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이 동료와 연결되어 있고, IP로부터 모든 기여를 한 것은 분명 같은 사용자다.그는 4월에도 여전히 매력적이었다.[36][37]독톡 22:26, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

바로 그거야.3개월 동안 꽉 막혔어.— 사토리 손 22:30, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 임시로 "해결된" 태그를 제거했다.AFROdr에 익숙한 사람이 User:65.8.153.6의 편집 내용을 보고 동일인인지 확인할 수 있는가?욕설도 없고, 같은 초점도 있고, 인신공격에 가까웠지.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 16시 18분 (UTC)[응답]

신경 쓰지 마, 이미 차단된 것 같아.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 17시 10분 (UTC)[응답]

문서를 보호한 관리자가 BLP 사유에 대한 자료 삭제

이는 WP에서 위에서 논의한 상황과 유사하다.편집 전쟁에 참여하는 ANI#Admin 3회 되돌리기 규칙을 위반하고 3RR이 없는 경우를 제외하고 페이지를 잠근다.그리고 사실, 나는 내 자신을 보고하는 관리자다.나는 WP에서 토론을 보았다.BLPN#Paul Lendavai는 기사에 들어가 BLP 위반으로 보이는 것을 삭제했으며, BLP 콘텐츠가 현재의 고도의 정치적 이슈를 불러일으키고 있기 때문에 그 기사에 반영되었다.나의 제거가 되돌아가서 나는 나의 '클렌즈' 버전을 복구하고 그 기사를 완전히 보호했다.나는 또한 토크 페이지에도 댓글을 달았다.그 기사는 (그들의 편집 요약이 불행했다는 것에 동의하는) 다른 관리자에 의해 보호받지 못했고, 나는 그 행동을 이해할 수 있지만 그것이 잘못되었다고 생각한다.나는 관리자가 BLP 위반을 제거하고 기사를 보호할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 이것은 단순히 당신이 좋아하지 않는 내용을 바꾸고 보호하는 것과는 상당히 다르다고 생각한다.나는 이 기사를 본 적이 없어서 편집에 관여하고 싶지 않다.그리고 물론 전쟁을 편집하고 보호를 대체하고 싶지는 않지만, 그 기사는 여전히 완전한 보호가 필요하다고 생각한다.내 보호가 "관련 사용자에 의한 완전히 부적절한 보호"였는가?더그웰러 (대화) 08:40, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참고: BLPN 입력 위치: WP:BLPN#Paul_Lendvai(위의 일반) 및 기사는 다음과 같다: Paul Lendvai.RORMFROMLI / ^TK_CN09:21, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 작업:IIRC는 BLP 위반을 제거하기 위한 콘텐츠 변경/반복 및/또는 카피비오 등 관리 업무만 수행하는 경우, 내가 열거한 경우에서 관리자의 조치가 어떤 형태로든 "편집"을 요구했을 수 있지만, 문제의 관리자를 고려하는 기준을 충족하지 못한다고 믿는다.기사 주제에 대해서는 잘 모르지만, 타인이 간주하는 당신의 행위가 확실한 BLP 위반의 제거로 간주된다면(카피비오인 것처럼), (1) 나는 당신이 관여했다고 생각하지 않을 것이며, (2) 당신의 행동에 잘못이 있다고 볼 수 없다.그런 맥락에서 나는 (적어도 최근 역사에서) 네가 어떤 편집을 했는지 검토했고, BLP 위반 수리 외에는 아무것도 보지 못했다.그 일 때문에, 난 네가 연루되었다고 생각하지 않아.나는 다른 관리자가 당신의 초기 수정사항을 보고 그들이 BLP 문제를 수정하고 있다는 것을 알아차리지 못했을 것이라고 의심한다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 09:18, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)

WP에 따라 비준수 BLP 콘텐츠에 대한 토론을 시행하기 위한 [38] 편집 및 페이지 보호를 지원한다.BLP. 다른 사람에게 그것을 보호해 달라고 부탁하는 것이 더 바람직했을지도 모른다.추가 편집은 토크 페이지의 요청을 통해 더 잘 처리될 수 있었을 것이다. 양성자 제거로 인해 일부 부적절한 콘텐츠는 복권되었다 [39] 그러나, 편집자가 선의로 행동하고 그 후에 잘못된 소스가 제공되는 콘텐츠를 삭제한다는 점에 주목한다 [40].

Ironholds의 양성자 제거는 너무 서두른 것 같으며, 먼저 당신 및/또는 다른 사람들과 논의했어야 했다.하지만, 나는 그것이 또한 문제를 해결하려는 선의의 시도였다고 확신한다. 그리고 나는 그 이후로 xe가 사과했다고 본다[41].

나는 가까운 장래에 그 기사가 다시 보호되어야 한다고 생각한다. 그러나 여기서 조금 더 논의/개론을 한 후에야 비로소. Chzz ► 09:23, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• Support Actions Protection이 요청되었고 당신은 당신의 후방을 보호하는 것보다 BLP 문제에 우선순위를 두는 것을 선택했다.WP에서 요청서 제출:RFP는 정치적으로 신중했을 수도 있지만 지연을 야기했을 수도 있다.나는 당신의 행동이 WP의 정신에 위배된다고 보지 않는다.관련됨.파보니아어 (토크) 09:34, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여러분의 행동에 동의하십시오. WP:관련자는 (WP:3RR과 마찬가지로) "생활자의 전기 및 기사 보호에 관한 정책을 위반하는 명예훼손, 편향, 비협조 또는 불충분한 논쟁적 자료의 제거"가 WP의 예외임을 명확히 하기 위해 개정된다.참여 ? 09:43, 2011년 ^(edits) 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 나는 그것이 이루어져야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 Ironholds (성실하게 행동했지만 아마도 성급하게 행동한) 그리고 나는 어제 이것에 대해 토론했고 나는 그의 강연 페이지에 이 실과 수정 WP에 대해 글을 올렸다.관련됨.더그웰러(토크) 2011년 8월 9일(UTC) 10시 2분 [응답]

나는 거기서 작은 주의점을 보고 싶다. 으스스해지기를 바라지 않고, 음...나는 BLP에 대한 언급을 덧붙이고 싶지만, 가능한 한 다른 사람들에게 물어보는 것이 최선이라는 사실을 지우지 않고서.문맥상, 굵은 글꼴로 예시 예외를 약간 추가하는 것은 어떨까?;

(예: 노골적인 공공 기물 파괴 행위 또는 blp 위반) 간단한 경우, 지역사회는 합리적인 관리자가 아마도 같은 결론에 도달했을 것이라는 근거에 기초하여 (관련되더라도) 모든 관리자의 명백한 조치를 역사적으로 지지해 왔다.관련 편집자의 행정 조치 금지에는 예외가 있지만, 관리자가 관련 게시판을 통해 다른 관리자에게 이 문제를 전달하는 것이 관여된 것으로 보일 수 있는 경우에는 여전히 모범 사례다.

그것으로 충분할까?어쩌면 "BLP 위반"이라는 링크에도 불구하고 "살아있는 사람들에 대한 정책 위반"이 충분히 명확하지 않을 수도 있다.몰라, 키스하려고 해.추가 아이디어는 매우 환영한다. 이것은 매우 거친 초안이다. Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 더그웰러의 행동을 지지하고 양식이 합의될 수 있다면 정책에 대한 문구의 일부 변경에 동의한다.나는 정확히 같은 일로 한 번 비판을 받아왔다. - 내가 귀찮은 IP라고 믿었던 것을 논쟁의 여지가 있을 수 있고 다른 편집자들에 의해 되돌아오고 있는 비협조적인 정보를 추가하고, 대화 페이지에 메모로 기사를 고정시키는 것은, 단지 내가 대화 페이지의 되돌림과 메모 때문에 "부적절했다"는 말을 들을 뿐이며, 그렇게 해서는 안 된다.기사를 잠갔다.기사를 편집한 적도 없고, 그 이후로 편집한 적도 없다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 10시 52분[응답]

• 문구를 바꾸는 것이 좋을 것이고 말이 될 것이다.내가 제대로 읽고 있다면 BLP 위반 되돌리기는 문제가 아니야...되돌리는 것은 원래 관리자가 관여했다고 다른 사람이 생각하도록 만들 수 있기 때문에 다른 관리자가 보호를 위해 반올림될 수 있을 때까지의 임시?좀 바보같다.너희 모두 나를 그 곳이나 마을 펌프(혹은 어디서든)에 그런 제안의 리스트에 올려놓으면 돼.ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 결코 User는 아니었다.더그웰러 WP:참여 - 그리고 참여했더라도 WP:BLP가 우선한다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 안녕 BWilkins!나는 (내 링크 설명 바로 아래)에 대한 나의 첫 번째 (지나치게 장황한) 게시물에서 - 따라서 다른 편집자들이 "그가 연루되었다"는 유행에 잘못 편승하지 않도록 가이드라인을 명확히 하는 것을 지지한다고 말했다. :-) ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 20:14, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로, 그 정책은 혼자 두는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각한다.관리자가 도구를 사용하는지, 인식된 BLP 위반에 대한 대응인지, 또는 '선을 넘은' 것으로 인식되는 다른 관리자에 대한 대응인지에 대해 재량권을 사용할 수 있다.관리자들에 대한 명시적 면제를 추가하는 것은 1,545명의 관리자 중 다른 사람에게 손을 부탁하는 단순한 행동이라기 보다는 주의를 저해할 것으로 보인다. -- 아바누 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

Avanu, 위의 2단어 추가는 그렇게 명시적인 면제는 아니지만, BLP의 경우 관리자가 기사를 보호하는 것과 같은 조치를 신속하게 취하는 것이 평소보다 더 용인될 수 있다는 것을 언급함으로써 도움이 된다.나는 관리자들이 그것에 열광할 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그래서 - 실제로 그 2단어 변화에 반대하십니까, 아니면 받아들일 수 있으십니까? Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 12:26 (UTC)[응답]

@Bwilkins, 정확히 그렇다; 너는 나보다 그것을 더 잘 말했다. Chzz ► 12:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것을 계속 반복해서 생각하는데, "블랩 위반" (또는 이와 비슷한)은 "블래터 반달리즘"보다 해석에 훨씬 더 개방적이다.예를 들어, 만약 어떤 사람이 "존 스미스는 치즈볼이다!!!" 존 스미스 기사에 따르면, 다른 어떤 것도, 우리는 그것이 단지 약간의 공공 기물 파괴 행위라고 생각할 수 있으며, 어떤 편집자도 걱정 없이 안전하게 그것을 제거할 수 있다.그러나, 지금 RS에 의해 소싱되었다고 가정해 보자.Mew Nork Bimes 신문의 보도에 따르면, "존 스미스는 저온 살균 치즈 볼이다."이제 편집자에게 BLP 위반 여부를 판별하게 된다.만약 당신이 '부적절하다'고 한다면, 그것은 그 문제를 복잡하게 만들 뿐이다.AN/I에 실린 스탠더드앤드푸어스(S&P) 기사는 꼭 BLP 문제가 아니라 1차 출처/2차 출처 문제일 뿐 기사를 잠근 행정관이 BLP를 인용한 것은 근처를 맴돌았지만 1차적인 관심사는 아니었다. --아바누(토크) 2011년 8월 9일(UTC)[응답]

흠, 좋은 지적이야내 생각에 진짜 문제는, 우리는 정책 충돌 혹은 적어도, de jure accepted practices의 충돌이라고 생각한다.

주: 나는 이 특정한 경우를 문제시하지 않는다; 나는 우리가 거의 동의한다고 생각한다.그러나, 더 큰 계획에서, 나는 이것이 해결책이 필요하다고 생각한다.

INPLOGED 원칙은 어떤 문제에 상당히 관여하고 있는 더 나은 용어를 위해 관리자들은 해당 분야에서 관리자 권한을 사용하지 말아야 한다고 제안한다.그러나, BLP의 우려는 종종 그러한 예절을 대체하는 것으로 간주되며, 우리는 항상 주의의 측면에서 실수를 하려고 노력한다. 예를 들어, 토론이 진행되는 동안 단순히 어떤 버전-해프닝이 일어나더라도 그냥 내버려두는 대신, 합의가 있을 때까지 의심스러운 자료를 제거하는 것이다.

그래서 어느 쪽일까?내가 말했듯이, 나는 과도한 지시를 원하지 않는다. 하지만, 아마도 우리는 이것이 분명히 필요할 것이다.관련된 관리자가 AN에 대해 BLP 문제일지라도 (사소한/반달리즘을 넘어) 요구되는 조치에 대해 소리쳐야 하는가, 아니면 즉각적인 조치를 취해야 하는가?다른 방법을 생각해 보십시오. 이러한 경우 "관리자 학대"의 가능성 또는 BLP vio의 변경 가능성 중 어느 것이 더 큰 문제인가? Chzz ► 13:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아직도 보호받지 못하고 있는 폴 렌트바이 기사에 대한 질문을 그냥 꺼낼 수 있을까?편집이 꽤 심했어?더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:22 [응답]

글쎄, 나는 우리 모두가 너의 원래 행동이 옳았고 너를 연루시키지 않는다는 것에 동의한다고 생각해.현재의 메인 편집자는 정책을 준수하고 다른 편집자들과 이 문제를 논의하기를 열망하는 듯하지만, 만약 당신이 반복되면, 그것은 다시 보호될 수 있다고 제안한다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:39, 응답

헝가리어를 할 줄 아는 사람이 도와줄 수 있을까?아마존닷컴은 믿을 만한 정보원으로 보이지 않는다.그래서, 나는 이런 편집이 적절한지 잘 모르겠다. Chzz ► 14:45, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그 사이트는 텔레비전 프로그램의 카피비오 비디오로 가득 찬 것 같다.나는 어떤 경우에도 "렌트바이는 결코 스파이로 채용되지 않았지만, 1963년 7월 24일 보고서에서 보관된 문서는 렌트바이를 "최고의 접촉자 중 하나"라고 지칭한다.실제 페이지는 Magyar Nemzet의 기사에서 나온 것으로 보이는데, 이 블로그에서 (이 기사)가 논의되고 있는 기사[42]는 물론 자신만의 정치적 관점을 가지고 있다.더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 15:31, (UTC)[응답]

렌트바이와 헤티 발라스츠에 대해 논의한 보스턴 리뷰의 '3월 헝가리의 상승 우파에 관한 기사'를 사용하자고 제안한 것은 이 기사가 거의 보수파 헝가리 소식통에게 독점적으로 제공되었기 때문이다.분명한 이해관계가 없는 독립된 출처에서 주로 조달할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.더그웰러(토크) 15:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그렇다; 이것이 내가 편집자에게 147페이지의 렉시스넥시스의 뉴스 기사를 제공한 이유다.아이언홀드 (대화)20:26, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

하모니SEQ

조 칠 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 18:51 (UTC)[응답]

나는 하모니로 지명했다.삭제할 SEQ.그것은 이전에 AfD에서 삭제되었다.관리자가 이 기사가 재생산된 기사로 빠르게 삭제될 수 있는지 확인할 수 있는가?조 칠(토크) 17:03, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 확인했어.주제는 같고, 텍스트의 양은 비슷하지만, 현재 버전은 더 많은 참고문헌을 가지고 있다.경계선 사건이지만 추가 참고자료로 볼 때 AFD를 통해 두 번째만 운영하게 하는 것이 가치 있을 수 있다. --Jayron32 17:47, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어고마워요.조 칠 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 18:51 (UTC)[응답]

사용자별 괴롭힘:비리다타스

사용자 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas은 나의 토크 페이지에서 나를 계속해서 괴롭혔다.첫째로 그는 이 주장을 뒷받침할 어떤 증거도 제시하지 않은 채 나를 바보라고 비난해 왔다.내가 위키백과에 나의 시간을 폭넓게 설명한 후에 그는 위키백과 전체에 대한 나의 기여의 가치에 대해 계속 질문했다.그리고 나서 나는 그에게 나의 편집이 가치 있는 것인지에 대해 의문을 제기하는 것은 그의 입장이 아니라고 계속 말했고 나는 그에게 그가 양말 퍼피에 대해 더 이상 말할 것이 없다면 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리지 말아달라고 부탁했다.이런 요청에도 불구하고 그는 계속해서 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리고 위키피디아에 대한 나의 기여의 가치에 대해 수사적인 질문을 하고 있다.이 모든 사건은 내가 진행중인 요청된 움직임에 대한 의견을 표명한 후에 시작되었다. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Requested_Move.요청된 이동에 대한 토론에 들어가기 전에 이 사용자와 접촉한 적이 없으며, 해당 요청된 이동에 더 이상 기여하지 못하도록 위협하기 위해 사용자가 내 토크 페이지에 게시하는 것으로 보인다.비엣민 (대화) 05:27, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

비엣민은 이 보고서를 비리다타스에게 알리지 않았다.베트민 편집의 역사는 약간 이상하다.계정을 만드는 것과 첫 번째 편집을 하는 것 사이에는 몇 달 간의 초기 차이가 있었다.이 편집들은 다른 것들 사이에서 이상하다.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]] 편집도 174.114.87.236 (토크 · 기여)로 인정했다.약 3주 전에 이름이 지정된 계정의 편집이 갑자기 바뀌었다.[53] 수학시 (토크) 07:41, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

비엣민의 계정은 2006년 9월 26일 02:26에 만들어졌다.02:35에 2006년 9월 26일 베트민은 러셀 헤인을 편집했다.이는 몇 달이 아니라 초기 9분의 격차다. --핀레이 맥왈터 ☻ 토크 11:18, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자가 아닌 사용자는 삭제된 편집 내용을 볼 수 없다.마쓰시 (토크)20:51, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그가 편집했다면, 그 편집은 숨겨지거나 삭제된다.현재 첫 번째 편집은 2007년 1월이다.가장 이상한 점은 2007년 3월과 2009년 12월 사이의 거의 33개월의 간격이다.2009년 12월 역시 174.114.87.236이 편집을 시작한 시점이다.그 이전에 다른 IP를 가지고 있었을 가능성이 있고, 전반적으로 그가 로그인했는지 아닌지에 대해 무심하게 행동했을 수도 있다.base야구 벅스 당근→ 16:01, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

목성의 머리에서 튀어나온 미네르바가 대량으로 편집하면서 많은 사용자들이 등장하지 않는다.그 결과 33개월의 격차는 거의 무의미하다.게다가 만약 어떤 사람이 양말 작업이 일어나고 있다고 믿는다면, 적절한 게시판에 게시하고 IP를 어떤 악랄한 위반으로 유효한 것으로 보이는 것에 대해 비난하지 않는 것이 중요하다. (아마도 IP가 시간적 중첩을 전혀 가지고 있지 않다는 사실이 단서가 될 것이다.) 모든 사람에게 차 한 잔씩 마시도록 하라.건배.수집(대화)20:41, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 편집 때마다 사용자 이름을 가진 모든 사람이 로그인하는 것은 아니다; 남편은 사용자 이름(사용자 페이지와 심지어 헛간 스타까지 포함)을 가지고 있지만 로그인 페이지에서 "Rememember me" 상자를 선택하지 않았기 때문에 사용자 이름 아래에서는 거의 편집하지 않는다.오직 진짜 헌신적인 사람들(또는 항문-반복적인 사람들)만이 편집 때마다 로그인하는 것에 대해 걱정한다.호롤로그(토크)20:53, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그 보고서는 어떠한 행정 조치도 필요로 하지 않는다.베트민(대화·출연자)이 동시에 SPI를 요청했다.가장 잘 잊어버린 것.Mathsci (대화) 21:02, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 한 단락의 모든 것에 대답할 것이다: 나는 비리다타스가 내 토크 페이지에 계속 나를 괴롭히면 내가 이 행동을 개시할 것이라고 통보했고, 나는 구체적으로 그가 그의 양말 퍼펫 고발과 관련하여 할 말이 없다면 내 토크 페이지에 글을 올리는 것을 중단하라고 그에게 부탁했다.그럼에도 불구하고 그는 자신의 양말뭉치 고발을 더 이상 언급하지 않고 나를 계속 괴롭혔다.요컨대, 그는 계속하면 내가 어떻게 할 것인지에 대해 알게 되었고, 그는 어떤 결과가 나올지 알면서도 계속하는 것을 선택했다.또한 나는 IP의 토크 페이지에 내 IP 주소의 사용에 대한 설명을 제공하고, 계정 사용자 페이지에 내 계정을 사용하기 시작한 이유에 대한 설명을 제공한다.SPI I이 시작한 (이후 조치 없이 닫힌) SPI에 대해서는, 이것은 내가 여기서 시작한 조치와는 거의 관계가 없다.그 SPI는 1년 전에 내 IP에 대해 제기되었던 Sockpuppet 고발과 관련이 있는데, 그것은 Sockpuppet 계정 자체에 의해 시작된 것으로 보인다.문제는 비리디타스가 내 사용자 계정에 대한 양말 퍼피티를 비난하고 그 후 내 토크 페이지에서 그의 논평에 관한 것이다.비엣민 (대화) 07:23, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

'사용자에게 무작위로 떠드는' 페이지를 찾으십니까?왜냐하면 이게 아니니까.... (물론 나는 우스꽝스럽게 구는 거야.WP와 같이 좀 더 적절한 장소에서 이 문제를 제기해 보십시오.WQA가 정말 필요하다고 느낀다면.행정 조치가 정당화되지 않은 것은 분명하다.)닐 아인(대화) 22시 15분, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:68.194.239.60 시간 초과 필요

나는 68.194.239.60 (토크 · 기여)에게 다음과 같이 경고했다.

"U CROSTIN BIitch...와 같은 댓글. 왜 자꾸 IJUS가 했던가? SMH LOSER ASS CRACKA WANNO BE PUTOR RICAN"과 "YOU A AREA CRACKA A55 BiTCH"는 여기선 완전히 외면을 벗어났다.

반응은 "이었다.FUCK U."비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 22:09, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

통지됨.IP는 상당히 정적인 것 같다: 모든 기여는 푸에르토리코, 라틴 아메리카 등과 관련된 주제에 관한 것이었다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 22:11, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

이 동료와 연결되어 있고, IP로부터 모든 기여를 한 것은 분명 같은 사용자다.그는 4월에도 여전히 매력적이었다.[54][55]Doctalk 22:26, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

바로 그거야.3개월 동안 꽉 막혔어.— 사토리 손 22:30, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 임시로 "해결된" 태그를 제거했다.AFROdr에 익숙한 사람이 User:65.8.153.6의 편집 내용을 보고 동일인인지 확인할 수 있는가?욕설도 없고, 같은 초점도 있고, 인신공격에 가까웠지.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 16시 18분 (UTC)[응답]

신경 쓰지 마, 이미 차단된 것 같아.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 17시 10분 (UTC)[응답]

하모니SEQ

조 칠 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 18:51 (UTC)[응답]

나는 하모니로 지명했다.삭제할 SEQ.그것은 이전에 AfD에서 삭제되었다.관리자가 이 기사가 재생산된 기사로 빠르게 삭제될 수 있는지 확인할 수 있는가?조 칠(토크) 17:03, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 확인했어.주제는 같고, 텍스트의 양은 비슷하지만, 현재 버전은 더 많은 참고문헌을 가지고 있다.경계선 사건이지만 추가 참고자료로 볼 때 AFD를 통해 두 번째만 운영하게 하는 것이 가치 있을 수 있다. --Jayron32 17:47, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

알았어고마워요.조 칠 (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 18:51 (UTC)[응답]

포클랜드 제도

관리자들이 이 부분을 좀 봐 주시겠습니까?

IP, 209.36.57.10 (토크 · 기여 · 삭제 · 필터 로그 · 필터 로그 · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그)는 Talk에 길고 파괴적인 격론을 게시한 이력이 있다.포클랜드 제도(예: [56])는 며칠 전 포클랜드 제도(토크 히스토리 링크 감시 로그 편집)로 가서 신뢰할 수 있는 출처로부터 취해진 중립적 사실들이 대부분 특정되지 않은 아르헨티나 POV 자료와 "균형되지 않은" 것이어야 한다고 주장하면서 "균형되지 않은 의견"이라는 꼬리표로 12여 점을 태그했다.그는 4명의 다른 편집자에 의해 역전되어 3RR에 도달했다.이 IP는 공개 토론하지 않는 것을 선호하는 이유로 Alex79818(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 사용자·블록 로그)이라고 강하게 생각된다.

지난 5월 말 알렉스는 3년 반 만에 처음으로 이 주제에 대해 인정받은 편집에서 포클랜드에 관한 Arbcom 사례를 게재했다.여기서 거절당했다.그 이후로, 알렉스는 우리를 Arbcom으로 데려가려고 협박을 해 왔다. 여기를 봐. 그리고 그가 여기 있는 무능력한 관리자로부터 경고를 받았다는 것을.그의 편집 역사를 통해 볼 수 있듯이, 알렉스의 의사소통은 지속적으로 선의의 태도를 취하지 못하고 종종 미개한 것이며, 인신공격은 선의로 투입된다. 예를 들어, 오늘날 쓰여진 것이다.

한편 IP는 20일 이런 글을 올렸다.그 속에서 그는 Arbcom에 대비하여 "당신이 말하는 모든 것을 문서화하고 있다"면서 "우리는 단지 모션을 거치고 있다"고 말한다.내가 보기에 그 의도는 편집자들을 괴롭혀서 그가 그 기사를 쓸 수 있도록 내버려 두려고 하는 것이 분명하다.나는 또한 일반적인 정보를 얻기 위해 내놓은 이 논평에 주목한다.

알렉스가 이전에 협박을 했을 때 경고했던 책임 없는 행정관은 ANI가 향후 이슈를 다룰 다음 단계라고 충고했다.그래서 나는 지금 이것을 하고 있다.페이눅톡 20:35, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

ip의 일부 논평의 잠재적인 냉각 효과에 대한 주장에 대해 언급하지 않고, 나는 일반적으로 그것이 전적으로 WP의 권한 내에 있음을 주목한다.NPOV는 그 나라의 pov를 다루는 아르헨티나의 소식통을 포함하는데, 이는 그 섬의 주권 분쟁의 다른 당사자가 된다.그러한 언급이 어떤 무게를 둬야 할지는 논의와 합의의 문제지만, 그러한 문제에 대한 논의를 부인하는 것은 "과정에 의한 부패"가 계속된다는 위협처럼 비협조적이다.LessEverned vanU (대화) 20:59, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 말하고자 하는 요점은 이것은 분쟁에 대한 논의가 아니라 섬의 역사라는 것이다.믿을 만한 소식통에 의하면 한 쪽이나 다른 쪽에서 역사적 사실이라고 주장하는 것이 종종 역사적 근거가 거의 없거나 아예 없는 것으로 판명되는 것이 이 논쟁의 본질이다.실제로 어떤 경우에는 역사적 증거와 신뢰할 수 있는 출처 모두에 의해 직접적으로 모순된다.나는 아르헨티나 출처를 포함시키는 것에 대해서는 전혀 문제가 없지만, 이것은 역사상 뚜렷한 근거가 없는 아르헨티나 POV를 제시하는 것과 다르다.

그러나, 간단히 말해서, 알렉스와 관련된 어떤 주제에 대해서도 대학 토론을 하는 것은 매우 어렵다. 단지 지속적인 불성실, 인신공격, 그리고 나쁜 믿음의 비난 때문이다.WP:배틀그라운드가 떠오른다.파이눅토크 21:06, 2011년 8월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

T M F L - D R "독서 다이제스트" 버전은 어떻게 되니?
다음의 논의는 종결되었다.수정하지 마십시오.
나는 기사의 논의에서 난관에 봉착하여 관리자 개입이 필요하다는 것에 전적으로 동의한다.나는 그것을 두 팔 벌려 환영하며, 이 답변에서 나는 파이누크의 비난에 대응할 수 있는 한 간결하게 하려고 노력할 것이며, 간결하게 그것들을 하나하나 다룰 것이다. 1 - 다음과 같이 게시물 뒤에 내가 편집자라는 비난에 대해: 나는 많은 편집자들이 스마키로드, 미이라34; 머시11 등 양말 인형사라는 비난을 받아왔다는 사실을 관리자들의 주목을 끌 것이다.이것은 (나중에 내가 확대해야 할 활동에 대해) 기사에서 특정 편집자들에 의해 반복적으로 제기되는 것으로 보인다. 그것은 이상하게도 사실이 제시되는 방식에 대한 토론의 합의가 지금까지 무엇이었는가에 대항할 때마다 충분히 표면화되는 것처럼 보인다.페이눅과 위 커리 몬스터는 자신들의 혐의를 뒷받침하는 증거를 가지고 있다고 여러 번 진술했지만, 결코 그런 증거를 제시하지 않는 것 같다.나는 이러한 허위사실을 부인했고 여기서 다시 그렇게 했으며, 만약 그들이 어떤 증거가 있다면 그것은 조사를 위해 제출되어야 한다고 덧붙인다. 2 - Phainuk이 "무능력한 관리자"라는 사실은 다음과 같다. 나는 그 제안이 명백히 거짓이라고 생각한다.이 기사의 토론 이력을 대충 검토해 보면, 파이나욱이 매우 관여된 행정가라는 것을 증명할 수 있을 것이다. 그의 의견과 의견은 항상 특정 편집자의 편에 서지만, 결코 반대되는 견해를 가진 편집자들과 함께 하지 않는다.Painuk이 기사에 처음 참여한 이후 이것의 무수한 예들을 파헤치지 않고, 나는 관리자들에게 위에서 연계된 Arbcom 사건을 지시할 것이며, 그 포럼에 참가한 많은 편집자들은 나의 불만을 뒷받침하는 견해를 표명했다.나와 다른 사람들이 제기한 반대는 이 기사가 WP를 지속적으로 위반하고 있는 편집자들의 헌신적인 태도를 가지고 있다는 것이다.사실들이 제시되는 방식에 친영 편견을 삽입하여 NPOV.이는 여러 가지 형태를 취할 수 있으며 때로는 미묘하고 때로는 명백하며, 발생된 역사적 사건을 해석하거나 보고하는 방법에 근거한 출처의 제거를 포함한다. 구체적인 표현과 문장 부호, WP 지침에서 언급하는 용어 사용(최신 사례: 동사로서의 "청구") 등은 피해야 한다.또한, 이 편집자 그룹은 수년간 일관되게 WP의 수많은 위반에 관여된 것은 다음과 같다.GAMES는 아무리 작은 이슈라도 그들의 견해에 대한 반대를 강화하기 위해 구두점 같은 바보 같은 것들에 대한 EU의 비난이 있었던 정도까지. WP 위반 사례:게임에는 지금 나를 비난하고 있는 것과 같은 비난이 수반된다.그 밖의 방법으로는 다음과 같은 것이 있다. -'태그팀'을 플레이하거나 편집 행동을 조정해 공감대를 형성하거나 보유하는 편집자를 지치게 함으로써 블록의 기능을 한다. 더 이상 참여를 원하지 않기 때문에 본문에 대한 지속적인 헤게모니를 보장할 수 있는 반대 의견 -WP:3RR을 피하기 위해 다른 편집자의 변경사항을 되돌리는 동시에 다른 편집자가 EW에 관여하는 것처럼 보이게 함. -논의를 완전히 배제하거나 억누를 수 있도록 편집자의 반대되는 관점을 "파괴적 편집"으로 함. -다른 편집자의 학문적으로 신뢰할 수 있는 출처(선택한 출처와 다른 결론)를 분리한다. -앞서 언급한 출처의 결론에 대해 본문에 포함시키지 않은 자의적인 이유 제시 (예: "간단한", "관련되지 않음" 또는 "충분하지 않음") WP를 확장하는 것이다.NPOV 위반; -우연한 기회에 의견 일치가 가까스로 줄을 서서, 주제가 기사와 "관련성이 없다"고 선언하여 그들이 할 수 있도록 한다. 시간이 지남에 따라 정보를 완전히 삭제하기 위해 자신의 방법을 사용하는 경우, 관련 기사를 작성한다. -결국 나 같은 편집자들이 그들의 행동에 대해 이의를 제기할 때, 그들은 우리가 WP를 고수하지 않는다고 비난한다.AGF 사실, 나는 아이러니컬한 것을 발견한다. 수년에 걸쳐 그렇게 분개해 온 많은 편집자들이 표면상으로는 비슷한 동기를 가질 것이기 때문에, 그들은 늙은 나를 혼란이나 양말 인형극으로 고발할 뿐이다.그러나 진실은 기사의 토론 역사에서 특정 편집자(그리고 행정관이 나에게 요청하면 정확히 누구를 명시하겠지만 나는 지금 시점에서 새로운 비난의 수위를 높이지 않는 것을 선호한다)가 수많은 WP 위반을 집단적으로 저질렀음을 분명히 알 수 있다.NPOV, WP:GAMES, WP:PSTS, WP:OR, WP:RFC, WP:3RR 및 대부분의 다른 WP 규칙은 한 지점 또는 다른 지점에 있다.나는 기사의 토론 이력을 통해 관리자가 직접 검토하여 이것이 사실인지 아닌지를 검토하도록 요청하며, 다음과 같은 토론 실드에 특별한 주의를 기울이도록 제안한다. "영국의 편견과 편집 전쟁과 POV 밀기" 2009년 6월 2010년 2월 "유엔 결의안과 더 많은 아르헨티나의 언급이 이 기사에 포함되어야 한다" "노오트카 사운드 컨벤션 vs.아르헨티나 POV" 2007년 9월(MEDCAB, 미해결) "파싱 앤 소싱" 2009년 1월 "다시 시작" 2009년 4월 "아르헨티나 주장을 거부하면서 존중" 2009년 2월 "CIA 월드 팩트북" 2009년 8월 나뿐만 아니라 많은 사용자들은 Arbcom 페이지와 토론 내역에 문서화된 바와 같이 "카발", "법" 등 수많은 별명에 의해 그러한 조정된 편집자 그룹이 존재한다는 것을 관찰했다.그런 점에서 필자는 (내가 본) 예외 없이, 모든 주제에 대한 그 집단의 전체적인 견해에 따라 파이나욱의 기여가 계속적으로 부합하는 것을 전에도 관찰해 왔고 계속 관찰해 왔다.Painuk은 그 그룹의 '근육' 역할을 하는 매우 관여된 관리자라는 것이 나의 의견이고, 나는 개인적으로 그가 이러한 목적을 위해 관리자 지위를 이용했다고 믿는다 - 그것은 내가 가장 정중하게 그의 동료 관리자들이 스스로 대답하도록 허락할 것이다. 3 - "신뢰할 수 있는 소스"의 정의:위 Painuk의 게시물을 참고하십시오. "신뢰할 만한 소식통에 의하면 한 쪽이나 다른 쪽에서 역사적 사실이라고 주장하는 것은 종종 역사적 근거가 거의 없거나 아예 없는 것으로 판명되는 것이 이 분쟁의 본질이다.실제로 어떤 경우에는 역사적 증거와 믿을 만한 출처 둘 다에 의해 직접적으로 모순되는 경우도 있다. 내가 반대하는 것은 앞서 언급한 그룹만이 "신뢰할 수 있는 출처"를 결정하는 편집자인 것처럼 보인다는 점이다.문제의 핵심으로 가는 것은 본문이 이러한 출처에 근거하고 있다는 사실이며, 역사적 사건이나 그 중요성에 대한 결론이 본문에 반영되지 않은 출처는 전혀 배제되어 있다.만약 이 출처가 정말 믿을 수 없다면, 나는 반대하지 않을 것이다.그러나 이들 편집자들이 임의로 출처를 배척하는 것은 그들이 "신뢰할 수 없는" 것이 아니라 그들이 영국의 주권 주장을 뒷받침하는 결론과 상충되는 POV를 제시하기 때문이다. 그리고 이것은 아르헨티나뿐만 아니라 영국과 미국의 출처에도 해당된다. 따라서 출처의 신뢰성 여부, 그리고 그 결론이 기사 본문에 반영되어야 하는지의 여부에 대한 진정한 판단 요인은 그 결론이 영국의 주권 주장과 그것이 근거하고 있는 사실을 뒷받침하는지 여부다.거의 모든 논쟁적이고 논쟁적인 문제에서, 결론들이 서로 직접적으로 모순되는 평판이 좋은 학계 소식통이 있다.분명히, 이것은 한 결론이 반드시 출처를 "신뢰할 수 없는" 것으로 만드는 반면, 다른 결론은 출처를 "신뢰할 수 없는" 것으로 만드는 것을 의미하지 않으며, 기본적으로 "제안다"로 되어 배제를 허용한다는 것을 의미한다.나에 대한 고발에서 이런 얘기를 꺼낸 바로 그 사실은 내가 파이나욱의 편집과 관리자 활동에서 언급하고 있는 근본적인 편견을 드러낸다. 마지막으로, 필자와 다른 편집자들은 이러한 사용자들이 지난 몇 년간 총체적인 처벌로 위반했다고 믿는 WP 정책의 수많은 사례와 함께 이러한 편집자들의 행동과 일관되지 않고 무례하고 독재적인 접근방식을 고려할 때, 그러한 조정된 편집 활동은 독이 되는 토론 환경을 만들어냈다고 다시 한번 믿어보겠다.이러한 행동들이 많은 편집자들이 이 기사와 모든 관련 기사에 대한 참여를 포기하는 결과를 초래했다는 것은 의심의 여지가 없다.물론 나도 그들 중 하나였음을 인정한다. 그러나, 내가 WP에 장기 결석한 것은 이러한 편집자들의 행동에 아무런 영향을 미치지 않는다 - 그리고 사실, 내가 관심의 반환 후 오랫동안 떨어져 있으면서 대신 묵묵히 토론을 지켜보기로 선택한 동기의 일부는 이 시점에서 내가 개인적으로 나를 포함하지 않고 여러 가지 행동을 하는 예를 제공할 수 있도록 하기 위해서였다.다른 편집자들 중에서.나의 적극적인 참여가 갱신된 이후, 나의 입장은 이러한 개인들의 겉보기 활동에 대해 지속적으로 맞서야 한다는 것이었다.이를 위해 필자는 다른 편집자가 하듯이 포클랜드 아일랜드 기사 내용의 공정성과 중립성 추구에 WP 분쟁 해결 방법을 활용할 권리를 유보한다.나의 발언과 약속은 위협이 아니며, 다만 다른 모든 WP 편집자가 그러한 권리를 가지고 있는 것처럼, 내가 그러한 분쟁 해결 자원을 유지하고 상당히 기꺼이 사용할 것임을 정중히 상기시켜 줄 뿐이다. 나는 WP를 믿으며 이 방법이 궁극적으로 반복된 WP의 종말을 가져올 것이라고 믿는다.내가 이 기사에서 언급한 NPOV 위반.의심의 여지 없이, 이것이 1차 기사에서 달성된 후, 나와 다른 곤경에 처한 편집자들이 최소한 최소한의 중립성이 달성되었다고 만족할 때까지, 나의 일관되고 흔들림 없는 노력은 다른 모든 포클랜드 관련 기사들로 확산될 것이다.나는 어떤 협박 행위도 나의 의도를 단념하지 않을 것이다. 그 중 이 불평이 가장 최근의 표현이다.나는 확실히 WP에 분명히 존재하는 이유와 모든 사람들이 동등하게 이용할 수 있는 프로세스를 사용하는 것에 대해 사과하지 않는다. Arbcom 사건은 기각되었지만, 나는 사실상의 결정이 내려지지 않았고, 이 사건의 부결은 Arbcom에 제기되기 전에 충분한 분쟁 해결 조치가 취해지지 않았기 때문임을 지적하고, 진행하기 전에 그와 같은 하급 재판부를 재판하라는 위원회 위원들의 노골적인 제안이 있었다.위로 ng.나의 진술은 어떻게 진행할 것인가에 대한 ARBCOM의 제안을 기꺼이 따르겠다는 나의 의지를 나타내며, 나는 모든 편집자들에게 약간의 이의를 제기하기 위해 Arbcom 사건 이후 더 이상의 분쟁 해결 절차를 추구하지 않았고, 우리의 개인적인 비난을 무시하기 위해 논의를 재설정하려고 시도했다. 분명히, 이것은 효과가 없었다. 따라서 나는 이것과 모든 관련 기사에 대한 관리자 참여를 지지하며, 관리자들에게 포클랜드 제도 페이지의 토론 이력과 그들의 비정상적으로 높은 기록 비율, 특히 내가 위에서 언급한 토론 실드를 주의 깊게 검토하도록 권고하며, WP 그룹의 조정된 조치의 영향에 특별히 주의를 기울이도록 권고한다.NPOV 위반 편집자, 서로 다른 의견을 제안한 이용자들의 반응, 이들의 지속적인 영속성 또는 이러한 교환의 결과로 인한 추가 참여의 부재, 특히 이러한 경우에서의 Phainuk의 관리자 활동 등이 그것이다.감사합니다 — Alex79818에 의해 추가된 서명되지 않은 이전 의견(대화 • 기여)

비록 내가 예전처럼 관련 기사에 밀접하게 관여하지는 않지만, 몇 가지 말하겠다.

첫째, 우리는 두 가지를 섞고 있다.특정 IP가 사용자의 소켓 puppy라고 믿을 만한 이유가 있다면, 이것은 체크 유저가 쉽게 확인할 수 있으며, 나는 IP를 사용하지 말아야 할 이유가 없다고 본다.

두 번째로, 알렉스79818은 포클랜드 제도와 관련된 기사에서 아르헨티나 POV를 더 많이 보유하기 위한 외롭고 긴 십자군원정을 하고 있는데, 이는 원칙적으로 나쁜 일이 아니다.나는 그가 아르헨티나 POV가 친영 사용자들 사이의 빠른 동의에 의해 신속하게 제거된다고 말할 때 슬프게도 그의 의견에 동의해야 한다.두 달 전 나는 아르헨티나 대통령 권한대행과 관련된 사건과 관련된 뉴스에 링크를 추가했는데, 그 기사는 아무런 언급도 없이 삭제되었다.내가 이 문제를 토크페이지로 꺼냈을 때(한 번도 기사를 되돌리지 않으려고 조심했다) 나는 그것이 아르헨티나 선전일 뿐이므로 더 이상의 아도 없이 제거되어야 한다는 말을 들었다.그러나 아마도 더 나쁜 점은 일단 마음을 먹고 자기 주장을 언급하면서 자신의 요점을 설명하는 것에 개의치 않고 비꼬아 대답하며 기사의 균형을 유지하지 않는 데 신경을 쓴다는 점일 것이다.그리고 이것은 조직적으로 누군가가 친아젠타인 어떤 것을 가져왔을 때 일어났다.이제 나는 내가 이 주제에 대해 의도했던 것을 더 나아가서; 나는 단지 압도적으로 많은 친영파 사용자들에게 어필하지 않는 어떤 것을 가져오는 것이 얼마나 어렵고 좌절스러운 것인지 설명하려고 노력했을 뿐이다.

그러나 이 문제로 돌아가서, 이 IP가 정말로 Alex79818인지 아닌지에 대해 사용자를 확인하십시오.그러나 합의는 양쪽에서 나와야 할 일이지, 일방적으로 강요해서는 안 된다는 것을 기억하라.

--마리아노(t/c) 06:18, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(당신이 편집이라고 비꼬는 편집자가 아르헨티나인이 아니라면 라틴 아메리카인이라고 항상 가정해왔다는 것을 인정해야 한다)-그러나 나는 그의 사용자 페이지에 그것에 대한 증거가 없다는 것에 주목한다.그것은 물론 그의 정치에 대해서는 아무 말도 하지 않지만, 몇 가지 관점을 담고 있다.)파이누크토크 06:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답

관리자들은 이 논의가 이제 WP가 되었음을 알고 싶어할 수 있다.최근 토론에 참여하지 않은 여러 편집자에게 의견수렴([57][58][59][60][61][62])했다.이것은 알렉스가 최근 몇 년 동안 이러한 기사에서 일어난 어떤 종류의 논쟁과도 관련되기 위해 어떤 행정 관련 토론에서든 진흙탕이나 털고 다니는 버릇의 전형적이지 않은 것이 아니다: 그의 Arbcom 사건은 2007년 이후 그 기사에 글을 올린 대부분의 사람들을 파티로 포함시켰고, 심지어 편집자들이 몇 년 동안 기사를 편집하지 않았음에도 불구하고, 그 기사에 참여했었다.확실히 막혔고, 양말퍼피터 등이 있었다.그것은 또한 매우 길고, 나는 그것이 무너질 것을 제안한다.이것은 또한 드문 일이 아니다 - 위키백과:필리버스터는 WP:BATtleground와 함께 내가 알렉스와의 거래를 생각하면 떠오르는 또 하나의 포인트다.

위의 내용은 모두 우리가 대화 페이지에서 알렉스에게 여러 번 본 상당히 표준적인 것들이며 나는 상세하게 대답할 것을 제안하지 않는다.물론, 내 기록을 살펴보는 것은 환영할 만하며, 내가 대부분의 사람들보다 더 기꺼이 문제가 발생했을 때 그 문제에 대해 토론했다는 것을 알게 될 것이다.특히 '청구'라는 단어를 삭제하기 위한 텍스트 변경에 대해서는 이의가 없다고 밝힌 바 있다.그 문제는 내가 즉시 사물에 대한 비난을 받고 사람들이 위협을 가하기 시작할 때 발생한다.알렉스가 끈질기게 협박과 인신공격에 가담하고, 전적으로 선의의 가정을 거부하고, 기사의 주제에 대한 논의가 남아 있는 것을 결코 용납하지 않을 때, 의견 일치를 보기란 매우 어렵다.

(그가 포클랜드 제도에서 유일하게 참여했던 2007년 9월 메드캡을 꺼냈기 때문에, 선의의 가정을 거부하는 것은 새로운 일이 아니다.토론은 여기서 진행되었고 여기저기서 계속되었다.이러한 맥락에서 그의 주장은 주요 출처에 대한 자신의 무거운 해석에 크게 의존하고 있으며, 완전히 무관심한 편집자가 중재자에게 보여준 그의 거절은 반대되는 출처를 인정하는 데 있어 언급할 가치가 있다.내가 보기에 그것은 고대사인데, 그는 분명히 아직도 원한을 품고 있는 것 같다.)파이누크토크 06:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답

분명히 이 실에는 최대 장황한 내용이 들어 있다.Doc talk 06:44, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자로서 내 요점은, 기고자가 골치 아픈 포브 전사의 ip/sock일 수도 있기 때문에 인용된 내용을 삭제하는 근거가 없다는 것이다.인용 자료의 기준이 없거나 표준에 도달하지 못하여 내용을 삭제할 수 있으며, 의견 일치를 무시하는 포브(pov)를 지원하기 위해 비협조적인 내용을 지속적으로 추가하는 편집자에 대해 제재를 요청할 수 있다; 기고자가 현재 합의의 범위를 벗어난 포브(pov)를 옹호하기 때문에 인용된 내용을 삭제하는 것이다.(물론 다른 편집자의 것이 아닌 포브스를 배제하려는 기사의 일치성에 의문을 제기할 것이다.)나는 편집자 및/또는 ip가 특정 관점을 추가하려고 하는 것이 얼마나 나쁜지 많이 알 수 있지만, 출처가 신뢰할 수 없는지에 대해서는 별로 알 수 없다 - 심지어 아르헨티나 출처가 편향된 프로포간다라는 주장조차도 불충분하다; 그것은 여전히 그 정당의 관점이다.나는 이 문제가 "관리 조치"가 필요하다고 생각하지 않는다. 나는 NPOV가 제대로 제공되고 있는지에 대한 외부 의견을 찾을 수 있도록 RfC가 필요하다고 생각한다.LessEverned vanU (토크) 13:12, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

관련 편집자로서 몇 가지 말씀드리고자 한다.

a) 나는 이 ANI의 요점을 완전히 이해하지 못한다.IP와 관련된 조치를 취하기 위함인가, 아니면 사용자에 대한 조치를 취하기 위함인가?추후 체크유저가 먼저 실시되어야 한다.

b) 알렉스79818의 기분을 이해한다. 그의 방식을 지지할 수 없다.Painuk, 당신은 동사 "claim"을 바꾸는 것에 반대하지 않는다고 말하지만, 내가 WCM을 다시 이성으로 돌아오게 하는 것을 결코 도와주지 않는다.예를 들어, "Salem Gazette" 구절이나 "small"이라는 단어, IIRC와 함께 이전에도 그런 일이 있었다.비록 나와 알렉스가 그것을 바꾸는 것에 찬성한다고 말하고, 당신이 그것이 유익할 수 있다고 말했다 하더라도, 우리 둘 다 WCM이 이 변화에 대해 지옥처럼 싸울 것이라는 것을 알고 있다.그리고 이것이 바로 현상유지가 항상 판치는 방식입니다. 매우 실망스럽죠.그리고 침묵/무작전은 복잡하다.

영국의 POV가 어떻게 미묘하게 우세하게 퍼지는지, 아르헨티나 칠레 기사에서 남극 지역이 어떻게 다루어지는지, 그리고 여기서 영국의 일부로 취급되는지를 비교해 보십시오.이 몇 달 동안 나는 그들 중 하나를 바꾸려는 노력은 거의 불가능하다는 것을 배웠다. 특히 WCM이 곁에 있다면, 나는 여전히 포기하지 않는다.현재로는

안부. --랑구스 (대화) 15:05, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

한 가지 최종적인 생각: NPOV는 WP의 5대 기둥 중 하나이며, 심지어 인터넷에서 5번째로 인기 있는 웹사이트가 될 정도로 홍보가 되지 않는 이유.동시에, 몇 달 동안 나는 WP가 편집자들을 어떻게 잃고 있는지에 대한 뉴스를 읽고 있다.사람들이 WP에 대한 믿음을 잃고 있는 것이 아닐까?기존의 편집자들이 "그들의 친구들"에게 호의적으로 새로운 편집자들을 "물고" 무시하는 경향이 있을 수 있을까?단지 몇 가지 생각, 개인적인 경험의 관점에서. --랑구스 (대화) 17:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

결론적으로 말하면, 이런 경우들 중 많은 경우, 나는 그저 그렇게 많이 신경 쓰지 않는다.나는 "청구"가 여기서 중립적이라고 생각한다.이 경우 중립적이고 정확한 다른 단어로 합리적으로 대체될 수 있다.그 말은 내가 네가 설득해야 할 사람이 아니라는 거지.나는 일부 사람들 - 그리고 내가 반드시 여기서 나를 배제하는 것은 아니지만 - 그것이 알렉스의 전술이 승리하는 것을 허용해서는 안 된다는 견해에 기울고 있다는 것을 주목한다. 왜냐하면 그것은 그가 그것들을 반복하도록 격려할 것이기 때문이다.그것은 우리가 어떻게 생각해야 하는 것이 아니다 - 나는 그것이 일어나야 할 일이나 편집자들이 어떻게 반응해야 하는 것이 아니라는 것을 인정한다. 하지만 누군가가 알렉스가 그렇게 행동하는 방식으로 행동할 때 나는 오히려 그것이 불가피하다고 생각한다.이것은 부분적으로 우리가 그것에 반대하는 규칙을 가지고 있는 이유야.파이눅토크 21:09, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이 편집자와 이 IP로부터 위협을 받고 있기 때문에 불평하고 있다.나는 이 편집자와 이 IP로부터 계속해서 불신임을 받는 것에 대해 불평하고 있다.나는 이 편집자와 이 IP의 토크 코멘트에 스며드는 예의의 결여 때문에 불평하고 있다.나는 이 편집자와 이 IP가 반복적으로 나에게 당한 인신공격 때문에 불평하고 있다.나는 이 편집자와 이 IP가 나 자신과 다른 대화 페이지의 독자들에게 반복적으로 받아 들이고 있는 항의에 대해 불평하고 있다.이것들 중 어느 것도 내가 참아서는 안 된다.만약 편집자나 IP가 백과사전이 가지고 있는 모든 행동 규칙을 어기는 것이 허용될 수 있는 관리자의 의견이라면, 백과사전은 매우 슬픈 날이다.파이눅토크 21:09, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

기록을 바로 세우기 위해, 여러분, 나는 위에 열거된 어떤 편집자도 아니에요.Painuk은 Wee Curry Monster와 다른 모든 편집자들이 당신에 대해 불평하고 있다는 것을 이해하라. 그리고 당신이 그것을 부르고 싶은 어떤 것이라도 " 갱", "카발", "법"을 구성하는 모든 편집자들 역시.우리는 위에서 기술한 알렉스79818이 당신이 하는 일이 그만큼 나쁘다고 생각한다(그것들이 모두 사실인지 아닌지는 내가 정말 말할 수 없지만, 그가 말하는 것의 몇 가지 예를 본 적이 있다.우리는 '전혀 예의 없는' 모습을 보이는 것이 당신들이라고 생각한다.우리는 우리가 그것을 참아야 한다고 생각하지 않는다.우리의 출처는 "프로파간다"이다.우리의 토론 시도는 "경배"이다.우리의 관점은 "충실하지 않다".우리가 "이제 됐어!"라고 말하면 당신은 우리를 무시한다.우리는 어떤 진전도 할 수 없고 상태 qup가 남아있다.랑구스가 말한 것은 사실이야, 기존의 편집자들이 "물어보는" 경향이 있을 때, 그것은 매우 실망스럽다.몇몇 편집자들이 WP 분쟁 해결을 "물어보기" 위해 사용하기로 결정했을 때 놀라지 마라.우리는 누군가가"카발"이 행동해왔던 방식으로 행동할 때,그러한 조치는...어떻게 표현하셨나요?.."불가항력".나는 네가 위의 LesEarned vanU의 글을 읽기를 바란다.네가 그것을 준수한다면, 우리는 문제가 없을 거야.

자, 이제 다시 주요 이슈로 돌아가보자."불균형 의견" 태그가 복원되어야 한다고 생각하거나, 두 가지 입장을 균등하게 반영하기 위해 본문이 변경되어야 한다고 생각한다.소스를 원한다면 각 인스턴스에 대한 소스를 제공하겠다.만약 당신이 사소한 이유나 임의적인 이유로 그 출처에 도전한다면, 우리는 모두 바로 여기서 끝장날 것이다.나는 WP의 규칙을 논의하고 타협하고 따르는 것을 선호한다.너도 그랬으면 좋겠다.209.36.57.10 (대화)15:01, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 편집자들이 이 메세지와 알렉스가 위에서 쓰러졌던 메세지를 비교하고 대조해 줄 것을 요청한다.이곳의 톤은 기본적으로 알렉스와 대화 페이지의 IP 둘 다에 의해 채택된 톤과 같다.토론 주제와 무관하게 바뀌지 않는다.콘텐츠 문제에 대해 예상할 수 있는 게시물은 일반적으로 광고 문구에 못지 않으며 일반적으로 콘텐츠와 관련된 토론의 훨씬 더 큰 비율을 포함하지 않는다.오히려 그 반대는 많은 경우에 해당된다.그곳의 위협은 더욱 명백하고, 악의에 대한 비난은 더욱 노골적이며, 인신공격은 더욱 불쾌하다.

그리고 나는 마침내 IP가 언급하는 "토론 시도"가 그에게 3개월의 기회를 주었다는 것을 주목하겠다.네가 할 일을 생각해봐.파이누크토크 17:17, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 그것에 대해, 관리자들은 내가 더 이상 방해하려는 것이 아니라 대화를 나누려고 노력하는 것을 보았으면 좋겠다.그래서 이번에는 내가 뭘 잘못했느냐고 말해줘, 응? 그것에 대한 페이누크의 대답은 내가 기사에서 균형을 원하는 다른 편집자와 동의하는 뻔뻔스러움(!!!)을 가졌다는 것이다.내가 감히 다른 사람의 말에 동의할 수 있겠는가?

그러므로, 네, 관리자 여러분, 제 짧은 기간과 빠른 시간 동안 차단된 파괴 활동을 살펴보고, 그것을 WP의 수 년과 수 년과 비교해보십시오.Painuk과 다른 "cabal" 편집자들이 Falklands와 관련 기사에서 처벌 없이 사용한 GAMES.그 세월 동안 얼마나 많은 편집자들이 그렇게 좌절하여 포기하기로 선택했는지 스스로 판단하라.어떤 활동이 더 나쁜지, 그리고 기사가 WP:NPOV를 충족하는지 여부를 판단한다.편집자들이 한 일이 밝혀졌을 때 얼마나 오랫동안 "카발" 편집자들을 벌어야 하는가?그들은 그들이 동의하지 않는 출처를 억압함으로써 콘텐츠 문제에 대한 논의를 방해하고, 당신이 그들을 부를 때 그들은 마치 당신이 방해하기 위해 밖에 나온 것처럼 당신에게 그것을 돌린다.마치 당신이 토론할 내용 문제를 전혀 꺼내지 않은 것처럼.그리고 그들은 심지어 여기에서도 우리의 얼굴에 그것을 계속한다!

완벽한 예, 위에서 간단히 나는 "불균형한 의견" 태그에 대한 검토와 토론과 타협을 요구했다.그리고 반응은 어떤가?음모론, 인신공격 등이런 식으로 행동하는 사람들과 솔직한 토론을 하는 것은 매우 어렵다. 적어도 그들이 관리자라면, 토론하라는 요구가 이렇게 거절당했을 때 말이다.Painuk의 응답에 따르면 I 또는 Alex79818보다 더 많은 볼륨이 있다고 한다.209.36.57.10 (대화) 18:33, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자에 의한 이미지 저작권 위반:켄루쿠스

나는 켄루쿠스에 의한 이미지 저작권 위반을 보고하고 있는데, 그 중 적어도 몇 가지는 노골적이다.이것은 어제부로 계속 진행중인 것으로 보인다.이것은 새로운 계정(2011/07/28)이다.지금까지 네 개의 이미지를 확인했는데, 네 개 모두 카피비오 입니다.나는 이미 그들에게 F9을 신청했다.

자세한 내용은 다음과 같다.

• 켄루쿠스가 말하는 이 차이점[63]에 주목하십시오. "원래는 내가 어렸을 때인 1950년대에 사진을 찍었고, 며칠 전 Paint.net에서 그림을 그렸다. 거기서 나는 마치 50년대의 엽서처럼 좀 더 진실한 것처럼 보이게 하기 위해 말을 덧붙였다."(내 것을 강조한다.)CSD 선정에서 언급된 바와 같이, 이 사진은 적어도 4년 동안 온라인에 접속해 온 웹사이트에서 찍은 것이다.노골적인 오보.

• 여기[64]에 있는 네 개의 속도 위반 사항을 모두 기록해 두십시오. 각 속도는 켄루쿠스가 여기에 올린 이미지 저작권 정보에서 각각 Kenlukus의 것으로 간주되는 카피비오(아마도 완전히 노골적일 것이다.)입니다.

• 게다가, 그는 그가 그렇게 할 권리가 없을 때 "공공영역에 들어간" 몇몇을 나열하려고 한다.

목록:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:St._Anne%27s_Church.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Burgess_mills.jpg
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Insiderussianchurch.jpg
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_resurrection_orthodox_church_nh.jpg

나는 아직 켄루쿠스가 업로드한 마지막 몇 개의 이미지를 확인하지 못했고, 현재 시간이 없다.Kenlukus는 User:C와 함께 이 AN에 대해 통지받을 것이다.프레드(간단히, 첫 번째 diff와 이후의 대화에서 언급된 바와 같이, 그는 적어도 간접적으로 관여했고, 이것에 기여하기를 원할 수도 있기 때문이다.)베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 06:18, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

버지스 밀스 파일의 출처를 살펴본 적이 있다.그 사진들 중 많은 것은 그들이 현재 PD 이미지일 정도로 충분히 오래된 엽서들이다 - {{PD-US-1923}}이 IMHO를 적용할 것이다. 단지 저작권을 주장하는 웹사이트에서 가져왔다고 해서 그 웹사이트가 반드시 저작권을 소유하고 있다는 것을 의미하지는 않는다.Mjroot (대화) 10:27, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 켄루쿠스가 이미지의 저자라고 주장하지 말라고 경고했다.프로젝트와 함께 작업하고 복사 작업을 하지 않으려는 경우 라이센스를 수정하는 데 도움을 줄 용의가 있다.Mjroot (대화) 10:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사실, 너 그거 아니?그 우편 카드의 이미지들은 여전히 팔리고 있다.나는 우연히 첫 번째 것을 잡게 되었는데, 내가 많은 시간을 보내는 곳 중 하나로 우체통에 그런 이미지로 장식된 몇 개의 식당이 있는데, 당신이 그것들을 살 수 있는 곳부터 뒷면에 숫자가 적혀 있다.당신은 그것들이 PD라고 생각하지 않기를 원할지도 모른다. 특히 그것들은 원본 이미지가 아니라 현재 판매 가능한 파생 작품이기 때문이다.RORMFROMLI ^TK_CN/ 10:44, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

원본 엽서는 파일처럼 PD가 될 것이다.어퍼딜 1907.jpg.엽서의 디지털 사본을 만드는 데 예술적 창의성이 없는 것처럼 보일 수 있기 때문에, 저작권은 그 복사본에 할당될 수 있는 것이 아니다, 그렇지 않은가?여기서의 차이점은 내가 수집한 엽서가 원래의 출처(즉, 카드 그 자체와 알려진 경우 출판사)에 정확히 귀속된다는 것이며, 나는 그러한 이미지의 저자라고 주장하지 않았다.Mjroot (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 10:54 [응답]

만약 누군가가 1910년부터 엽서를 디지털화하여 새로운 인쇄물을 제작했다면, 그들은 미국 법에 따라 저작권을 취득하지 않을 것이라는 데 동의한다.만약 켄루쿠스가 1910년부터 사진을 찍어 엽서처럼 보이게 포토샵을 했다면 새로운 이미지(창의적 입력)에 저작권을 쥐고 있을 것이다.그러나 거짓말을 하는 것은 가망성이 없는 방법이다.또한 많은 웹사이트의 저작권 청구가 면밀히 검토되고 있지 않다는 데 동의한다.— 도로의 엘렌이 추가한 이전의 서명되지 않은 논평 (대화 • 기여)

• 엘렌, 당신은 몇 가지 중요한 요소들을 놓쳤으며, 삭제된 이미지들을 확인하고 싶을지도 모른다.(1) 그는 그것들을 포스트 카드처럼 보이게 하지 않았다(다른 사이트에서 그가 이미 찍은 이미지들은 그렇게 보였다).(2) 온라인상의 사진들은 그의 업로드를 앞지른다. (3) 일부 사진들은 완전히 새로운 컬러 이미지들이다. (예: 교회 사이트에서 나온 교회 사진처럼)(4) 아래 보기 - 모든 사람 중 여러분은 우리가 새 우편 카드가 단순히 원본 사진을 복제한 것인지 아니면 돈을 받고 그런 일을 하는 대부분의 회사가 저작권 상태를 위해 충분히 수정했는지에 대해 추측할 수 없다는 것을 알고 있다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 11:13, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)"전체적으로 원작의 원작을 나타내는 편집 수정, 주석, 정교화 또는 기타 수정으로 구성된 작품은 '파생적 작품'이다. - 원본 그림에 접근하지 않고는 판단할 수 없을 것이다.우리는 (원본 또는 검증 가능한 사본에 대한 접근 없이는) 어떤 수정이 이루어졌거나 이루어지지 않았는지를 결정할 수 없다.물론, 우리 모두는 공공영역의 저작권 주장과 청구권이 아니라는 것을 알고 있다." 또는 "아마 그럴 거야."그건 그렇다 치고, 그림의 날짜는 알 수 있지만, 엽서의 날짜는 알 수 있는가?그리고 그 사이트는 공공 도메인 청구에 대한 참고 자료로 사용하기 적합한 사이트인가?물론 더 나쁜 것은 켄루쿠스가 자신의 것이라고 주장하며 "공영 영역으로의 진입"을 시도했던 새로운 이미지들이다.PD를 제외하고 한 가지 그림(이 그림의 출처가 찍혔고 그 진실성을 판단할 방법이 없기 때문에 복원하는 것을 강력히 반대한다), 진짜 문제(지원해 줄 것을 제의해 준 것에 감사한다)는 것은 가짜 저작권 주장, 특히 위의 참고문헌에 링크된 것이다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 11:09, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 지금 어떤 이미지도 복구하는 것을 개의치 않는다.편집자가 자신이 직접 찍지 않은 이미지의 저작권을 부정적으로 주장하려 할 때 나는 불쾌하다.나는 Kenlukus가 WP에서 다음과 같이 질문할 것을 제안한다.MCQ 및 업로드하고 싶은 이미지에 대한 링크를 제공한다.이것은 그러한 문제에 경험이 있는 사람들에게 논평할 기회를 주고 문제의 이미지의 장점과 저작권 상태에 대해 내린 결정을 줄 것이다.Mjroot (대화) 11:22, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그게 내 더 큰 걱정거리야고마워, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 11시 35분, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

@RobertMfromLI - 아니, 난 그 문제들을 이해한다.Mjroots를 향한 나의 발언은 일반적인 성격이었지만, 나는 이미지의 근원에 대해 거짓말을 하는 것은 형편없는 쇼였다고 믿는다.그 후, 나는 철저하게 점검하기 전에 그의 어떤 설명도 받아들일 마음이 들지 않을 것이다. 그 시점에서 일반적인 논평은 어느 정도 의미가 있다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:48, 응답

나는 8월 5일에 이미지 중 하나를 발견하고 켄루쿠스에게 이미지를 어디서 얻었는지, 그리고 그가 방금 엽서를 복사했는지 물어봐서 이 일에 관여하고 있다.[파일:St.앤의 교회.jpg] 그는 1950년대에 교회를 촬영한 적이 있다고 대답했다.나는 그 주장을 반증할 증거가 없어서 더 이상 추구하지 않았다.RobertM fromLI는 이미지가 이미 존재하는 출처를 찾아낸 다음, 나는 두 가지 이유로 이미지를 삭제했는데, (1) 이미지는 엽서에 있는 것처럼 저작권 아래에 있었고, (2) 켄루쿠스는 자신이 낡은 엽서처럼 보이도록 조작한 자신의 이미지로 주장함으로써 이미지의 본질을 엄청나게 잘못 전달했다는 것이다.

오래된 사진을 찍거나 스캔함으로써 이미지에서 새로운 라이선스를 얻는다는 것도 흔한 인식인 것 같다.이 경우 어떤 일이 일어나고 있는지는 꽤 간단해 보인다. 하지만 나는 Mjroots가 Kenlukus가 더 이상의 이미지를 업로드하고 싶다면 WP로부터 조언을 받아야 한다고 생각한다.MCQ부터.—C.Fred (대화) 13:33, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

제안:

저작권 등에 대해 토론하는 것은 결코 나의 의도가 아니었기 때문에, 나는 Mjroots의 제안을 진전시킬 것을 제안하고 싶다.그래서 마감된 것이 아니라, 나는 시간을 제안하고 있다. (여러분 중 더 좋은 아이디어가 있으시면 자유롭게 제안서를 수정하십시오.)

제안: 향후 3개월 또는 50개의 업로드(마지막 업로드 중) 동안 사용자에 의한 모든 향후 이미지 업로드:Kenlukus는 WP에서 갱단의 지원, 검토 및 승인과 함께 (적절한 저작권 귀속 포함) 완료된다.MCQ. ROBRMFROMLI ^TK_CN/ 20:29, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• Kenlukus가 응답한 후 (이 문제에 대한 설명과 그의 이해에 따라 더 엄격하거나 덜 적은 제재에 대해) 지지를 철회하거나 제안서의 수정을 요청할 수 있다는 주의사항으로 지지한다.RORMFROMLI ^TK_CN/ 20:29, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사이드 노트:필요하다면 기꺼이 돕겠다.내가 그렇게 한 비슷한 곤경에 처한 첫 편집자는 아닐 것이다.RORMFROMLI ^TK_CN/ 20:29, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[답글]

• 양말이 여러 개 벗겨져 지지대를 철수시키는 것도 (이미지) 지속적인 패턴을 증명한다.RORMFROMLI / ^TK_CN05:31, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)얘들아, 내가 분명히 다른 계정으로 이 사람에게 다시 기회를 주려 했다고 확신해.나는 이 사용자가 여기서 편집하려면 멘토링이 필요하다고 생각한다.나는 그가 User:1shields1/User의 또 다른 sockpuppuppuppet이라고 생각한다.Berlinnh1 (다른 카피비오 편집에 참여한 사람)그들 자신의 인정에 의해 그들은 같은 지역에 산다.그들은 또한 같은 교통량이 적은 기사(1차방패1이 만든 2개, 브라운 컴퍼니와 앳 더 리버즈 엣지 포함)를 편집하고 사촌인 "쿠신"(1차방패1, 켄루쿠스의 기사)의 독특한 오타를 공유한다.켄루쿠스의 계정은 베를린nh1이 차단되고 1실드1이 거의 모든 것에 대해 최종 경고를 받은 직후에 나타났고, 그는 그들이 중단한 곳에서 단 한 가지를 제외하고는 바로 알아냈다.

처음 두 개의 계정은 뚜렷한 개인 투자로 위블리에 대한 몇 개의 블로그(블로그 중 하나는 델라노 후예가 자신의 사용자 페이지의 첫 번째 버전에 있다고 주장하는 블로그)를 적극적으로 추진했다.(편집:또한 1차방패1과 켄루쿠스는 델라노 가문에 관한 비슷한 이론을 주창했다.)켄루쿠스는 Talk에서 다시 연결될 것을 요청했다.내가 "처음" 블로그는 출처나 링크로 거의 받아들여지지 않지만, 만약 "다른 편집자"가 그 지침을 따르려고 다시 돌아왔다면 기꺼이 다른 길을 바라볼 것이라고 설명했던 뉴햄프셔 주 베를린.하지만, 이 세 개의 계정이 얼마나 많은 저작권 문제를 가져왔는지 보면서, 나는 이제 한 마디 할 때가 되었다고 생각한다.

내가 선의로 가정한다면, 나는 그가 현실과 일치하지 않는 수많은 진술을 잘못했고, 저작권 소유에 관한 실수를 반복했다고밖에 말할 수 없다.하지만, 그의 계속되는 양말 활동으로 인해 나는 "그가 올바른 정신이라고 가정하면 완전히 부정직한 것처럼 보인다." 이안.thomson (대화) 20:33, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]는 말만 하는 것이 아니다.

• Q: SPI에 충분하다고 생각하십니까?확인되면 의도적인 패턴을 보인다.만약 그렇지 않다면, 나는 기꺼이 조언할 것이다.RORMFROMLI ^TK_CN/ 20:57, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 내가 옳다면, 이것은 다른 종류의 문제를 일으키는 세 번째 계정이지만, 나는 그가 어느 쪽이든 배우려고 하고 있을 가능성을 인정한다(Weebly에서 물러나는 법을 배웠기 때문에, 그리고 카피비오 외에는 다른 방법으로도 유용하다.이안.톰슨 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 21:00 (UTC)[응답]

됐다. Ian.thomson (대화) 21:11, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

노트

켄루쿠스(토크 · 기여)는 이 대화를 알고 있으며, 자신의 토크 페이지[65]에 회신해 왔다.나는 그가 이 토론에 참여해야 한다는 제안을 남겼는데, 그것은 또한 내가 그에게 어떤 이슈를 다루어야 한다고 생각하는지에 대한 제안도 포함하고 있다.게다가, Ian.thompson은 이미 SP 의심에 대한 주장이 제기되었다고 그에게 통보했다.[67] 베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 22:29, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

Sock Puppetry 확인됨

켄루쿠스는 한 개의 추가 계정(Nova-Gnoristic)이 있는 양말[68]으로 확인되었다.2주 전[69] 미만의 마지막 사건을 겪은 후, 나는 그 행동이 전적으로 부주의하고 의도적인 것이라고 생각할 수 있다고 생각한다.RORMFROMLI / ^TK_CN04:36, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

글쎄, 그게 내 인상이었어.모든 계좌는 폭언과 다른 문제들로 인해 무기한 차단되었다.User:1shields1은 마스터 계정으로 나타난다(Webedia:Sockpuppet_Investigations/1shields1/Archive는 사용자가 다음과 같이 말했다.베를린 1호는 그의 사촌이었다.편집자가 WP를 개발한 경우:언제든지 조건의 차단을 해제할 수 있다. --Elen of the Roads (대화) 11:21, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

그가 캐더스의 후손이라고 주장하는 것을 보면서, 나는 "그들을 모두 차단하라, 하나님은 자신의 것을 알게 될 것이다."라고 말할 기회를 놓친 것을 후회한다. 이안.thomson (토크) 15:36, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

모나리자의 혼란

사용자:심플 블루는 모나리자가 레오나르도 다빈치의 어머니를 그린다는 한 '로니 켐플러'의 개인적 이론을 추가하려고 반복적으로 시도해왔다.로니 켐플라르와 심플 블루의 정체성은 다른 곳에서 논의되어 왔으며, 켐플러 이론의 출처의 신뢰성이 있다: 위키백과 참조:신뢰할 수 있는_source/Noticeboard/Archive_102#Mona_Lisa.심플 블루는 몇 달 동안 계속해서 전쟁을 편집해왔다.최근에 나는 Talk에서 나의 이유를 자세히 설명하면서 논쟁의 여지가 있는 단락을 다시 쓰려고 시도했다.모나_리사#Changes.Simple Blue는 일반적으로 실질적인 문제를 다루지 않는 터무니없는 응답을 추가한 후 계속 되돌아간다.내가 추측하건대 이것은 그의 "현상 ante"로의 복귀를 정당화하는 토론이 진행중이라고 주장하기 위한 것이다.나는 어떤 형태의 분쟁 해결도 이 편집자와 함께 작동하지 않을 것이라고 생각한다.토론 부분에서 내가 대담하게 한 문장이 받아들일 만한 영어라고 생각하는 사람은 누구나 이치에 닿지 않는다.그러나 Simple Blue는 그의 주장을 다시 증명하기 위해 계속 그쪽으로 돌아간다.다른 한 편집자는 헝겊을 잃어버린 후 이미 떠났다[70] 나도 황혼 지대로 들어가는 나 자신을 느낀다.나는 관리자의 개입이 필요한 시기가 왔다고 생각한다.폴 B (토크) 2011년 8월 9일 18:16 (UTC)[응답]

• 24시간 차단. --존 (대화) 18:36, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

고마워.폴 B (토크) 18:46, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이 문제에 대해 RSN 토론을 시작한 건 나였어. 왜냐하면 나는 이 문제가 몇 번이나 중단되는 것을 알고 있었기 때문이야.Simple Blue와 Relpmek(토크 · 기여)가 이러한 관점을 가진 SPA라는 것은 꽤 명백하다; Relpmek는 켐플러로 자칭한다.이 문제에 대해 냉정하게 토론하는 데는 별로 성공하지 못할 것 같고, 내가 지금 어느 정도 관여하고 있기 때문에 내 도구를 사용하는 것은 아마도 좋지 않은 생각일 것이다.더 많은 행정 분석을 해 주면 고맙겠다.토니 폭스 (arf!) 2011년 8월 9일 22시 5분 (UTC)[응답]

문서를 보호한 관리자가 BLP 사유에 대한 자료 삭제

이는 WP에서 위에서 논의한 상황과 유사하다.편집 전쟁에 참여하는 ANI#Admin 3회 되돌리기 규칙을 위반하고 3RR이 없는 경우를 제외하고 페이지를 잠근다.그리고 사실, 나는 내 자신을 보고하는 관리자다.나는 WP에서 토론을 보았다.BLPN#Paul Lendavai는 기사에 들어가 BLP 위반으로 보이는 것을 삭제했으며, BLP 콘텐츠가 현재의 고도의 정치적 이슈를 불러일으키고 있기 때문에 그 기사에 반영되었다.나의 제거가 되돌아가서 나는 나의 '클렌즈' 버전을 복구하고 그 기사를 완전히 보호했다.나는 또한 토크 페이지에도 댓글을 달았다.그 기사는 (그들의 편집 요약이 불행했다는 것에 동의하는) 다른 관리자에 의해 보호받지 못했고, 나는 그 행동을 이해할 수 있지만 그것이 잘못되었다고 생각한다.나는 관리자가 BLP 위반을 제거하고 기사를 보호할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 이것은 단순히 당신이 좋아하지 않는 내용을 바꾸고 보호하는 것과는 상당히 다르다고 생각한다.나는 이 기사를 본 적이 없어서 편집에 관여하고 싶지 않다.그리고 물론 전쟁을 편집하고 보호를 대체하고 싶지는 않지만, 그 기사는 여전히 완전한 보호가 필요하다고 생각한다.내 보호가 "관련 사용자에 의한 완전히 부적절한 보호"였는가?더그웰러 (대화) 08:40, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참고: BLPN 입력 위치: WP:BLPN#Paul_Lendvai(위의 일반) 및 기사는 다음과 같다: Paul Lendvai.RORMFROMLI / ^TK_CN09:21, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 작업:IIRC는 BLP 위반을 제거하기 위한 콘텐츠 변경/반복 및/또는 카피비오 등 관리 업무만 수행하는 경우, 내가 열거한 경우에서 관리자의 조치가 어떤 형태로든 "편집"을 요구했을 수 있지만, 문제의 관리자를 고려하는 기준을 충족하지 못한다고 믿는다.기사 주제에 대해서는 잘 모르지만, 타인이 간주하는 당신의 행위가 확실한 BLP 위반의 제거로 간주된다면(카피비오인 것처럼), (1) 나는 당신이 관여했다고 생각하지 않을 것이며, (2) 당신의 행동에 잘못이 있다고 볼 수 없다.그런 맥락에서 나는 (적어도 최근 역사에서) 네가 어떤 편집을 했는지 검토했고, BLP 위반 수리 외에는 아무것도 보지 못했다.그 일 때문에, 난 네가 연루되었다고 생각하지 않아.나는 다른 관리자가 당신의 초기 수정사항을 보고 그들이 BLP 문제를 수정하고 있다는 것을 알아차리지 못했을 것이라고 의심한다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 09:18, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)

WP에 따라 비준수 BLP 콘텐츠에 대한 토론을 시행하기 위한 [71] 편집 및 페이지 보호를 지원한다.BLP. 다른 사람에게 그것을 보호해 달라고 부탁하는 것이 더 바람직했을지도 모른다.추가 편집은 토크 페이지의 요청을 통해 더 잘 처리될 수 있었을 것이다. 양성자 제거로 인해 일부 부적절한 콘텐츠가 복원되었다[72] 하지만, 편집자가 선의로 행동하고 그 후에 잘못된 소스가 제공되는 콘텐츠를 제거한다는 점에 주목한다[73].

Ironholds의 양성자 제거는 너무 서두른 것 같으며, 먼저 당신 및/또는 다른 사람들과 논의했어야 했다.하지만, 나는 그것이 또한 문제를 해결하기 위한 선의의 시도였다고 확신한다. 그리고 나는 그 이후로 xe가 사과했다고 본다[74].

나는 가까운 장래에 그 기사가 다시 보호되어야 한다고 생각한다. 그러나 여기서 조금 더 논의/개론을 한 후에야 비로소. Chzz ► 09:23, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• Support Actions Protection이 요청되었고 당신은 당신의 후방을 보호하는 것보다 BLP 문제에 우선순위를 두는 것을 선택했다.WP에서 요청서 제출:RFP는 정치적으로 신중했을 수도 있지만 지연을 야기했을 수도 있다.나는 당신의 행동이 WP의 정신에 위배된다고 보지 않는다.관련됨.파보니아어 (토크) 09:34, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여러분의 행동에 동의하십시오. WP:관련자는 (WP:3RR과 마찬가지로) "생활자의 전기 및 기사 보호에 관한 정책을 위반하는 명예훼손, 편향, 비협조 또는 불충분한 논쟁적 자료의 제거"가 WP의 예외임을 명확히 하기 위해 개정된다.참여 ? 09:43, 2011년 ^(edits) 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 나는 그것이 이루어져야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 Ironholds (성실하게 행동했지만 아마도 성급하게 행동한) 그리고 나는 어제 이것에 대해 토론했고 나는 그의 강연 페이지에 이 실과 수정 WP에 대해 글을 올렸다.관련됨.더그웰러(토크) 2011년 8월 9일(UTC) 10시 2분 [응답]

나는 거기서 작은 주의점을 보고 싶다. 으스스해지기를 바라지 않고, 음...나는 BLP에 대한 언급을 덧붙이고 싶지만, 가능한 한 다른 사람들에게 물어보는 것이 최선이라는 사실을 지우지 않고서.문맥상, 굵은 글꼴로 예시 예외를 약간 추가하는 것은 어떨까?;

(예: 노골적인 공공 기물 파괴 행위 또는 blp 위반) 간단한 경우, 지역사회는 합리적인 관리자가 아마도 같은 결론에 도달했을 것이라는 근거에 기초하여 (관련되더라도) 모든 관리자의 명백한 조치를 역사적으로 지지해 왔다.관련 편집자의 행정 조치 금지에는 예외가 있지만, 관리자가 관련 게시판을 통해 다른 관리자에게 이 문제를 전달하는 것이 관여된 것으로 보일 수 있는 경우에는 여전히 모범 사례다.

그것으로 충분할까?어쩌면 "BLP 위반"이라는 링크에도 불구하고 "살아있는 사람들에 대한 정책 위반"이 충분히 명확하지 않을 수도 있다.몰라, 키스하려고 해.추가 아이디어는 매우 환영한다. 이것은 매우 거친 초안이다. Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 더그웰러의 행동을 지지하고 양식이 합의될 수 있다면 정책에 대한 문구의 일부 변경에 동의한다.나는 정확히 같은 일로 한 번 비판을 받아왔다. - 내가 귀찮은 IP라고 믿었던 것을 논쟁의 여지가 있을 수 있고 다른 편집자들에 의해 되돌아오고 있는 비협조적인 정보를 추가하고, 대화 페이지에 메모로 기사를 고정시키는 것은, 단지 내가 대화 페이지의 되돌림과 메모 때문에 "부적절했다"는 말을 들을 뿐이며, 그렇게 해서는 안 된다.기사를 잠갔다.기사를 편집한 적도 없고, 그 이후로 편집한 적도 없다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 10시 52분[응답]

• 문구를 바꾸는 것이 좋을 것이고 말이 될 것이다.내가 제대로 읽고 있다면 BLP 위반 되돌리기는 문제가 아니야...되돌리는 것은 원래 관리자가 관여했다고 다른 사람이 생각하도록 만들 수 있기 때문에 다른 관리자가 보호를 위해 반올림될 수 있을 때까지의 임시?좀 바보같다.너희 모두 나를 그 곳이나 마을 펌프(혹은 어디서든)에 그런 제안의 리스트에 올려놓으면 돼.ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 결코 User는 아니었다.더그웰러 WP:참여 - 그리고 참여했더라도 WP:BLP가 우선한다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 안녕 BWilkins!나는 (내 링크 설명 바로 아래)에 대한 나의 첫 번째 (지나치게 장황한) 게시물에서 - 따라서 다른 편집자들이 "그가 연루되었다"는 유행에 잘못 편승하지 않도록 가이드라인을 명확히 하는 것을 지지한다고 말했다. :-) ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 20:14, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로, 그 정책은 혼자 두는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각한다.관리자가 도구를 사용하는지, 인식된 BLP 위반에 대한 대응인지, 또는 '선을 넘은' 것으로 인식되는 다른 관리자에 대한 대응인지에 대해 재량권을 사용할 수 있다.관리자들에 대한 명시적 면제를 추가하는 것은 1,545명의 관리자 중 다른 사람에게 손을 부탁하는 단순한 행동이라기 보다는 주의를 저해할 것으로 보인다. -- 아바누 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

Avanu, 위의 2단어 추가는 그렇게 명시적인 면제는 아니지만, BLP의 경우 관리자가 기사를 보호하는 것과 같은 조치를 신속하게 취하는 것이 평소보다 더 용인될 수 있다는 것을 언급함으로써 도움이 된다.나는 관리자들이 그것에 열광할 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그래서 - 실제로 그 2단어 변화에 반대하십니까, 아니면 받아들일 수 있으십니까? Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 12:26 (UTC)[응답]

@Bwilkins, 정확히 그렇다; 너는 나보다 그것을 더 잘 말했다. Chzz ► 12:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이것을 계속 반복해서 생각하는데, "블랩 위반" (또는 이와 비슷한)은 "블래터 반달리즘"보다 해석에 훨씬 더 개방적이다.예를 들어, 만약 어떤 사람이 "존 스미스는 치즈볼이다!!!" 존 스미스 기사에 따르면, 다른 어떤 것도, 우리는 그것이 단지 약간의 공공 기물 파괴 행위라고 생각할 수 있으며, 어떤 편집자도 걱정 없이 안전하게 그것을 제거할 수 있다.그러나, 지금 RS에 의해 소싱되었다고 가정해 보자.Mew Nork Bimes 신문의 보도에 따르면, "존 스미스는 저온 살균 치즈 볼이다."이제 편집자에게 BLP 위반 여부를 판별하게 된다.만약 당신이 '부적절하다'고 한다면, 그것은 그 문제를 복잡하게 만들 뿐이다.AN/I에 실린 스탠더드앤드푸어스(S&P) 기사는 꼭 BLP 문제가 아니라 1차 출처/2차 출처 문제일 뿐 기사를 잠근 행정관이 BLP를 인용한 것은 근처를 맴돌았지만 1차적인 관심사는 아니었다. --아바누(토크) 2011년 8월 9일(UTC)[응답]

흠, 좋은 지적이야내 생각에 진짜 문제는, 우리는 정책 충돌 혹은 적어도, de jure accepted practices의 충돌이라고 생각한다.

주: 나는 이 특정한 경우를 문제시하지 않는다; 나는 우리가 거의 동의한다고 생각한다.그러나, 더 큰 계획에서, 나는 이것이 해결책이 필요하다고 생각한다.

INPLOGED 원칙은 어떤 문제에 상당히 관여하고 있는 더 나은 용어를 위해 관리자들은 해당 분야에서 관리자 권한을 사용하지 말아야 한다고 제안한다.그러나, BLP의 우려는 종종 그러한 예절을 대체하는 것으로 간주되며, 우리는 항상 주의의 측면에서 실수를 하려고 노력한다. 예를 들어, 토론이 진행되는 동안 단순히 어떤 버전-해프닝이 일어나더라도 그냥 내버려두는 대신, 합의가 있을 때까지 의심스러운 자료를 제거하는 것이다.

그래서, 어느 쪽일까?내가 말했듯이, 나는 과도한 지시를 원하지 않는다. 하지만, 아마도 우리는 이것이 분명히 필요할 것이다.관련된 관리자가 AN에 대해 BLP 문제일지라도 (사소한/반달리즘을 넘어) 요구되는 조치에 대해 소리쳐야 하는가, 아니면 즉각적인 조치를 취해야 하는가?다른 방법을 생각해 보십시오. 이러한 경우 "관리자 학대"의 가능성 또는 BLP vio의 변경 가능성 중 어느 것이 더 큰 문제인가? Chzz ► 13:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아직도 보호받지 못하고 있는 폴 렌트바이 기사에 대한 질문을 그냥 꺼낼 수 있을까?편집이 꽤 심했어?더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:22 [응답]

글쎄, 나는 우리 모두가 너의 원래 행동이 옳았고 너를 연루시키지 않는다는 것에 동의한다고 생각해.현재의 메인 편집자는 정책을 준수하고 다른 편집자들과 이 문제를 논의하기를 열망하는 듯하지만, 만약 당신이 반복되면, 그것은 다시 보호될 수 있다고 제안한다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 14:39, 응답

헝가리어를 할 줄 아는 사람이 도와줄 수 있을까?아마존닷컴은 믿을 만한 정보원으로 보이지 않는다.그래서, 나는 이런 편집이 적절한지 잘 모르겠다. Chzz ► 14:45, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

그 사이트는 텔레비전 프로그램의 카피비오 비디오로 가득 찬 것 같다.나는 어떤 경우에도 "렌트바이는 결코 스파이로 채용되지 않았지만, 1963년 7월 24일 보고서에서 보관된 문서는 렌트바이를 "최고의 접촉자 중 하나"라고 지칭한다.실제 페이지는 Magyar Nemzet의 기사에서 나온 것으로 보이는데, 이 블로그[75]에서 (기사가) 논의되고 있는 것은 물론 그 나름의 정치적 관점이 있다.더그웰러 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 15:31, (UTC)[응답]

렌트바이와 헤티 발라스츠에 대해 논의한 보스턴 리뷰의 '3월 헝가리의 상승 우파에 관한 기사'를 사용하자고 제안한 것은 이 기사가 거의 보수파 헝가리 소식통에게 독점적으로 제공되었기 때문이다.분명한 이해관계가 없는 독립된 출처에서 주로 조달할 필요가 있다고 생각한다.더그웰러(토크) 15:37, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그렇다; 이것이 내가 편집자에게 147페이지의 렉시스넥시스의 뉴스 기사를 제공한 이유다.아이언홀드 (대화)20:26, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자 여러분께 코멘트: 두 번 이상 편집한 기사를 보호할 다른 관리자를 찾는 것은 그리 어렵지 않다.다른 편집자들이 편집 전쟁을 좋아하는 것처럼 보이는 일에 참여하기 전에 당신이 다른 관리자들과 협력하여 그들의 피드백을 받는 등의 작업을 한다면 상당한 양의 ANI 슬픔은 사라질 것이다.BLP 편집 보호의 또 다른 대안은, 만약 여러분이 완전히 필요하고 정의롭다고 느낀다면, 첫 번째 편집 후에 보호하는 것이다.그러나 선의로 보더라도 (전쟁을 개명하면서 움직이는 보호장치와 마찬가지로) 3RR-is-due라는 부정행위의 외형은 그 자체로 매우 파괴적이며, 백과사전적 품질을 높이는 데 아무런 도움이 되지 않으며 ANI 드라마 증가를 위해 모든 것을 한다.혼자 하는 것의 또 다른 문제점은 일단 편집이 보호되고, 토크 페이지의 편집 요청은 이전에 권한이 없었던 관리자에 의해 신속하게 처리되어야 하며, 혼자 하는 것이 자신 이외에는 누구에게도 알리지 않는다는 것이다.예, 카테고리 등이 있지만, 다른 이슈와 관련이 있는 관리자를 기다리는 것은 합법적인 편집을 원하는 사람들에게 분개할 수 있다.--Cerejota (대화) 22:35, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 편집한 내용을 검토하십시오.그것들은 BLP 위반이다.나는 꼭 기사 편집이라고 행정적인 행동을 하지는 않을 것이다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 22:44, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내 말에 동의해, 내 요점은, 편집에 종사하는 사람들에게는 그렇지 않을 수도 있다는 거야.내가 말했듯이, 중요한 것은 외모지, 현실이 아니다.관리자(admin)는 관리자(admin) 행동을 할 때에도 편집 시 벨벳 장갑을 착용해야 한다.또한, 심지어 행정관들도 실수를 하고 정책을 위반한다. 만약 그렇지 않다면, 우리는 WP와 같은 규칙이 필요하지 않을 것이다.휠. 나는 단지 드라마를 줄이기 위해 좀 더 상식적인 것을 요구한다.그리고 그렇다, 관리자는 편집자보다 더 높은 기준을 가져야 한다. 그렇지 않다면, 왜 모든 사람들에게 sysop 도구를 주지 않는가?결국, 오버스와는 달리, sysop 삭제는 완전히 되돌릴 수 있다...--Cerejota (대화) 22:58, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

• 더그, 네가 한 일은 충분히 정당화되었다. 비록 그 기사의 현재 상태가 아직 개선되어야 하지만 말이다.당신은 관여된 편집자가 아니었어 우리가 사용하는 의미로는 말이야.중대한 정책 위반에 대처하기 위한 목적으로 자료를 보호하거나 제거하기 위해 들어간 다음 이를 강제하는 것은 관여하지 않는다.만약 당신이 이면을 표현하고 있는 기사의 편집자였다면, 그것은 틀렸을 것이지만, 그것은 그렇지 않다.추가 자료를 제안하는 것은 편집이 아니다. 심지어 관련된 사람도 보호된 기사를 위해 그것을 할 수 있다.만약 당신이 많은 관련 기사에 관여했다면, 다른 사람이 그 중 일부를 보도록 하는 것이 나을지도 모른다.만약 당신의 실제 중립성이 의심되었다면, 다른 관리자에게 그것을 확인해 달라고 요청하는 것이 좋다. 또는 물론, 우리 모두가 그것을 확인할 수 있도록 여기에 오도록 하는 것이 좋다. (내 중립성이 의심되면, 나는 그 문제에 대해 더 이상 관리자 역할을 맡지 않는다. 왜냐하면 해야 할 일은 다른 사람에 의해 더 효과적으로 행해질 것이기 때문이다.누가 내 중립성에 의문을 제기하는 것에 약간 짜증이 났고, 그 후 나의 행동은 무심코 편향될 수도 있다.)잘 하셨는데, 꼭 와야겠다고 느꼈고, BLP 고민도 충분히 커서 남들도 살펴봐야 할 정도니, 다른 사람이 그 글에 대해 후속 조치를 해주었으면 좋겠다(이미 내 의견을 피력했다. DGG (토크 ) 03:18, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

직렬 IP 반달

나는 수많은 다른 IP 계정으로 운영되는 위키피디아의 연쇄 파괴자가 된 한 사람을 1년 넘게 감시해 왔다.나는 그가 86.31.216.175의 형태로 재표현될 수도 있다고 믿게 된다.이전 카네이션은 지난 7월 처리된 81.109.92.88을 비롯해 지난 12개월여 동안 탈수된 이 개인이 운영한 차단 IP 계정 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81, 81.184가 포함됐다.

이 반달은 보통 텔레비전 관련 기사에 붙지만, 많은 다른 기사들 중에서 협회 축구와 관련된 다른 페이지, 즉 그림스비 타운 FC, 토끼를 겁주지 마, 코치 트립 그리고 슈퍼나니에 대해 궁금해하는 것으로 알려져 있다.그는 수많은 편집 전쟁에 참여했지만, 종종 기사를 덤프하거나, 철자와 문법이 서투른 글을 쓰거나, 부정확한 인포메이션을 추가하거나, 특정 기사의 단순화를 확대한다.그는 어떤 대화 페이지에도 전혀 기여하지 않으며, 다른 편집자와 관리자의 어떤 메시지도 무시한다. 그것이 경고가 되든 아니면 단순히 그의 편집의 기준에 대해 그에게 알려주기 위한 시도로써의 도움과 지침이 되든 말이다.그는 자기 자료를 억지로 기사에 넣으려고 계속 노력한다.그는 이 사용자가 여러 번 처리되고 차단되었기 때문에 다이나믹 IP를 가지고 있는 것처럼 보인다.풋볼 (토크) 15:14, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

또한 덧붙이자면, 현재의 IP는 아직 내가 본 것들로부터 파괴되지 않았지만, 그의 편집 습관은 그의 이전의 카네이션과 동일하다. 예를 들어, "트립 코치"와 같은 한 번에 한 페이지의 편집량, 그리고 그가 이전 계정에서 했던 것과 동일한 기사를 편집하기 위해 돌아온다는 사실.풋볼 (토크) 15:27, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이것은 NTL(영국) 동적 풀 IP로, 범위가 너무 크고 어떤 종류의 레인지블록에도 사용량이 많으므로, 공격받은 기사가 항상 동일하다면, 거기서 반보호를 요청할 가치가 있을 수 있다.짧은 시간 IP를 차단하는 것은 빠른 해결책이지만 전체적인 문제를 해결하지는 못할 것이다.블랙 카이트 (t)(c) 22:24, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

이에 대해 ISP에 연락하여 제소할 수 있을까?키퍼오프더정보(토크)20:58, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

위키백과 참조:학대 대응.당신의 관심사를 대화 페이지에 적어 두십시오.TFD (대화) 23:36, 2011년 8월 10일 (UTC)[응답]

단테로커1길

사용자:단테로커1은 그의 양말 퍼레이드를 끝내지 못할 것이다.내가 들은 바로는, 그는 지난 1월부터, 그리고 훨씬 더 최근에, 그는 유튜브에서 나를 괴롭혔고, 계속해서 위키피디아에 있는 내 페이지를 파괴했다.그의 계정 중 하나가 차단될 때마다 새로운 계정이 나타나 내 페이지를 파괴한다.Checkuser는 아마도 이 양말 농장을 만들기 위해 여러 IP 범위를 사용하기 때문에 작동하지 않는 것 같다.여기에 Checkuser(체크유저)를 요청하면(좀 짜증나서), 사용자:헬로앤용은 의기소침하게 들리며 아무 조치도 취하지 않고 사건을 즉시 종결한다.

위키피디아에서 끝이 없어 보이는 이 양말 퍼레이드를 끝내기 위해 누군가가 무언가를 할 수 있다면 감사할 것이다.나는 유튜브에서 그와 그의 속옷을 차단할 수 있었다.NHRHS2010 학생 파일럿 ✈ 00:40, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 아는 바로는 괴롭힘 오프위키는 매우 심각한 공격이다.또한, 그의 양말 농장은 그야말로 거대하다.아마도 금지 논의가 적절할 것이다. -- --ααουυα (알미라) (토크) 00:48, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

좋은 생각인 것 같네.내가 어떻게 금지 논의를 시작할 수 있는지 알아?단테로커1의 대부분의 위키피디아 희생자들과는 달리, 나는 그가 내 동영상 중 하나에 지체된 댓글을 달았을 때 유튜브에서 그를 처음 만났다.그 후, 그것은 확대되었고 나의 유튜브에 있는 알림은 그의 지연된 댓글로 넘쳐날 것이다. 그래서 나는 그를 유튜브에서 차단하기로 결정했다.게다가, 그는 유튜브에 있는 그의 양말뿌리 계정을 통해 그의 행동을 계속했고, 그리고 내가 그 양말뿌리를 차단하자, 그는 위키피디아로 돌아가서 나의 사용자 페이지와 토크 페이지를 파괴하고, 무제미케와 파보니아를 포함한 다른 사용자들을 괴롭히는 것으로 나를 괴롭혔다.

그리고 나는 오프위키 괴롭힘이 심각하다는 것에 동의한다. 나는 유튜브가 그의 행동에 대해 어떤 조치를 취하기를 바란다.NHRHS2010 학생 파일럿 ✈ 00:57, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

이 양말꾼이 지금 하고 있는 일은 말 그대로 형사범죄다.당신은 그를 기소할 수 있다 - 만약 당신이 그의 지역 경찰서를 찾아서 그들이 그가 누구인지 알아내도록 할 수 있다면.사이클론GU (토크) 02:23, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그의 행동이 어떻게 형사 범죄로 간주되는지 설명해 주시겠습니까?거대한 양말 농장을 만드는 것이 실제 세계 범죄인가?그가 위키백과의 문제아인 것은 사실이지만, 나는 그것이 어떻게 그의 지방 경찰서에 보고되어야 하는지 여전히 이해할 수 없다.NHRHS2010 학생 파일럿 ✈ 02:35, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

물론이지괴롭힘#사이버스토킹을 참조하십시오.

"사람이나 사람을 괴롭히거나 학대하기 위해 이메일이나 인스턴트 메시징과 같은 전자 도구를 사용하는 것.특히 한 사람 또는 그룹을 대상으로 반복적으로 그리고 구체적으로 반복적으로 발생하는 경우, 특히 트로이 목마(trokling)의 특히 강력하고/또는 조정된 사고를 포함할 수 있다."

사이버 왕따를 참조하십시오.사이클론GU (토크) 02:43, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 그가 걷는 것을 볼 수 있다.그는 나와 무제미케, 파보니아 등을 사이버 괴롭히는 일밖에 하지 않기 때문에 그에 대한 금지를 논의하는 것이 적절할 것이다.NHRHS2010 학생 파일럿 ✈ 03:12, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

또한, 이것은 변명의 전 마지막 페이지 입니다.그리고 그가 지금 건설적인 편집을 하고 싶다고 제안하면서 그것은 뻔뻔한 입버릇이 나는 거짓말이다.그는 의심의 여지없이 더 괴롭힘을 당하기를 바라고 있었다.사이클론GU (토크) 02:29, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

그리고 그는 "정말 미안해...나는 지금 건설적인 수정을 하고 싶다"라고 약 6개월 전만 해도 그는 계속 걷고 있다.NHRHS2010 학생 파일럿 ✈ 03:12, 2011년 8월 11일 (UTC)[응답]

문서를 보호한 관리자가 BLP 사유에 대한 자료 삭제

이는 WP에서 위에서 논의한 상황과 유사하다.편집 전쟁에 참여하는 ANI#Admin 3회 되돌리기 규칙을 위반하고 3RR이 없는 경우를 제외하고 페이지를 잠근다.그리고 사실, 나는 내 자신을 보고하는 관리자다.나는 WP에서 토론을 보았다.BLPN#Paul Lendavai는 기사에 들어가 BLP 위반으로 보이는 것을 삭제했으며, BLP 콘텐츠가 현재의 고도의 정치적 이슈를 불러일으키고 있기 때문에 그 기사에 반영되었다.나의 제거가 되돌아가서 나는 나의 '클렌즈' 버전을 복구하고 그 기사를 완전히 보호했다.나는 또한 토크 페이지에도 댓글을 달았다.그 기사는 (그들의 편집 요약이 불행했다는 것에 동의하는) 다른 관리자에 의해 보호받지 못했고, 나는 그 행동을 이해할 수 있지만 그것이 잘못되었다고 생각한다.나는 관리자가 BLP 위반을 제거하고 기사를 보호할 수 있어야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 이것은 단순히 당신이 좋아하지 않는 내용을 바꾸고 보호하는 것과는 상당히 다르다고 생각한다.나는 이 기사를 본 적이 없어서 편집에 관여하고 싶지 않다.그리고 물론 전쟁을 편집하고 보호를 대체하고 싶지는 않지만, 그 기사는 여전히 완전한 보호가 필요하다고 생각한다.내 보호가 "관련 사용자에 의한 완전히 부적절한 보호"였는가?더그웰러 (대화) 08:40, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 참고: BLPN 입력 위치: WP:BLPN#Paul_Lendvai(위의 일반) 및 기사는 다음과 같다: Paul Lendvai.RORMFROMLI / ^TK_CN09:21, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 작업:IIRC는 BLP 위반을 제거하기 위한 콘텐츠 변경/반복 및/또는 카피비오 등 관리 업무만 수행하는 경우, 내가 열거한 경우에서 관리자의 조치가 어떤 형태로든 "편집"을 요구했을 수 있지만, 문제의 관리자를 고려하는 기준을 충족하지 못한다고 믿는다.기사 주제에 대해서는 잘 모르지만, 타인이 간주하는 당신의 행위가 확실한 BLP 위반의 제거로 간주된다면(카피비오인 것처럼), (1) 나는 당신이 관여했다고 생각하지 않을 것이며, (2) 당신의 행동에 잘못이 있다고 볼 수 없다.그런 맥락에서 나는 (적어도 최근 역사에서) 네가 어떤 편집을 했는지 검토했고, BLP 위반 수리 외에는 아무것도 보지 못했다.그 일 때문에, 난 네가 연루되었다고 생각하지 않아.나는 다른 관리자가 당신의 초기 수정사항을 보고 그들이 BLP 문제를 수정하고 있다는 것을 알아차리지 못했을 것이라고 의심한다.베스트, ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 09:18, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

(충돌 편집)

WP에 따라 비준수 BLP 콘텐츠에 대한 토론을 시행하기 위한 [76] 편집 및 페이지 보호를 지원한다.BLP. 다른 사람에게 그것을 보호해 달라고 부탁하는 것이 더 바람직했을지도 모른다.추가 편집은 토크 페이지의 요청을 통해 더 잘 처리될 수 있었을 것이다. 양성자 제거로 인해 일부 부적절한 콘텐츠가 복원되었다 [77] 그러나, 편집자가 선의로 행동하고 그 후에 잘못된 소스가 담긴 콘텐츠를 삭제하는 것에 주목한다.

Ironholds의 양성자 제거는 너무 서두른 것 같으며, 먼저 당신 및/또는 다른 사람들과 논의했어야 했다.하지만, 나는 그것이 또한 문제를 해결하려는 선의의 시도였다고 확신한다. 그리고 나는 그 이후로 xe가 사과했다고 본다[79].

나는 가까운 장래에 그 기사가 다시 보호되어야 한다고 생각한다. 그러나 여기서 조금 더 논의/개론을 한 후에야 비로소. Chzz ► 09:23, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• Support Actions Protection이 요청되었고 당신은 당신의 후방을 보호하는 것보다 BLP 문제에 우선순위를 두는 것을 선택했다.WP에서 요청서 제출:RFP는 정치적으로 신중했을 수도 있지만 지연을 야기했을 수도 있다.나는 당신의 행동이 WP의 정신에 위배된다고 보지 않는다.관련됨.파보니아어 (토크) 09:34, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 여러분의 행동에 동의하십시오. WP:관련자는 (WP:3RR과 마찬가지로) "생활자의 전기 및 기사 보호에 관한 정책을 위반하는 명예훼손, 편향, 비협조 또는 불충분한 논쟁적 자료의 제거"가 WP의 예외임을 명확히 하기 위해 개정된다.참여 ? 09:43, 2011년 ^(edits) 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 나는 그것이 이루어져야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 Ironholds (성실하게 행동했지만 아마도 성급하게 행동한) 그리고 나는 어제 이것에 대해 토론했고 나는 그의 강연 페이지에 이 실과 수정 WP에 대해 글을 올렸다.관련됨.더그웰러(토크) 2011년 8월 9일(UTC) 10시 2분 [응답]

나는 거기서 작은 주의점을 보고 싶다. 으스스해지기를 바라지 않고, 음...나는 BLP에 대한 언급을 덧붙이고 싶지만, 가능한 한 다른 사람들에게 물어보는 것이 최선이라는 사실을 지우지 않고서.문맥상, 굵은 글꼴로 예시 예외를 약간 추가하는 것은 어떨까?;

(예: 노골적인 공공 기물 파괴 행위 또는 blp 위반) 간단한 경우, 지역사회는 합리적인 관리자가 아마도 같은 결론에 도달했을 것이라는 근거에 기초하여 (관련되더라도) 모든 관리자의 명백한 조치를 역사적으로 지지해 왔다.관련 편집자의 행정 조치 금지에는 예외가 있지만, 관리자가 관련 게시판을 통해 다른 관리자에게 이 문제를 전달하는 것이 관여된 것으로 보일 수 있는 경우에는 여전히 모범 사례다.

그것으로 충분할까?어쩌면 "BLP 위반"이라는 링크에도 불구하고 "살아있는 사람들에 대한 정책 위반"이 충분히 명확하지 않을 수도 있다.몰라, 키스하려고 해.추가 아이디어는 매우 환영한다. 이것은 매우 거친 초안이다. Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 더그웰러의 행동을 지지하고 양식이 합의될 수 있다면 정책에 대한 문구의 일부 변경에 동의한다.나는 정확히 같은 일로 한 번 비판을 받아왔다. - 내가 귀찮은 IP라고 믿었던 것을 논쟁의 여지가 있을 수 있고 다른 편집자들에 의해 되돌아오고 있는 비협조적인 정보를 추가하고, 대화 페이지에 메모로 기사를 고정시키는 것은, 단지 내가 대화 페이지의 되돌림과 메모 때문에 "부적절했다"는 말을 들을 뿐이며, 그렇게 해서는 안 된다.기사를 잠갔다.기사를 편집한 적도 없고, 그 이후로 편집한 적도 없다.도로의 엘렌 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC) 10시 52분[응답]

• 문구를 바꾸는 것이 좋을 것이고 말이 될 것이다.내가 제대로 읽고 있다면 BLP 위반 되돌리기는 문제가 아니야...되돌리는 것은 원래 관리자가 관여했다고 다른 사람이 생각하도록 만들 수 있기 때문에 다른 관리자가 보호를 위해 반올림될 수 있을 때까지의 임시?좀 바보같다.너희 모두 나를 그 곳이나 마을 펌프(혹은 어디서든)에 그런 제안의 리스트에 올려놓으면 돼.ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 결코 User는 아니었다.더그웰러 WP:참여 - 그리고 참여했더라도 WP:BLP가 우선한다.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 안녕 BWilkins!나는 (내 링크 설명 바로 아래)에 대한 나의 첫 번째 (지나치게 장황한) 게시물에서 - 따라서 다른 편집자들이 "그가 연루되었다"는 유행에 잘못 편승하지 않도록 가이드라인을 명확히 하는 것을 지지한다고 말했다. :-) ROBRMFROMI ^TK_CN/ 20:14, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

개인적으로, 그 정책은 혼자 두는 것이 가장 좋다고 생각한다.관리자가 도구를 사용하는지, 인식된 BLP 위반에 대한 대응인지, 또는 '선을 넘은' 것으로 인식되는 다른 관리자에 대한 대응인지에 대해 재량권을 사용할 수 있다.관리자들에 대한 명시적 면제를 추가하는 것은 1,545명의 관리자 중 다른 사람에게 손을 부탁하는 단순한 행동이라기 보다는 주의를 저해할 것으로 보인다. -- 아바누 (대화) 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

Avanu, 위의 2단어 추가는 그렇게 명시적인 면제는 아니지만, BLP의 경우 관리자가 기사를 보호하는 것과 같은 조치를 신속하게 취하는 것이 평소보다 더 용인될 수 있다는 것을 언급함으로써 도움이 된다.나는 관리자들이 그것에 열광할 것이라고 생각하지 않는다.그래서 - 실제로 그 2단어 변화에 반대하십니까, 아니면 받아들일 수 있으십니까? Chzz ► 2011년 8월 9일 12:26 (UTC)[응답]

@Bwilkins, exactly so; you said it better than I did. Chzz ► 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep thinking this over and over, and "blp violations" (or similar) is a lot more open to interpretation than "blatant vandalism". For example, if a person adds "John Smith is a cheeseball!!!" to the John Smith article, and nothing else, we can assume it is just a bit of vandalism, and any editor can safely remove it without concern. However, let's say it is sourced by a RS now. According to reports from the Mew Nork Bimes newspaper, "John Smith is a pasteurized-in-the-wool cheeseball." It now comes to an editor to discern whether it is a BLP violation. If you are 'involved', it only complicates the matter. The Standard and Poor's article in AN/I wasn't necessarily a BLP issue, but more of a primary source/secondary source issue, but the Admin who locked the article did so citing BLP, which was hovering nearby, but wasn't the primary concern. -- Avanu (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

흠, 좋은 지적이야내 생각에 진짜 문제는, 우리는 정책 충돌 혹은 적어도, de jure accepted practices의 충돌이라고 생각한다.

주: 나는 이 특정한 경우를 문제시하지 않는다; 나는 우리가 거의 동의한다고 생각한다.그러나, 더 큰 계획에서, 나는 이것이 해결책이 필요하다고 생각한다.

INPLOGED 원칙은 어떤 문제에 상당히 관여하고 있는 더 나은 용어를 위해 관리자들은 해당 분야에서 관리자 권한을 사용하지 말아야 한다고 제안한다.그러나, BLP의 우려는 종종 그러한 예절을 대체하는 것으로 간주되며, 우리는 항상 주의의 측면에서 실수를 하려고 노력한다. 예를 들어, 토론이 진행되는 동안 단순히 어떤 버전-해프닝이 일어나더라도 그냥 내버려두는 대신, 합의가 있을 때까지 의심스러운 자료를 제거하는 것이다.

그래서, 어느 쪽일까?내가 말했듯이, 나는 과도한 지시를 원하지 않는다. 하지만, 아마도 우리는 이것이 분명히 필요할 것이다.관련된 관리자가 AN에 대해 BLP 문제일지라도 (사소한/반달리즘을 넘어) 요구되는 조치에 대해 소리쳐야 하는가, 아니면 즉각적인 조치를 취해야 하는가?다른 방법을 생각해 보십시오. 이러한 경우 "관리자 학대"의 가능성 또는 BLP vio의 변경 가능성 중 어느 것이 더 큰 문제인가? Chzz ► 13:28, 2011년 8월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

Can I just bring up the question of the Paul Lendvai article which is still unprotected? And being fairly heavily edited? Dougweller (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we're all agreed that your original action was correct and does not make you involved. The current main editor seems keen to abide by policy and to discuss the matter with other editors, but suggest if you get a repeat, it can be protected again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get someone who speaks Hungarian to help with that? http://www.utolag.com/ doesn't look like a reliable source. Thus, I'm not sure edits like this are appropriate. Chzz ► 14:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That site seems full of copyvio videos from television programs. I don't think in any case we can have a sentence reading "While Lendvai was never recruited as a spy, in a July 24, 1963 report, the archived documents refer to Lendvai as "one of the best contacts". The actual page seems to be from an article in Magyar Nemzet which (the article) is discussed in this blog [80] which of course has it's own political perspective. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the article was sourced almost exclusively to conservative to right-wing Hungarian sources that I suggested the use of this article On the March Hungary’s Ascendant Right Wing in the Boston Review which discussed Lendvai and Heti válasz. I think it needs to be sourced mainly from independent sources that don't have an obvious stake. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup; this is why I provided the editor with 147 pages of LexisNexis sourced news articles. Ironholds (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear admins: it is not so hard to find another administrator to protect an article you have edited more than once. A significant amount of ANI grief would disappear if you worked in cooperation with other admins, getting their feedback etc, before engaging in what seems to other editors like edit wars. Another alternative in BLP edit-protects, if you completely must and feel righteous, is to protect after the first edit. But even if in good faith, the appearance (even if absent) of malfeasance that a protect-as-3RR-is-due (just like move protection while renaming wars are on) is highly disruptive in itself, and does nothing to increase encyclopedic quality and does everything to increase ANI drama. Another problem of going at it alone is that once edit-protected, edit requests in the talk page should be handled expeditiously by previously un-involved admins, and you going at it alone fails to notify anyone but yourself of it. Yes there is the category etc, but waiting for admins that are otherwise concerned with other issues can be exasperating to those wanting to make legit edits.--Cerejota (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please review the edits. They are BLP violation reverts/removals. I wouldn't exactly call an administrative-like action an article edit. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 22:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you, my point is, that might not be the case for those engaged in the editing. As I said, it is the appearance that matters, not the reality. Admins should have velvet gloves when editing, even when doing admin actions. Also, even admins do mistakes and violate policy, if it weren't the case, we wouldn't need rules like WP:WHEEL. I just call for a little more common sense to reduce drama. And yes, admins should be held to higher standard than editors, if not, why not give the sysop tools to everyone? After all, unlike oversighting, sysop delete is completely reversible...--Cerejota (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Doug, what you did was fully justified--though the present state of the article remains in need of improvement. You were not an involved editor, in the sense we use it. It is not involved to go in to protect or remove material to for the purpose of dealing with major policy violation, and then to enforce that. If you had been an editor of the article expressing one side or another, then it would have been wrong, but that isn't the case. Suggesting material for addition isn't editing--even an involved person can do that for a protected article. If you had involved yourself in many related articles, it might be better to let someone else look at some of them. If your actual neutrality were questioned, then it is good to ask another admin to confirm it--or, of course, to come here so we all can confirm it. (Once my neutrality is questioned on something, I never take any further admin role in the matter because whatever needs to be done will be more effectively done by someone else--I can't help feeling a little annoyed at anyone questioning my neutrality, and after that, my actions might inadvertently be biased.) You did well, but since you felt necessary to come here, and indeed the BLP concern is sufficiently major that others should look at it also, I hope someone else will follow up on the article (I've already expressed my own opinion). DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serial IP Vandal

I have been monitoring an individual for over a year now who has been a serial vandal of Wikipedia operating on numerous different IP accounts. I am lead to believe he may of re-surfaced in the form of 86.31.216.175. Previous carnations include 81.109.92.88 which was dealt with in July, as well as 82.5.224.162, 81.109.92.81 and 81.109.94.184 which were all blocked IP accounts operated by this individual that have been dealth with over the last twelve months or so.

This vandal normally clings to Television related articles but has been known to wonder on to other pages related to association football, namely Grimsby Town F.C., Don't Scare the Hare, Coach Trip and Supernanny amongst many others. He has been involved in numerous edit wars, but often dumbs down articles, writes with poor spelling and grammar, adds incorrect infomation, or simply broadens the simplification of certain articles. He never contributes to any talk pages and simply ignores any message from other editors and admins, be it warnings or simply help and guidance in an attempt to tell him about the standard of his edits. He persists in trying to force his material onto articles. He appears to have a Dynamic IP, as this user has been dealt with and blocked on numerous occasions. Footballgy (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I forgot to add, the current IP has yet to vandalise from what I have seen, but his editing habits are identical to his previous carnations, for example the amount of edits on one page at any one time such as Coach Trip and the fact he returns to edits the same articles he was under his previous account's. Footballgy (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an NTL (UK) dynamic pool IP, the ranges are far too large and busy for any type of rangeblock, and so if the articles attacked are always the same ones, it may be worth asking for semi-protection there. Blocking the IP for a short time is a quick fix, but won't solve the overall problem. Black Kite (t)(c) 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to contact the ISP and file a complaint with them over this?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Abuse response. Note your concern on the talk page. TFD (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dantherocker1

It has come to my attention that User:Dantherocker1 will never end his sock parade. From what I heard, he has been around since last January and much more recently, he has been harassing me on YouTube and went ahead and vandalized my page here on Wikipedia. Each time one of his accounts get blocked, a new one shows up, also to vandalize my page. Checkuser does not seem to work since he probably uses multiple IP ranges to create this sock farm. On top of this, when I request a Checkuser (since I am a little annoyed), User:HelloAnnyong sounds discouraging and closes the case immediately without anything being done.

It would be appreciated if someone can do something to end this seemingly endless sock parade on Wikipedia. I was able to block him and his sockpuppet on YouTube. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment off-wiki is a very serious offensive from what I know. Also, his sock-farm is simply huge. Perhaps a ban discussion would be appropriate. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. Do you know how I can start a ban discussion? Unlike most Wikipedian victims of Dantherocker1, I first encountered him on YouTube when he posted a retarded comment on one of my videos. Subsequently, it escalated and my notifications on YouTube would be flooded with more of his retarded comments so I decided to block him on YouTube. Furthermore, he continued his behavior via his sockpuppet account on YouTube and then once I blocked that sockpuppet, he went back to Wikipedia to harass me here by vandalizing my userpage and talk page, along with harassing other users including MuZemike and Favonian.

And I agree that off-wiki harassment is serious, I hope YouTube does something about his behavior there. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 00:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What this socker is doing right now is literally a criminal offense. You could press charges against him - if you can find his local police department and have them figure out who he is. CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have an explanation of how his behavior is considered a criminal offense? Is creating massive sock farm a real world criminal offense? While he is indeed a troublemaker on Wikipedia, I still don't understand how it should be reported to his local police department. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. See Harassment#Cyberstalking.

"The use of electronic tools such as email or instant messaging to harass or abuse a person or persons. Can also include particularly intense and/or coordinated incidents of trolling, especially when they occur repeatedly and specifically target a single person or group."

See also cyberbullying. CycloneGU (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see him as trolling. Since he does nothing but cyberbullying me, MuZemike, Favonian and others, it would be appropriate to discuss a ban on him. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this, the final version of the page before the indef. tag, and with him suggesting he now wants to make constructive edits - that's a boldfaced lip-bitten lie. He was hoping to get in more harassment, no doubt. CycloneGU (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he does not sound like an honest person since he said "I'm really sorry...I really want to make constructive edits now" about six months ago and yet he continues trolling. NHRHS2010 the student pilot ✈ 03:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Malleus Faturom has said the personal attack "What I can see is that you can't tell your arse from your elbow." on Wikipedia talk:Did you know#You know DYK is dying, right? and repeatedly reverts editors that hid or removed his personal attack and is in an edit war on the same talk page. He made the comment on his talk page, "Demiurge, you've been asked several times not to post here. What does it take to make you understand what you're being told? Does "fuck off" do it for you?". There was an ANI about him earlier in the month. I would notify this member, but it's hard to feel like doing that when the member is such a blatant offender. Joe Chill (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] *sigh* Malleus notified. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Sigh, again? Connormah (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] So, to break it down: Malleus has the temerity to use a fairly well-known British colloquialism when addressing someone, and; After repeatedly telling someone not to comment on his talkpage, he reacts with annoyance when the person....posts on his talkpage. And we're meant to tick off Malleus for this? If Demiurge has been asked not to comment and he has, Demiurge is the one who needs a talking to. If you can't understand colloquial phrasings and instead think they're a matter for ANI, there's a good chance that Malleus's evaluation was somewhere near the truth. Ironholds (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, Demiurge left a warning note on the talkpage of an editor who has asked him to stay off his page, repeatedly it seems. That's inflammatory behaviour at best, and nothing to chastise Malleus for. OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 03:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Probably how I'd respond to someone who I'd told to stay off my talk posting a warning... Connormah (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Good. Can we close this? Joe, chill. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Well, Malleus was already at 3RR - with one of his reverts purely to restore a personal attack (the one quoted above, in fact). Since he apparently had every intention of continuing his edit warring beyond 3RR, the next step would have been reporting him to the appropriate noticeboard. That noticeboard pretty much requires providing the person reported with a 3RR warning. I guess WP:Personal attacks can be ignored at times. Oh well. This isn't the first time I failed in ANI. I reported a sockpuppet that was attacking me and members using personal attacks towards me when I didn't violate any policies. I had to deal with those on my own because I was in the wrong and I guess I'm in the wrong again. I would love to tell a disruptive member to fuck off, but I got reported to ANI for pointing someone to WP:DICK and repeatedly having members insult me (not admins at least). Joe Chill (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Your logic is impeccably faulty. There was no "personal attack", and unless you have an exceptionally reliable crystal ball you can have no idea what I was about to do. MalleusFatuorum 04:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Fuck off. Joe Chill (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] This may just be rambling, but I had to create this account a long time ago because of admins not helping me. It happened again with this account. Sorry for rambling, but I just want the rules to be concise. Joe Chill (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] However, I personally don't have any problem with Malleus strewing obscenities around as he did in the second comment quoted above. He aims such things at me quite regularly, and I don't complain. In the other direction, of course, there are many lamentations and gnashings of teeth. No problem with closing this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Trying to edit war over the removal of someone's talk page comment is never a good idea. Once Malleus objected and restored it, further reverts after that were just needlessly aggravating the situation. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm not aware that anyone edit-warred over the removal of someone's talk page comment, Tarc, but I think this can be closed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Igomaa

Can an administrator please review the edits of User:Igomaa (edit talk history links watch logs) please. I first encountered this user at Jon Toral, an article which had been deleted via AfD. A speedy deletion tag was added by a colleague at WP:FOOTBALL and it was removed by this user several times. I advised them what is and isn't acceptable but all I got in return was hostility. I don't think edits like this are acceptable in any way, shape or form, regardless of whether this user is a newcomer or not (I was as green as they come back in the day but never removed verifiable content, let alone categories, sorting, links to other languages, etc). I have become more involved than I would like to so I'm leaving it here for further discussion. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I am the one being reported, I believe that I should say that what I did was an accident. Honestly, deleting the Jon Toral tags issue is true. But I only did it twice (not knowing what exactly that was) and with out so called "hostility".

For Jack Wilshere, I was simply trying to add information as it asked in the above tag, but due to some random computer error, I accidently deleted some information with it, which I did not under any circumstance mean to do. Igomaa (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to [81] [82]; I've had a look, and I hope I have understood this correctly. Let me know if I'm wrong;

Argyle 4 Life (talk · contribs);

• When you removed the edit the first time [83] - why didn't you tell the user? And, why did you use 'revert' - it wasn't really vandalism, and an edir summary of "Reverted edits by Igomaa" doesn't tell the user what they did wrong. WP:AGF. Second time [84] I see you did, but, we shouldn't expect a new user to understand, Unsourced. Poorly written. Overlinked. Crystal-balling. - or, really, to find an edit-summary.

It's good that you started to discuss it, but, that was after posting to ANI. I see, since, they've also had a 'final warning' (for this, incidentally - which seems a bit harsh) - so, really, probably nothing more needs to be done, until/unless they continue disruptive editing?

Igomaa (talk · contribs);

Don't add claims without a reliable source. It must be verifiable. That's essential for all claims, but it's especially important on bio's of living people.

And, if someone disagrees with your edit, don't just repeat it - instead, talk about it on the talk page - in that case, Talk:Jack Wilshere. Or ask for help. Just, don't get into a battle over it. If you need help, ask. OK?

Both of you, please respond, below. And then we can get back to improving the articles. Thanks, Chzz ► 21:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Igomaa (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. To answer your questions: My intial contact was to issue advice after the user removed a speedy deletion template, not once but twice. [85] I restored the article on Wilshere to how it was and gave an appropriate warning. In hindsight I should have done what I did in the first place and write directly instead of using a template. I reverted in the heat of the moment because I immediately saw that a third of the article had been removed. Blanking for no reason is considered vandalism. I will hold my hand up and say that I should have only undone the first edit. The final warning was harsh but I can't speak for that user. Igomaa has made constructive edits, [86] so if he/she sticks to policies and guidelines then there won't be any trouble. I apologise for not responding sooner. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for responding - and, Argyle 4 Life, thanks for that explanation; I understand; it's no big deal.

I believe this is resolved. Any further problem can be dealt with via normal channels. Chzz ► 11:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which way forward?

I have concerns regarding the editing of editor User:Mackoy20 which may or may not be related to competence issues, or perhaps a language barrier. As can be viewed from their talk page, they are repeatedly creating poorly written and poorly referenced BLPs on individuals of questionable notability, and have a history uploading copyright violations which they attribute as their own work (deleted examples are viewable by admins here). In July I noted my concerns to Mackoy 20 and suggested that they seek a mentor in order to assist them with their editing and gave them a final warning regarding the copyright violations. This was disregarded entirely and the copyvios continued resulting in a 24 hour block. Since the block has expired the user has continued to create borderline BLPs and has now uploaded the logo File:School Seal of Santa Isabel College.jpg under fair use, but claiming it as their own property ("This is own property"). Note that Mackoy20 has not responded to a single editor's concern in the three months they have been editing. Given their enthusiasm for editing it would be fantastic if they could find a mentor to help them, however given their non-communicative editing style I don't see it as likely they will actually seek one out. At what point does the community decide that the amount of work required to monitor and clean-up an editor's good faith but often nonconstructive edits is too much? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Exit stage left? FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm inclined to agree with FuFoFuEd. I would support either issuing the ultimatum that they find a mentor and listen to them, or they will be indef blocked; or skip the Last, last, last, last chance and simply block. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That would normally be a good suggestion but it's likely to be ignored. This editor has zero edits to any talk spaces. Also, I don't think there is a language problem as he seems to know English well enough to write borderline BLPs. He could have responded to some of those messages on his talk page (some of which were obviously from humans not bots) if he gave a toss. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblocked. Communication (as I've written oh so many times in threads here!) is not an option but a necessity in a collaborative editing environment. We can assist them to improve their editing, but to do that we have to have something to work with. EyeSerene^talk 14:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request for authorization and community input

User:The Teaching of the rapture and User:Vbsouthern

Could an admin please do whatever is appropriate to address the content at User:The Teaching of the rapture written by User:Vbsouthern (I assume the 2 users are the same person), and also Vbsouthern adding the user page essay as an external link to the here. The ext link was only spotted today after 10 days and removed. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This would seem to be recreation of material put into article space and previously submitted for deletion by User:DJ Clayworth (notified[90]) and subsequently deleted followed by the page being turned into a redirect to Rapture[91]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 08:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the essay and left them a note (well, two in fact - thanks Robert for your additional information). EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Which begs a question... should the 2nd user account be blocked as it was apparently simply an attempt to use userspace to recreate his/her deleted article? I suspect they don't need two accounts anymore. :-) Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 09:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, done. Thanks for the reminder (you'd think it was a Monday morning...) EyeSerene^talk 09:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, it feels that way over here. Thanks. Marking resolved. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 10:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That all went very smoothly. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And quickly. Like a velocirapture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNFAIR TREATMENT I am Vbsouthern and I am writing this because of EyeSerene's treatment of me and my article The Teaching of the Rapture has been completely unfair. Your reason You had created the essay using a second account named to draw attention to that essay. is false. I never did this or intended to to this.

I can only conclude that you disagree with the content of this article and removed it for that reason only.

vbsouthern (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbsouthern (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]  

Have you read the rest of the message I left you as well? You used a userpage to post your essay (which had been removed from Wikipedia before) and created that account to do it. There are all sorts of problems with doing this, some of which I've tried to explain on your talk page. You're welcome to conclude whatever you wish but Wikipedia policy is very clear about using our charitably donated resources as a vehicle for advocacy. Most of us see this as an abuse of both the money that's been given to the Wikimedia Foundation and of the time of the volunteers that have to clean it up. Instead of posting personal essays, have you considered contributing neutrally presented, reliably sourced content to the Rapture article as I suggested? EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfair treatment"?? It's a nice WP:ESSAY full of original research, and Wikipedia is not meant for that - it doesn't matter who the author is, or what the subject is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNFAIR TREATMENT by EyeSerene removal of article (The Teaching of the Rapture)

I am Vbsouthern and I am writing this because of EyeSerene's treatment of me and my article The Teaching of the Rapture has been completely unfair. Your reason You had created the essay using a second account named to draw attention to that essay. is false. I never did this or intended to to this.

I can only conclude that you disagree with the content of this article and removed it for that reason only. this TYPE OF BEHAVIOR is BULLYING and should not be allow on Wikipedia.

My article on the Rapture are as valid as the theory of the Rapture itself. A valid counter-point on the subject should be available, if for no other reason to show that not all Christians believe the theory. Removing my article is tantamount to CENSORSHIP of other religious points of view!

vbsouthern (talk) 13:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you pursue the appropriate steps outlined on our dispute resolution page if you feel there is an issue. I would also suggest to you that a calmer tone and rational arguments will get you much farther than shouting and accusations. TNXMan 13:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:The_Teaching_of_the_rapture_and_User:Vbsouthern two threads up the page. EyeSerene^talk 13:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

(Joined together for clarity. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your comment Tnxman307. It is that EyeSerene removed the article that I object to instead of moving it or asking me to move it or change the necessary information. No notice of this was sent to me. I would have gladly fixed any problems if I had been told a problem existed.

vbsouthern (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Vbsouthern, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any shape or form. I (or possibly another admin) would be willing to email you a copy if you don't have it backed up somewhere, but only on the condition that it doesn't end up back on this site. Have you considered starting a blog or something, where you are in control of what gets published and you can post what you like? EyeSerene^talk 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And by "it doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any shape or form," that of course means to not try to create The Teaching of the rapture again.[92] —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and based on clear WP:CONSENSUS (one of the cornerstones of the Wikipedia project), I would bet that additional attempts to re-add the essay to Wikipedia might lead to an enforced Wikibreak (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just have, after the third recreation. 48 hours as a final shot across the bows, but if vbsouthern keeps this up when that expires I'd imagine the next will be quite bit longer. EyeSerene^talk 14:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Portions are copyvio. Here[93] he claims authorship. Yet here[94] a large portion of it can be seen as marked "© 2007, Columbia University Press". Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 14:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, not only is it an essay, it's a partly-plagiarized essay because he fails to list his sources appropriately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought: would it be a good idea to delete The Teaching of the rapture (now a redirect)? It's not a very likely search parameter and it would have the added advantage of getting rid of the disruptive edit history. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a discussion best done at WP:RFD. I don't see anything at WP:CSD that would apply. -- Atama頭 22:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it as a redirect seems like the harmless approach. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 02:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's harmless as long as nobody sneakily reverts back to one of the copyvio versions. Which nobody can do because it has been indefinitely protected against moves and edits from any non-admins. Which is practically salting it. So if it's left as it is, yes it's probably harmless. -- Atama頭 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe Atama used "probably harmless" instead of mostly harmless ... 14:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking, it must be that Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster I drank after work. -- Atama頭 16:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI, promotion and username

Moved across from WP:AN#COI, promotion and username EyeSerene^talk 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michizane (talk · contribs) JacklynFMPR (talk · contribs)

Hmmm, I hope this is the right place, multiple issues, I think admins needed.

Okay, starting here, Avery Watts, I am planning to depuff and list for deletion. Looking into contributors I noticed user:Michizane (who I believe to be his publicist working for Papillon Entertainment which I have just csd'd as blatant advertising), who also contributes heavily to articles about Kari Feinstein, Mike McGuiness and their company Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations amongst others.

As if by magic, both companies are based in LA, there seems to be a lot of COI, if someone has some free time to go and review Michizane's edits that would be revealing I believe, maybe the FMPR agency is notable, but I don't think the two founders reach WP notability standards, so this appears to be a lot of free self-promotion.

Also, JacklynFMPR is an spa, obviously working for the company, hasn't edited since October 2010, but that's a banned username if ever I saw one and a blatant COI.

A bit of a can of worms, I'm sure by digging deeper that you'll find a whole bunch of interesting 'stuff'. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum Posting to JacklynFMPR's tp, I saw this, [95], which makes me believe that the user 'went underground' and has probably morphed into another username, should be able to identify POV, COI editors by checking the edit history of the articles concerned. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI might be a better venue for this. However, the articles seem to be fairly typical puff-pieces though some effort has been made to adhere to WP policy. The sources are pretty low-quality and some of them don't support the article content. I've made some effort to tidy up Kari Feinstein, but as the FMPR agency is probably the most notable of the bunch per WP:CORP my gut feeling is that both Kari Feinstein and Mike McGuiness should be redirected to that.

  I've blocked JacklynFMPR as a promotional username (procedural really as they haven't edited in a while). I note that there have been concerns about the promotional nature of Michizane's editing since Sept 2010. The more I look at the history of some of those articles the more uncomfortable I'm getting, but I'll dig around a bit more before posting anything else here. EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding to the above the editing activities of Matsiltala (talk · contribs), Pvisi111 (talk · contribs) and Brandstrong (talk · contribs). Also, The Tax Club is the fourth incarnation of that article, the others having been deleted. EyeSerene^talk 11:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and Coconutty13 (talk · contribs), and 70.187.191.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which geolocates to California (possibly also 76.91.116.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). They mostly look like single-use accounts that are created then abandoned, but I think it's clear that we're being targeted for PR reasons by someone(s) sockfarm. Would a checkuser prove useful? EyeSerene^talk 12:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks EyeSerene, I just got the feel that this was like a big can of worms, isn't the recreation of an article (3 times!) the grounds for a speedy? Guess not if the article is substantially different, but that I cannot see. I see OrangeMike is already on the case, if I see anything more connected to this I'll flag it here. Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. To be honest I'm hoping someone else will pick this up because I'm going to busy until tomorrow afternoon, but I'll check back when I can. I see that OrangeMike has blocked Brandstrong and I'm leaning towards indeffing most of the other accounts including Michizane per WP:DUCK/WP:SOCK. I'd like to know that this isn't the tip of a bigger iceberg though, so checkuser input might be valuable. EyeSerene^talk 16:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have AfD'd Mike McGuiness (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike McGuiness) and The Tax Club (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Tax Club (2nd nomination)). Looking at the others now. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted the McGuiness article per G11 and closed the AfD, it had way too much in the way of promotional material for me (talking about how skilled he was, celebrity phenomena, etc.). -- Atama頭 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above I've now indefblocked Michizane, Matsiltala, Pvisi111 and Coconutty13 as advertising-only/sock accounts. I've also sent two more articles created by this crew to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infosurv and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEMP Technologies), and speedied another (Prime Visibility). Finally I've also AfD'd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kari Feinstein with the recommendation that, like Mike McGuiness, it be redirected to the parent company article. Hopefully that about wraps up this thread? EyeSerene^talk 14:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoke too soon. Add Loadmaster77 (talk · contribs) to the indefblocked advertising only accounts and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meital Dohan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N9NE Group. EyeSerene^talk 16:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndiCary

Resolved

– User blocked. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndiCary has issued a legal threat here, which as I understand, should be reported in this space. FYI, she seems to be interchangeably using the IP User:69.132.171.231 for edits (see edit histories, especially this one). Steamroller Assault (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked. -- Atama頭 16:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [96] [97]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the GA reviewer on this article. My review is here. Originally I think User:Daniel Christensen assumed this article would breeze through GAC and when it did not he was upset and demonstrated his frustration here. I was called James Bottomtooth and accused of "pooping" on the article. His response to this question [98] is also indicative of incivility. I have a thick skin and name calling doesn't really bother me, but it is inappropriate for editors to display this behavior with no apparent provocation. I have never had a dispute come to this forum so I am unsure of how to proceed. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 RyanVeseyReview me! 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk page troll(s)

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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

Legal threats by dynamic IP editor

Threats made [99], [100], and most explicitly [101]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

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

On that note, you may wish to remember that you do need to notify people you mention at AN, especially one so directly involved. I have done that for you[102]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 19:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hounded by an admin for the past six months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [103]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fainites is indeed involved "in content as such". I cannot see how someone can voice his opinion over and over again, on content issues, and yet claim he is "uninvolved". E.g., to post the most recent example, in a discussion on which version of text to adopt in the article [104], user Fainites supports Proposal no.1 (while I support Proposal no.2). Or practically every single post in the Talk:Serbia under German occupation. Its strange to see an "uninvolved" user somehow always eventually voicing his opposition to whatever I propose. Who are we kidding? Fainites is a user that is involved with me and others in the Draža Mihailović debate - directly and in content discussions. In fact, as I said, I cannot recall a single solitary issue (content-related or not) where he has not voiced an opinion contrary to mine. Its not that I would deny someone the right to hold an opposing opinion, however strangely uniform his disagreement, its that this person can block me for six months under ARBCOM on a whim, by writing an "essay" or two, or I should say manifesto, on how I'm supposedly not a very nice person and he really does not like me. If there is one user out there that should not be administering sanctions over Talk:Draža Mihailović issues, its the one that participates in the discussion - and opposes the position of the person he sanctioned on two active discussions.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 KnottSort that Knee! 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please note I am involved in this matter, but I believe that DIREKTOR's conception of collaboration with other editors is somewhat lacking, see [106] for one example. I think he means well, but in my experience he will only work with those with whom he agrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage. It is difficult to explain what Fainites is arguing for, or against, without going into the details of the content dispute, which is why I will be posting only the more obvious examples that do not require a detailed understanding of the complex disputes. Again, however, virtually his entire involvement there constitutes direct or indirect criticism of myself, and whatever position I may advocate in each the three main issues of the dispute.
  • [107]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [108], after having been arguing for days :).
  • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [109], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
  • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
  • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry involved

Here is possible sockpuppet of DIREKTOR. Looks that he used IP number to avoid block: [110] (note similarity with his last edit there). Can somebody perform a checkuser to confirm is this DIREKTOR or not? PANONIAN 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

User:FkpCascais, User:PANONIAN (who has an incredible history of violence and abuse towards me and others [111], so much so I cannot believe he's still around trying to slander users). These sort of massive "PLEASE BAN HIM!" posts, posted in the wrong place, are imo disruptive to the discussion. You're forcing me to go around digging for your dirt and posting it here to demonstrate how reciprocal these exchanges are, and to provide at least some context for your attempts at character assassination. Which is something I really don't care about right now and don't want to do. I asked Fainites a question above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, this history of my "violence and abuse" is in fact history of accusations against me that were not proven (and you can also see that these accusations were raised by some users who are blocked indefinitely). I was blocked only 2 times in 2006 and 2007 for 3rr violation and revert warring: [112]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [113] If you think that I am "conducting violence against you", you are free to open new thread about my behavior. PANONIAN 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 ([114], [115], and [116]), edit summaries and all, removing mostly puffery based on company sources. Adam4267 reverts, without rhyme, reason, or explanation, here, I revert and explain why here, and so on, until he finally asks for an explanation on the talk page. Adam is apparently incapable of reading edit summaries, and does not write them gladly. Funny thing is, the talk page already had extensive discussion of the sources and statements involved.

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

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

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

• (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I think User Adam suffers from a serious case of COI in this subject. He states he is a Celtic fan and even leaves comments like this [117], reinforcing this COI. For quite a while now I have debated certain aspects with Adam on both Green Brigade and Celtic F.C. supporters where by he bluntly refuses to get outside help for disagreements even after being pointed to the correct place to ask.

In the debate surrounding sources on Green Brigade it was left up to myself to go to the RS noticeboard and get some outside feedback, after Adam made this reply [118]. He has also left a reply like this to an extensive reason as to why some sources and other material is not suitable (especially an image which has been reinserted by adam about two dozen times)

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Note: though claiming others are acting as if they WP:OWN the article, Adam seems to do just that here[119] where undoing others' changes, he claims he will continue to do so and is unwilling to discuss such - but that the other editors involved need to discuss undoing his changes. "No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board. You two do not own this page and have no right to attempt to make me do so. I will continue to make additions and if you have a problem with anything I add or any references I use feel free to bring it up here". That leaves, in my opinion, the (his) issues of "ownership" and unwillingness to collaborate the more important issues - issues that may indeed warrant the article/topic ban if they cannot be resolved. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TK/_CN 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  If you look at the talk page you will see that consensus was moving towards keeping the sources I put in [120]. Are you seriously considering blocking me without even looking at my edits, which no-one appears to have done so far. It concerns me greatly that administrators would block someone without even looking at their edits. Adam4267 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Of course I am willing to use the appropriate boards when no consensus can be found through discussion, and abide by what the outside opinion is. I think me and Monkeymanman can agree on the majority of things, with a few exceptions. But most of our discussions can be worked out between us. To be honest I do find it hard to work with Mattun though. While I don't think he is a bad editor I feel that he has a very strong POV when it comes to certain things and it makes it hard for him to edit neutrally. I still don't think a three month topic ban on all things Celtic is a good idea. I contribute a huge amount to that area almost all being constructive (the exception being these articles), and if anything a three month ban on the two articles in question would seem more sensible. In any event I think dispute resolution is needed on certain areas and even if I am away for three months I can't see these issues being resolved when I return. I still think this topic ban is premature, [121], [122] at least several editors were stating that there was some merit to what I was saying. Adam4267 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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 (동음이의). 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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:JordoCo

This user was reported here a few days for ago for possible disruptive editing ([123]) but still seems to be exhibiting the same behaviour. I have blocked this user to slow him down a bit and give us some time to look into this. I was just about to go to sleep so can someone look into this? Feel free to lift the block if I made an error of judgement here. Cheers, —Ruud 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, I speak Polish and I have to report, that this user uses various similar IPs to make pointy and disruptive edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for that on Polish Wikipedia and Commons. See e.g. these links: [124], [125], [126], [127]. - Darwinek (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

COI issue on Roc Nation

Resolved

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AIV could use attention

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

Personal attacks and vindictive/malicious edits by user Yworo

I have created article Desktop Cyber about 3.5 years ago. The article describes in a neutral point of view an open-source emulator for a historic Control Data mainframe called CYBER. The Control Data CYBER architecture has been developed by Seymour Cray famous for his work on supercomputers in the 60s and 70s. I am the author of the emulator and at the time did not realize that under Wikipedia's policy someone with a direct interest in the subject of the article should not contribute. Nevertheless the article has been unchallenged for 3.5 years and contributed useful information for anyone interested in CDC Cyber and its predecessor CDC_6600. Other editors have contributed small changes and added links to/from the article. In July 2011 user Yworo has discovered the article. He started by changing capitalisation of the mainframe from "CYBER" to "Cyber" which is incorrect as all Control Data literature refers to the mainframe as "CYBER". This (and all of Yworo's subsequent edits) occured without any discussion on the article's talk page. As at the time I was un-aware of Wikipedia's policy on capitalization, I undid Yworo's change and unleashed a barrage of personal attacks followed by vindictive and malicious edits from Yworo including being called "stupid" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yworo "CYBER" vs "Cyber"). His latest attack accuses me of "advertising non-notable products" when clearly the software has been open-source since December 2002 [[128]]. It is true that I have been trying to commercialise newer versions of the software between 2006 and January 2011, but the software remained open-source. Yworo has also undone my recent edit to List_of_computer_system_emulators claiming that it was "spam". It appears that Yworo is stalking me and interfers with all edits I do. I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to contribute useful material and am keen to learn but feel hounded by Yworo.

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sure, but there is nothing wrong with this edit or this one or this one or this one. Even while an AfD is going on, there's nothing that says that normal editing can't continue while that discussion is ongoing--you attempt to improve the article (in hopes of establishing notability) while Yworo is also attempting to improve the article (from what they perceive as improving the encyclopedia). BTW, there is also no requirement that Yworo discuss all their edits on the talk page (and they did discuss matters on the talk page): there are edit summaries there that are informative enough, and mutatis mutandis the same would apply to your edits--for the last three ([129], [130], [131]) you didn't provide an edit summary. I see nothing objectionable here on Yworo's part, and if I were you I'd leave this current thread die out, also considering your self-professed COI and the boomerang effect. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being stalked and attacked by dynamic IP user with long history of belligerence

I've had to have my user talk page protected due to a belligerent IP address. It has been stalking me and making personal attacks against me on the pages of every user I attempt to communicate with. On researching the issue, I find that there have been several past AN/I reports complaining about the belligerence of this IP, but nothing has been done. From the knowledge of Wikipedia and from the IPs attitude, I am sure this is a blocked or banned user evading their block or ban, but I have no idea of their past user name so don't know how to file an SSI report about it. Therefore I am bringing the issue here with a request that any available checkuser look into it, but I am sure that the duck test will be sufficient to block the most recently used IPs or ranges for a while. Yworo (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 24.163.39.174 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 24.163.39.217 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 65.41.234.70 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 69.134.110.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.49.56.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.77.20.26 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.77.20.119 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 71.77.21.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 75.177.156.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Evidence

Common files edited:

• Salty Dog Blues (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• The Adjustment Bureau (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Fried Green Tomatoes (film) (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Known Unknowns (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• Kill Bill Volume 1 (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)
• The Everly Brothers (edit talk history protect delete links watch logs views)

Cross edits:

69.134.110.78 (talk · contribs) removes list of other IPs used from talk page of 24.163.39.217 (talk · contribs)

Editing similarities:

• On Salty Dog Blues
  • 75.177.156.16: "copyright violation"
  • 71.49.56.15: "Infrogmation, please don't put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy without something to back up your claim."
  • 24.163.39.217: "No evidence that these lyrics are not under copyright. Please see the previous discussion on the talk page. And before restoring please provide evidence that the lyrics are not under copyright."

• Same style of threats:
  • 65.41.234.70:
    • "FINAL WARNING: Stop adding unsourced categories: new section"
  • 69.134.110.78:
    • "Leave one more message – ONE MORE – we go to WP:ANI. And that's not a threat, it's a promise."
    • "This is your FINAL WARNING. If you continue to harass me by leaving messages on my talk page, I take your entire history to ANI. You are "REQUIRED" to cease leaving messages here because I have made a formal demand."
    • "This is your ONLY warning. If you continue to restore messages that I have removed, I go straight to ANI."
  • 71.49.56.15:
    • "That's not evidence. That's your opinion. The correct procedure here is to request a checkuser. This is your final warning to stop leaving messages on this talk page and to stop making unfounded personal attacks. Continue and I'll see you at ANI."

• Other similarities:
  • When undoing an edit, places edit comment before rather than after the undo message.
    • 24.163.39.217: "No evidence this is the 1900 version, or that this version is not under copyright. AGAIN, see the previous discussion on the talk page. Undid revision 443269727 by Yworo (talk)"
    • 65.41.234.70: "unsourced. Undid revision 369964018 by 216.237.210.43 (talk))"
    • 71.49.56.15: "No more trivial than the mention of the Moody Blues song. Undid revision 444292774 by Yworo (talk)"
    • 71.77.20.119: "Wait until filming begins, per WP:CRYSTAL. Undid revision 371883878 by IcemanStunts (talk)" - note 24.163.39.217 also references WP:CRYSTAL in edit comments
    • 71.77.21.198: "Cease edit warring. Discussion on talk page. Undid revision 353829703 by Seashorewiki (talk)"
  • Accuses others of "false accusations against me of vandalism and harrassment" based on standard templating language:
    • 71.77.20.26: Accusation agaist Wildhartlivie

• Previous AN/I reports:
  • Anonymous disruptive user: Shows continuity of disruption from 65.41.234.70 (talk · contribs) to 71.77.21.198 (talk · contribs)
  • User:71.77.21.198: includes observation that "You're exploiting the fact that IP-hoppers can't be watched as such"
  • User:71.77.21.198_Part_-2]: adds another IP, 71.77.20.26 (talk·contribs)
    • In this thread 65.41.234.70 (talk · contribs) self-identifies with 71.77.21.198 (talk · contribs): "I'm 71.77.21.198 editing from a different IP"

• Geolocate data:
  • 24.163.39.217 Raleigh, NC (Roadrunner)
  • 65.41.234.70 Embarq Corporation
  • 69.134.110.78 Chapel Hill, NC (Roadrunner)
  • 71.49.56.15 Embarq Corporation; Raleigh, NC
  • 71.77.20.26 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner) - has been blocked for vandalism
  • 71.77.20.119 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner)
  • 71.77.21.198 Wilson, NC (Roadrunner)
  • 75.177.156.16 Elm City, NC (Roadrunner)

All edits come from the Raleigh-Durham areas of North Carolina. This appears to be an individual who works for Embarq Corporation and also edits from home as will as one or more internet cafes or access points.

• Stalking my edits:
  • U Thant
    • My edit [132]
    • 69.134.110.70 less than an hour later [133]
  • Timothy Leary
    • My edit [134]
    • 71.49.56.15 just over an hour later [135]
  • Alternative country
    • 69.134.110.78 stalks me to this article mentioning dispute with a different IP, 24.163.39.217, in the edit comment. 69.x.x.x also edits 24.x.x.x's talk page. See above under "Cross-edits".
  • User talk:314editor
    • 24.163.39.174: stalks me to user talk page and makes a personal attack [136]

Yworo (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The glaringly obvious omission by Yworo is that I have a dynamic IP beyond my control; look at the list of IPs. Except for one (which I have no knowledge of), there is no overlap in the times of editing; that's because I can turn my computer on tomorrow and never know if I will have the same IP. Look closely at Yworo's edit history. He also has accused me (on an admin's page) of being a sockpuppet of an IP located 3000 miles from me. He has a history of rather wild and paranoid false accusations about me, including working for Embarq Corporation. I've been a doctor for 35 year; I didn't realize that Embarq hires doctors. Yworo thinks if I edit the same page that he has edited, I'm stalking him. Besides the paranoia in such thinking, he omits the fact that he has followed me around editing articles that he has never edited before. One example off the top of my head is Pyxis (동음이의); there are others if I had the time to go through with a fine-toothed comb (as he has my edits) and find them. He also has made personal attacks against me, calling me "unarmed in a battle of wits"; again, there are several others (check his edit history). He also several times has left me warnings about not leaving edit summaries; all you need to do is check the edit history of all the IPs he notes above. I could dig up numerous other evidence of his vendetta toward me if I took the time (time that I don't have;; I do minor edits to try to clean up articles because my real life is very busy). The source of the vendetta? I disagreed with him about a copyright issue in the article Salty Dog Blues; look at the article and talk page history. I also suspect (but can't prove) that he in general does not like IPs or new editors; look at his history of warnings for minor problems, and almost never with a word of encouragement. Oh and by the way, my most recent "infraction" was to try to help Yworo out by giving him my new IP which was changed today beyond my control; he was working tirelessly to build a case for sockpuppetry, so I thought I'd help him move this along a little and get this silliness over with. I don't have time for this harassment; my intentions here have only been to help. If my thanks for that is a block because a paranoid editor decided to whine a little, so be it. Fortunately, for me (as with most of us), I have many other wonderful things in my life away from Wikipedia. I think if someone would simply suggest to Yworo that he ignore my edits that have nothing to do with him, things might settle down; but that's just the opinion of someone who has edited anonymously for about six years. And BTW, thanks to the many wonderful admins and other editors here who make up for attitude amply demonstrated by Yworo. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo just followed me to another article: Ben Harper. If he does it, it's normal editing. If I did that to him, he would call it stalking. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, did you make this edit? If so, stop, and stay off Yworo's talk page like they asked you to. Simple. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I repeatedly asked Yworo to not leave me messages, which he ignored. Thanks for your comment Drmies and I don't have any issue with you, but don't fall into the double standard expemplified by Yworo that anon IPs deserve worse treatment than registered users. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only response to this diatribe is that I did indeed leave some canned warnings such as uw-delete1 on the talk pages of several IPs which I didn't know were related until they started to respond in a similar belligerent manner. Yes, the canned message does mention not leaving an edit comment, but the intent of my leaving the warnings was about the deletion of the material with an inadequate reason. Every warning I give has been given in good faith and refusing to understand that the messages are "canned" and not personal and sometimes not entirely accurate is simply part of the IPs belligerence. They have also repeatedly posted false warning on my talk page even after being asked not to post on my talk page at all, repeatedly restoring the bogus warnings when I removed them, that I finally had to have my talk page semi-protected. And of course, the user does have a solution to having a dynamic IP, and that is to create an account. And sure, when I see a bad edit by an IP, I check their recent contributions and sometimes find something that needs fixing, but unlike the IP, I've not made any edits to articles solely to harass, only to improve Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the personal attacks and false implications above, I'll simply respond with something that has been a long tradition in all of Wikipedia. IPs are permitted, and encouraged to edit. Yes, everyone is encouraged, but not required, to register. But anon IPs certainly are not required to register to avoid harassment by an editor who seems to dislike IPs and new editors. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the user warnings, go propose some changes. If you choose to edit as an IP, you are going to get templated occasionally, but responding with vicious harassment including badmouthing regular established editors to newbies doesn't get you any points in whatever game you think you are playing. Yworo (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice, Yworo. Things will go a lot smoother here and I suspect you'll be less stressed. Not that my opinion matters to you, but I'd like to suggest that you and I try to stay away from each other. That will require you to let go of some of the intense animosity that you have inexplicably invested so much energy in, but if you're willing I certainly am, as long as you understand that if I make a spelling correction to an article that you last edited six months ago, that's not stalking. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only that's not what you've been doing. You've been reverting valid edits with perfectly adequate edit comments explaining why they were made. You're being purposely hostile and belligerent in the edits you make, the comments that accompany them, and on the talk pages of unrelated users. Anybody who looks through your edit history can see that you are intentionally provoking me and that you somehow want to make that my fault. You are acting like a child, not like somebody who has been a "doctor for 35 years". Most likely you're really a dog. :=0 Yworo (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Yworo, that's the pot calling the kettle black. And please stop it with the personal attacks. Not only is it against policy, it doesn't help your case here in the least. I have presented as much evidence that I'm a doctor as you have that I work for Embarq. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I edit and reedit articles because I have a watchlist. As an IP, you don't have a watchlist clearly you are going out of your way to view my contributions and then pick edits to revert maliciously. That's not a personal attack, that's an accurate description of what you're doing, as have all my other observations. Except for the lame attempt at humor, but I guess you're lacking in a sense of humor along with just plain having a bad attitude. So go ahead, just stop looking obsessively at my contribs and ignore me. Go ahead, I dare you. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, do you honestly expect everyone here to believe that you have articles on your watchlist that I recently edited and that you have never edited before my edit (e.g., Pyxis (동음이의), Ben Harper, Arizona Biltmore Hotel, The Golden Compass (film))? No offense, but you are your own worst enemy in this discussion because you're not helping your credibility at all. And at the risk of being repetitious, again I must tell you that IPs are not second class citizens here. We don't have watchlists, but we are allowed to edit despite that. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's only stalking if the edit is not in good faith. My edits are good faith improvements not related to your edits. As an IP editor, you should simply get used to the fact that your edits may get more scrutiny than the edits of registered users. Please tell me, what exactly is wrong with the edits I'm making? What policy am I violating? I'm not reverting your edits, they have nothing to do with you. Get over it. You wouldn't even know I was making them except by looking obsessively at my contribs, as you are clearly editing many random articles you've never edited before. You don't own them just because you've made a single edit. Stop looking at my contribs and you'll have nothing to complain about. Surely you can exert that much self-control, "doctor". Yworo (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. Nothing is wrong with your editing articles that I have edited, even if you follow me around to do it. And by the same token, nothing is wrong with my editing the same article that you edited, despite your accusations of stalking. I got over it a long time ago, Yworo. In fact, there was never an "it" for me to get over. I haven't developed the level of venomous animosity you have over a simple content dispute. The only reason I'm responding here is in the interest of truth and fairness to all IPs and new users. I know you don't believe me, Yworo, but the personal attacks have reached a level of silliness. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) May I step in here and suggest you both quit all this WP:POKING? The only thing this is accomplishing right now is heating things up even more than they already were. I'd strongly suggest that each of you step away from the keyboard for a while, before an admin decides one or both of you need an involuntary vacation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks, I'm out of here for a while. 24.163.39.174 (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of a deleted article

Now under a new name Korean origin theory. An exact copy of the original deleted article. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Korean cultural claims (2nd nomination) for reference. Kuebie (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an exactly copy of the original article except, apparently for the name, how would this not fall under CSD G4? I realize some time has passed since the AfD, and I hold to the concept that WP:CONSENSUS can change, but the original discussions regarding deletion look to me to be fairly clear (if heated at times). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I've placed in the wrong medium. Sorry about that. Kuebie (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily the wrong medium. My own first impulse would have been to tag it A4, but first impulses aren't always right. Since the previous AfD discussion was fairly heated, perhaps an admin or three should look the situation over. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. It wasn't an exact copy of the article that was deleted, the structure and content of the article was different. There was some wording that was clearly copied from one to the other, and the subject was obviously the same. I looked at that mess of an AfD, which despite the length and controversy had a fairly clear consensus to delete, and found that the main objection to the original article (the lack of reliable sources and reliance on internet rumors) was still a problem in the new article, so G4 did seem applicable. -- Atama頭 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Unresolved

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

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

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

Ohconfucius and date formats

There doesn't appear to be any chance of admin action resulting from this thread and the rest is better taken elsewhere. HJ Mitchell Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.[137] Ohconfucius has a proposal pending on MOSDATE to change the guidance on date formats in references. Even under Ohconfucius' proposed change, date formats in references could still be uniformly yyyy-mm-dd. Nevertheless: In [138] and [139], the only date format in the references seems to have been yyyy-mm-dd In [140] and [141], all accessdate(s) used seem to have been yyyy-mm-dd. They were changed. (In the last link a URL with an encoded date is also changed, presumably breaking the link.) Request that Ohconfucius be blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] You do realize he's using an automated cleanup script right? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 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. NoeticaTea? 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 1) I don't see a problem with it, in that it isn't making anythign worse. 2) He's using an automated script to clean up articles. It's not like he woke up and said "let's change everything everywhere", he's using a script that does good things like delink "U.S.", and that script also changed the date format. 3) That stuff about not running straight to AN/I also applies. Sven ManguardWha? 03:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] "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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] [142] is the reference section in the first link, before Ohcon's edit. There are three dates present there, all consistently in yyyy-mm-dd, which is an allowed format. After Ohcon's edit, the dates in the ref section are all Month dd, yyyy. This is an unnnecessary change, in violation of WP:DATERET. There was a lengthy RfC on date formats which - even according to Ohcon - resulted in "no consensus to eliminate .... yyyy-mm-dd date formats from articles, in particular the reference sections". Ohconfucius is, contrary to that, regularly and repeatedly removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from articles, even in articles where the reference section is already consistent, which is in violation of DATERET. This has been going on for months, and it is again at ANI because Ohconfucius refuses to follow DATERET, MOSDATE and the RFC. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] (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)[reply] Looking at [143], I notice that there are two dates in the body of the article that are formatted as MMMM DD, YYYY, one directly after the name stating the DoB and the same date in the infobox. If MOS:DATEUNIFY is to be taken seriously, then all of the dates in the article, including those in the reference section, should be a consistent format. Ohconfucius's edit appears to do just that since the dates in the article's body cannot be changed to YYYY-MM-DD do to the last point in WP:DATESNO. If there were no other dates outside of the references, you may have a case. but in the examples you presented, you do not. —Farix (t c) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Have you actually read MOS:DATEUNIFY? When did references become "article body text"? – "Dates in article body text should all have the same format:". Quale (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Are you all kidding me? Any time an edit dispute-cum-ANI degenerates into debate that reads like this: “ Well, if MOS:DATEUNIFY were really unified and updated with WP:DATESNO (which is currently at odds with WP:DATERET and WP:CITATIONS#SCHOLLARLY_BRITISH-JOURNAL#DEEP_INLAID_PANELING-VULGERITIS), then this amounts to O choosing to unify citations to match body text just because he likes to even though I insisted with frowny face (diff here) that he desist. ” …I’m thinking this is an edit dispute where those who want to engage in finer points of date-debate ought to do so out the public eye. ANI isn’t the place. Greg L (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Can we close this already? It was pointless to begin with and it's just getting more so as it goes on. Atomician (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

afd needs closing

Resolved

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Joe Ratliff seems to have fallen thru the cracks. It's been open almost a month since being listed. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it. -- Atama頭 02:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any way to track AFDs that are still open? I notice that Category:AfD debates is supposed to be currently-open debates, but its subcategories apparently aren't, since this AFD is in two of them — as a result, I wonder if there are many entries that aren't open yet in a category for open ones. Is there perhaps a Toolserver thing that would let us look at the oldest nomination? It's rather silly on everyone's part for us to have missed this for nearly a month; if we had an easy way to track some statistics for AFDs day-by-day, it might make it harder for us to miss one by accident. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/me points to Wikipedia:AFD#Old_discussions ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old deletion discussions may help for some, but the dated month categories that are used at WP:CFD is another option. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whilst I haven't actually looked at the sources to see if they contain the actual information that Nickyp88 is adding, the musicnotes.com and allmusic.com references that you removed [144] are definitely reliable sources. Can you explain why you removed them? Black Kite (t) (c) 03:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

user:PANONIAN blindly revert warring

Can someone take a look at user:PANONIAN's actions here [145] On the talk page he tries to feign "discussion" but this time the "discussion" makes it clear he is not even looking at what he is reverting, for example talking about info "4. Some of the mentioned regions (like Baranya, Partium) are today also part of Hungary, so why you removed this info?" that wasn't removed. look under Baranya, Partium Or in the present version as well. How can I discuss issues with someone who will revert me without even looking at the version I edited (and thus failing to even notice that I didn't revert him fully and preserved a large part of his changes). The only admin action I want here is a mild suggestion to him to stop doing this. Hobartimus (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is false accusation. I answered this issue here: [146]. I posted my comment on talk page before I saw what user Hobartimus reverted (in 14:23), and I just assumed that he reverted my whole edit. When I later checked what he actually reverted, I saw that he did not reverted my whole edit, but I reverted him (in 14:26) because he did not provided any explanation on talk page even for that partial revert. Please look at his explanation why he reverted my edit: [147] - this user actually thinks that templates are files and that they should not be edited by anybody else instead their "original uploader". Can some administrator please mediate this issue? I elaborated on talk page why "original version" of the template is inaccurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Regions_which_belonged_to_Hungary_before_the_Treaty_of_Trianon_%281920%29#HobartimusPANONIAN 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users" was an outright lie against me. You can't support it with diffs because they can't make a lie suddenly true. You should be warned about this yes, it's way over the line to lie then say "I don't have time" when asked to provide proof, meanwhile you have time to post dozens of times each day. It is not correct to say that you made a single revert because you moved the template as well, without ANY preceding discussion. [148][149] Moving something is considered a much larger action then changing a few words. Hobartimus (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

PANONIAN has now accused me of opening this thread after "a single revert" this was already demonstrated as false, but I will have to debunk it again. PANONIAN other than editing the content also made two undiscussed page moves diffs([150] [151]) showing him to be engaging in a Page move war. His actions were not limited to content but to renaming as well. Hobartimus (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is nice how Hobartimus pulled my words out of context. This is full quote of my words: "Also, claim of user:Hobartimus that I opened this thread as "retaliation for his ANI thread" is ridiculous. This user is well known for posting of false ANI threads against other users, and that should not concern anybody. I firstly tried to correct template and to make it more NPOV, but since my changes were reverted by user:Hobartimus who trying to keep this template in its current form, I saw no other option but to propose it for deletion"[152]. Also, I said that as a responce to his post where he actually accused me for "nominating template for deletion as a retaliation for his ANI thread about me". I simply tried to say that I am not concerned about his ANI thread so much that I would "retaliate". As for the question whether my statement about his past behavior is correct or not, I might be wrong about that and I maybe confused Hobartimus with one other user. If that is true, then I apologize to Hobartimus because of my statement. However, it is not disputed that he opened this thread with false accusations against me, so it would be nice that he apologize to me as well. PANONIAN 15:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Hobartimus is harassing me

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

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

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

The way forward

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

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

Edit warring at 2011 Norway attacks

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

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

• 20:12, 7 August 2011 add BustingInflatedEgos [153]
• 12:08, 8 August 2011 remove Cs32en [154]
• 12:21, 8 August 2011 add Ønography [155]
• 20:56, 8 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [156]
• 12:29, 9 August 2011 add BustingInflatedEgos [157]
• 18:38, 9 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [158]
• 14:37, 10 August 2011 add Ønography [159]
• 14:59, 10 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [160]
• 15:11, 10 August 2011 add Ønography [161]
• 16:14, 10 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [162]
• 12:32, 11 August 2011 add Ønography [163]
• 19:38, 11 August 2011 remove Mustihussain [164]
• 12:22, 12 August 2011 add Ønography [165]
• 14:28, 12 August 2011 remove Ohnoitsjamie [166]
• 11:02, 13 August 2011 add Ønography [167]
• 11:12, 13 August 2011 remove Keanu [168]
• 12:43, 13 August 2011 add Ønography [169]
• 12:46, 13 August 2011 remove AndyTheGrump [170]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see why it is a problem to mention that a few handful of hotheads transferred spit onto Muslim persons. (Even on the Norwegian page the word "spit"/"spytt" is not being used, only general categorization of behaviour, [171]). Do we want this to be an encyclopedia, or do we want a "Potemkin Village"-pedia — similar to the Norwegian article?--Ønography (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Major IP rollback

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

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

CoolKoon reported by User:95.102.200.205

See page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AtonX&diff=prev&oldid=213436875

Personal attack from CoolKoon

original text (the slovak text) Mozes sa podakovat picke Bubamare a "superslovak" Brontovi, ze odviedli spinavu pracu za teba. Skoda, ze su taki sprostucki, ze nevedia po anglicky. Potom by som im to povedal do oci. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in translation

You can say thanks pussy Bubamara and "superslovak" Bronto, that did the dirty work for you. They are so stupid they do not know English. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

user Bubamara is admin on slovak wiki

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaktor:Bubamara

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Špeciálne:ZoznamPoužívateľov/sysop

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.200.205 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 14 August 2011

Reincarnation of FireTool87?

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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

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

Arnoutf edit log on Fethullah Gulen biography page

Resolved

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

Dear Wiki-managers,

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

Arnoutf's edit log

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK, I don't think this thread is helping anyone. Editors from both sides are trying to get each other blocked, that's not the way we work here. Note Closed by Black Kite; Gerardw (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

[172] "I don't see how it benefits the project to pretend that behavior like this represents a desire to build an encyclopedia (in each case, only one instance is presented, though in many cases the behavior has been repeated over and over long past the point of edit-warring): inserting antisemitic BLP violations of the "wealthy Jewish businessmen secretly undermining Christian values with their money" nature ([173])" -- Roscelese

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

76.125.58.198

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

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

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

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Unresolved

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

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

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

For whatever reason, it was archived [174], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week; Chzz ► Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Impolite behavior

I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[175] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[176]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[177]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.

I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[178] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

WP is not a dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

Danneel Harris move

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

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

La goutte de pluie's personal agenda

Unresolved

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

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

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

For whatever reason, it was archived [179], so I reinstated it, and will post-datestamp 1 week; Chzz ► Postdated to avoid arch, 04:48, 20 August 2011

Impolite behavior

I think that Epeefleche is being unpolite with me. The user has threatened to block me three times.[180] He/she reverts my edits as "vandalism"[181]. I can understand opposition to this edit. (I'm trying to discuss the edits here[182]) By I'm not a vandal and the edit is not vandalism.

I've asked Epeefleche to be more civil many times. Each time, the user either ignores me or accuses me of being "a highly seasoned editor, despite the very few edits you have under this handle."[183] I have previously edited wikipedia as an anon, but I don't think I'm "highly seasoned" (and I doubt its a compliment).

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

WP is not a dictionary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

Danneel Harris move

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

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

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

Orange Mike's Croonies: Membership is really, really, really, refreshing.

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

Since then, there's been some cleanup done on the articles involved; the articles on individual books have been merged into the overall series article, and several editors connected to the series adding material designed to bolster its reputation, not always accurately. I was looking over the article about a week ago, after extensive IP editing occurred. I notice one claim regarding comments by a very well-known sf author (CJ Cherryh), found them implausible, checked the source, a youtube video, and found the comment to be effectively fabricated. (See the first paragraph this later talk page comment[184] for fuller discussion.) After that, I went through the IP and related edits and found a great deal of inappropriate material and removed it; I also added details on the publication history of a few of the best-known stories. And all Hell broke loose, creating quite a hullabaloo. (I'm sorry, but I need to maintain my sense of humor.)

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

And then, yesterday, someone claiming to be Morris herself chimed in, using language that bordered on a legal threat here [185]. She stated "I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria" and "Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter." This is talking like a lawyer, and, I think, a clear attempt to intimidate. (She also threw a few aspersions in Orange Mike's direction, even though he hasn't been editing the article.)

I was skeptical that the post came from Morris, since it makes several obvious errors of fact concerning the contents of her own books, but User:UrbanTerrorist claims to have spoken to her by telephone last night and confirmed her identity.[186] He also indicated that one of the IP users involved is also Morris (which also suggests that a related IP, which edited the article extensively, is Morris as well.) In a different comment directed at me, follwing his conversation he stated "Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers."

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

And, frankly, the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous. Morris doesn't want the word "reprint" used to refer stories that were published elsewhere, then later appear in books she's edited. Well, that's too bad. That's what "reprint" means, "To publish something that has been published before" [187], "matter (as an article) that has appeared in print before" [188]. Neither Janet Morris nor anybody else is entitled to so much control over articles related to them to allow them to exclude such plain factual statements. It's quite odd that she and people close to her think and behave otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, the term "reprint" wasn't even used on the anthology page, only on an individual story page (the story, having won a Hugo Award, in independently notable). On the series/anthology page, while prior publication is listed, the term "reprint" is not used. The story had been uncontroversially listed in "Category:Works originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" for several years.before associates of the series editor decided to rewrite history. One of them went so far as to falsely claim the original magazine appearance was a reprint[189]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is welcome, especially after all the to-and-fro at Talk:Heroes in Hell about contradictory copyright statements, but puzzling. It sounds as if you're not insisting on the term "reprint" being used and may be resiling from your statement above ("the underlying dispute is utterly ridiculous.... that's too bad. That's what reprint means"). But a couple of hours later [190] you seem to be insisting that reprint should be used according to your understanding of the term: "Are you saying that if the contract contains a non-standard definition of "reprint" or "original" or something, that Wikipedia should depart from plain language and ordinary meaning? Maybe we should debate what the meaning of "is" is, too!" Which is it? NebY (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything need to be done here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hounded by an admin

Insufficient evidence has been presented here that the administrator was involved, and the conversation is merely exacerbating existing tensions. Appeals to AE or Arbcom with further specific evidence of administrator involvement in topic disputes that might invalidate the ARBMAC discretionary ban, or require another administrator to review and reinstate it, may be made at those venues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [191]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fainites is indeed involved "in content as such". I cannot see how someone can voice his opinion over and over again, on content issues, and yet claim he is "uninvolved". E.g., to post the most recent example, in a discussion on which version of text to adopt in the article [192], user Fainites supports Proposal no.1 (while I support Proposal no.2). Or practically every single post in the Talk:Serbia under German occupation. Its strange to see an "uninvolved" user somehow always eventually voicing his opposition to whatever I propose. Who are we kidding? Fainites is a user that is involved with me and others in the Draža Mihailović debate - directly and in content discussions. In fact, as I said, I cannot recall a single solitary issue (content-related or not) where he has not voiced an opinion contrary to mine. Its not that I would deny someone the right to hold an opposing opinion, however strangely uniform his disagreement, its that this person can block me for six months under ARBCOM on a whim, by writing an "essay" or two, or I should say manifesto, on how I'm supposedly not a very nice person and he really does not like me. If there is one user out there that should not be administering sanctions over Talk:Draža Mihailović issues, its the one that participates in the discussion - and opposes the position of the person he sanctioned on two active discussions.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 KnottSort that Knee! 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please note I am involved in this matter, but I believe that DIREKTOR's conception of collaboration with other editors is somewhat lacking, see [194] for one example. I think he means well, but in my experience he will only work with those with whom he agrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage. It is difficult to explain what Fainites is arguing for, or against, without going into the details of the content dispute, which is why I will be posting only the more obvious examples that do not require a detailed understanding of the complex disputes. Again, however, virtually his entire involvement there constitutes direct or indirect criticism of myself, and whatever position I may advocate in each the three main issues of the dispute.
  • [195]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [196], after having been arguing for days :).
  • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [197], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
  • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
  • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry involved

Here is possible sockpuppet of DIREKTOR. Looks that he used IP number to avoid block: [198] (note similarity with his last edit there). Can somebody perform a checkuser to confirm is this DIREKTOR or not? PANONIAN 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

User:FkpCascais, User:PANONIAN (who has an incredible history of violence and abuse towards me and others [199], so much so I cannot believe he's still around trying to slander users). These sort of massive "PLEASE BAN HIM!" posts, posted in the wrong place, are imo disruptive to the discussion. You're forcing me to go around digging for your dirt and posting it here to demonstrate how reciprocal these exchanges are, and to provide at least some context for your attempts at character assassination. Which is something I really don't care about right now and don't want to do. I asked Fainites a question above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, this history of my "violence and abuse" is in fact history of accusations against me that were not proven (and you can also see that these accusations were raised by some users who are blocked indefinitely). I was blocked only 2 times in 2006 and 2007 for 3rr violation and revert warring: [200]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [201] If you think that I am "conducting violence against you", you are free to open new thread about my behavior. PANONIAN 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

Take it to WP:AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

One of the main problems was the manipulation and selective interpretation of sources by DIREKTOR, so that was why there was a desperate need for some admin to help on the correct interpretation of sources and to figure out some neutral way to portray them in the articles. You can allways pick one comment of his where he is helping evryone to correctly interpret the sources, and that is not the same as being "involved" in disputes. See that I had many times disagreed with Fainites, however he is not indeed taking sides, but he does oppose when sources are manipulated, and his explanations and help were welcomed. In occasions when Fainites defended DIREKTOR´s view´s, DIREKTOR never complained, so he is the one acting as "or you do it as I (DIREKTOR) want, or otherwise I´ll accuse you all of everything I can." FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening edit summary

Resolved

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

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

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

User:24.56.43.213's Talk page

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

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

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

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

I think that this can be denied right away

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

User dispute assistance request

Resolved

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

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

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

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

• - 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)[reply]
• @ 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Repeatedly? Try [202] at 21:31 on 11 August [203] at 23:42 on 11 August, another at 23:52 on 11 August, and what else? Seems that a complaint made at [204] 00:17 on 12 August at ANI followed by this complaint shows rapid-fire mode. [205] shows that the complainant responded "Bullshit" to the 3RR warning - making this appear to be a nice example of a possible WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Postscript: William Bradshaw blocked as a sock.[206] Writegeist (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hounded by an admin

Insufficient evidence has been presented here that the administrator was involved, and the conversation is merely exacerbating existing tensions. Appeals to AE or Arbcom with further specific evidence of administrator involvement in topic disputes that might invalidate the ARBMAC discretionary ban, or require another administrator to review and reinstate it, may be made at those venues. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Characterizing Fainites' activities related the Balkans articles as "hounding" seems grossly inaccurate and unfair. I've been attempting to moderate a discussion related to additions to the Draža Mihailović article and have found Fainites' contributions to be helpful and even-handed. I have cautioned DIREKTOR several times for personal attacks and disruption [207]. Having tried hard to work with Direktor to no avail, I have to agree with Fainites topic ban. I think it is a moderate action that may just contribute to greater peace for those articles. Sunray (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fainites is indeed involved "in content as such". I cannot see how someone can voice his opinion over and over again, on content issues, and yet claim he is "uninvolved". E.g., to post the most recent example, in a discussion on which version of text to adopt in the article [208], user Fainites supports Proposal no.1 (while I support Proposal no.2). Or practically every single post in the Talk:Serbia under German occupation. Its strange to see an "uninvolved" user somehow always eventually voicing his opposition to whatever I propose. Who are we kidding? Fainites is a user that is involved with me and others in the Draža Mihailović debate - directly and in content discussions. In fact, as I said, I cannot recall a single solitary issue (content-related or not) where he has not voiced an opinion contrary to mine. Its not that I would deny someone the right to hold an opposing opinion, however strangely uniform his disagreement, its that this person can block me for six months under ARBCOM on a whim, by writing an "essay" or two, or I should say manifesto, on how I'm supposedly not a very nice person and he really does not like me. If there is one user out there that should not be administering sanctions over Talk:Draža Mihailović issues, its the one that participates in the discussion - and opposes the position of the person he sanctioned on two active discussions.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

...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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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 KnottSort that Knee! 18:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please note I am involved in this matter, but I believe that DIREKTOR's conception of collaboration with other editors is somewhat lacking, see [210] for one example. I think he means well, but in my experience he will only work with those with whom he agrees. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Talk:Serbia under German occupation. I will only be posting a few examples, as copying over the whole months-long discussion would not be productive, and its available for review on the talkpage. It is difficult to explain what Fainites is arguing for, or against, without going into the details of the content dispute, which is why I will be posting only the more obvious examples that do not require a detailed understanding of the complex disputes. Again, however, virtually his entire involvement there constitutes direct or indirect criticism of myself, and whatever position I may advocate in each the three main issues of the dispute.
  • [211]. Here, in one of the more obvious examples, Fainites argues against the map label I introduced ("NGS"), supporting another one, and argues for using the term "puppet state" in the article (which I oppose). Its interesting to see him later protest "I don't argue for or against anyone" [212], after having been arguing for days :).
  • Here Fainites' very nicely describes his opinion. This is my post where, after days of discussion, having agreed on an article lead, I protest Fainites entering his own, completely undiscussed version of the lead. And this is Fainites' completely unwarranted hostile response, where he judges I've apparently been "insulting everyone" and that I should "learn" something from him. This is hostility by way of lies and slander, plain and simple. He has stricken that remark after a while, but its effect is unmistakeable: I am the villain. User:PANONIAN, who posted things like "any intelligent discussion with you is obviously impossible. Anyway, consider your bullishness temporary. Your attitude will very soon get you blocked for good and then I will revert you" [213], is apparently the victim. This ban is the second time Fainites has ignored the hostility of others, and only condemned and sanctioned me.
  • Here is Fainites, for another example, pushing for the lead version preferred by User:No such user ("NSU" in the text), proceeding, it seems, to make fun of my language: "Schhliivvvovisshhishishish" I assume would be how Fainites pronounces "Slivovitz".
  • The text of this section, is an example that does not require a detailed read-thru of the whole dispute. Here you will find Fainites proposing content edits, arguing for the implementation of this version or that, and in the end implementing a new lead version of his own writing. Also understanding full well (as he would admit later), that his edit goes against what I've been proposing (I won't go into details), and directly supports what I've been opposing.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Possible sockpuppetry involved

Here is possible sockpuppet of DIREKTOR. Looks that he used IP number to avoid block: [214] (note similarity with his last edit there). Can somebody perform a checkuser to confirm is this DIREKTOR or not? PANONIAN 18:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

User:FkpCascais, User:PANONIAN (who has an incredible history of violence and abuse towards me and others [215], so much so I cannot believe he's still around trying to slander users). These sort of massive "PLEASE BAN HIM!" posts, posted in the wrong place, are imo disruptive to the discussion. You're forcing me to go around digging for your dirt and posting it here to demonstrate how reciprocal these exchanges are, and to provide at least some context for your attempts at character assassination. Which is something I really don't care about right now and don't want to do. I asked Fainites a question above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DIREKTOR, this history of my "violence and abuse" is in fact history of accusations against me that were not proven (and you can also see that these accusations were raised by some users who are blocked indefinitely). I was blocked only 2 times in 2006 and 2007 for 3rr violation and revert warring: [216]. Contrary to this, you was blocked 8 times: [217] If you think that I am "conducting violence against you", you are free to open new thread about my behavior. PANONIAN 08:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

Take it to WP:AE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

One of the main problems was the manipulation and selective interpretation of sources by DIREKTOR, so that was why there was a desperate need for some admin to help on the correct interpretation of sources and to figure out some neutral way to portray them in the articles. You can allways pick one comment of his where he is helping evryone to correctly interpret the sources, and that is not the same as being "involved" in disputes. See that I had many times disagreed with Fainites, however he is not indeed taking sides, but he does oppose when sources are manipulated, and his explanations and help were welcomed. In occasions when Fainites defended DIREKTOR´s view´s, DIREKTOR never complained, so he is the one acting as "or you do it as I (DIREKTOR) want, or otherwise I´ll accuse you all of everything I can." FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]