Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716

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

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

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

I have cleared out the usertalk page and replaced it with {{

OW}}. The most recent edits and warnings to that page were over two years old; there's no impending need to preserve all that mess anyways. --Jayron32

18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

No problem. In the future, you don't need to report really old IP warnings, or pointless text like this, to admins. You can feel free to clear this out and replace it with an appropriate template like {{

Older}} or {{Old IP warnings top}}. --Jayron32

18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that this can be denied right away

On

) 18:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin may need to watch how this is handled because according the editor's user page if it is correct, the member was born in 1995.

talk

) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

You are right about them being thorough, but I just thought that I could get some extra eyes on it. I had the best of intentions, but you are correct in your reasoning, so this can be closed.

talk

) 18:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Blackgaia02 is acting like a spoiled,

23:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

• Tao2911 (talk · contribs) has been alleging a user was the subject of an article (and personally attacking) after being asked to stop.[1][2][3] I also asked the user to stop on their talk page.[4] They persisted.[5] Block please. Jesanj (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The same user has attacked me as being a both a sock puppet and a meat puppet[6], despite never initiating an investigation or providing any evidence as to why I may be either, accused me of an edit war and being in bad faith[7], and has been overtly rude with myself and a number of other users (notably, just about anybody who attempts to improve the Marisol Deluna article. --Mr. Brown (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• This is Tao's standard operating procedure. Rudeness, name calling, sarcasm, covered over with a sprinking of alphabet soup. I've had a similar run-in with this editor, and there were many before me. Apparently it hasn't changed. Anyways, since I have a past with them (and since, as it turns out, we've both edited this particular article), I won't be stepping in with tools--but I do want to note that the above two editors, exasperated and all, have a point, and I think it would behoove an uninvolved administrator to look a little bit deeper than this recent spat. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

drmies has a history of coming after me, and being senselessly combative. Not an independent assessment, as drmies admits.Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Tao2911. Fat chance anything is going to change about his behavior. While Tao2911 was technically not found socking on the last SPI round, [8] some of his other hardline friends were. (And he was blocked for socking last year, [9] so he may have just become good at it.) It's entirely possible that the other camp in this dispute is also socking/meat-puppeting, [10] but that does not excuse the consistently abusive behavior from the Tao account. This has all the signs of an outside
  WP:BATTLE being continued on Wikipedia. FuFoFuEd (talk
  ) 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Accusations of socking when found not to be socking, and trying to say "his hardline friends" were socking is a grossly insufficient reason to indef block anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What kind of sanctions would you support for the user who, in case you didn't read it from above, says things like this[11]? Jesanj (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Um -- "Marisol Deluna" is not particularly notable - the NYT notes her wedding (usually a sign of important parents - and definitely not establishing a lot of notability per se). A purported list of users is nearly worthless -- see

WP:DUCK was cited as a rationale. Cheers. Collect (talk

) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, in my opinion. As Drmies says below, this discussion should be focused. And, as you see below, I'm not advocating a Draconian solution. Are you implying personal attacks don't matter on talk pages of questionable notability? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Having reading comprehension or clicking problems? He was blocked for sockpupptery last year, see 02:25, 3 March 2010 MuZemike (talk | contribs) blocked Tao2911 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tao2911) I already gave above. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I read it - note my position above. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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

comment from MrBrown on my talk - there are other examples: "And oh yes, I have Deluna on SPEED DIAL and I'm in CONSTANT contact with her <eyeroll>! Ridiculous." He calls me ridiculous elsewhere. Why not block him for sarcasm and insults? (Which would be stupid, and I am not seriously suggesting.) Note that he has admitted to know Deluna personally, as have other editors on the page battling for previous promotional page versions...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Tao, do you think saying "you are a shameless self-promoter who created this page as a grotesque exercise in tedious autobiography using at least 4 different ID's (likely upwards of 8), who has gotten friends to act as meat puppets to monitor it and bully other voices off of it including using legal threats, and to understand clearly that you are not worthy of a wikipedia page just because you imagine yourself to be famous"[13] to another editor is OK after you'd been asked[14] to stop? Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

turns out I was vindicated by being proven absolutely correct in everything stated here - though I admit I could've stayed more cool, as it were...Tao2911 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Oppose With respect to
  WP:PROMOTION with the person who is the subject of that article (search for articles containing "Marisol Deluna", a shorter list than it used to be, and also examine the history of the Marisol Deluna article for some insight). I do believe Tao2911 could be more polite henceforth on talk pages. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 8:40 am, Today (UTC−6) (Note: Restoring Oppose edit deleted via edit conflict) JoeSperrazza (talk
  ) 20:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with JoeSperrazza's analysis. Toa hasn't picked a fight all by himself in an empty warehouse, he's just frustrated. It's a bit unfair to judge his behavior without considering the history of the article, the questionable sources we've waded through and how overrun the debate has been by
  WP:DRV, exactly as the guidelines suggest. So my bottom line is that I'm inclined to cut Toa some slack. Msnicki (talk
  ) 20:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There have been SPAs and SPI-proven sockpuppets on Tao's side of the debate as well, and he was blocked for it. I fully endorse checking user Elizabeth's side as well, but it's clear to me there are various accounts here, both supporters and detractors, who know a lot about the real world doings of this rather obscure fashion designer. Although none of them credibly disclose their real-life involvement in this, you'd have to be really dopey not to smell the
    WP:BATTLE. Look how Tao describes admin User:Drmies, whom I found quite respectful and collaborative in several AfDs, "And btw, Drmies is perhaps the most one of the most disrespectful and inexplicably combative editors around, fond of template blasting and bullying. A terrible editor. .Tao2911 (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)" Drmies was promoted admin with Final (205/2/3) supports/opposes/neutrals in May 2011. [15] If he is so "terrible" how comes almost nobody noticed?! Something is very fishy here. FuFoFuEd (talk
    ) 08:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite block (did my originating comment imply that's what I was asking for?), and support some sort of formal warning/sanction from an administrator to straighten out the harassment. FuFoFuEd and Drmies are right to highlight Tao's own description of Drmies. It was horrible. How do we expect to keep contributors around if this is what we're expected to deal with without any formal acknowledgement of how wrong it is? Jesanj (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I really do not care about this case I leave it to other with the time, but this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marisol_Deluna#Editors_claiming_to_be_Marisol_Deluna_and_contributing_to_her_article

Has a whiff of

) 08:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Thanks for admitting you could have kept your cool better. But you were also alleging ElizabethCB123 was the subject of the article. And this recent reply to an edit of yours makes me doubt you've learned much. Jesanj (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The

18:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Easy user references for those interested:

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

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

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

• I have to say that Haymaker's recent 3RR complaint against Roscolese [19] is so palpably absurd as to qualify for a block for disruptive behavior on its own. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Excuse me, I'm the one who asked that the Wikiquette and ANI threads be closed at

) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I reserve the right to report if the user makes any more slanderous accusations. For the sake of everyone involved, I dropped the last one.

talk

) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Corollary: I am not in the involved users list, but as I heard a similar complaint, I have to mention that Roscelese some days/weeks ago also referred to my arguments and language to be "idiotic". And an uninvolved admin also found it definitely uncivil[20]. Or incivility has absolutely no relevance here or you have realized that I am not more idiotic than anybody else. Perhaps none of the both options given to choice. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
his comments on [22] also personal attacks towards me

 Talk 

07:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like user is vanishing.

talk

) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vanishing/retiring or not, the contents of the edit to Semheet singh's talkpage are enterely inappropriate as ethnically-based

BWilkins ←track

) 11:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Phanuruch8555 and his disruptive editing

disruptive editing

Reported by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm seeking opinions on whether this user should be blocked for on going disruptive editing, or any other more lenient disciplinary action. As mentioned last month on the 3RR noticeboard, this user "seems quite proud of [edit warring] and has even made himself a flag boasting about it". [23] He also proudly displays a "I hate disambiguation" on his talk page,[24] and has acted upon it frequently.

To wit:

• This user edit warred on Sebastian Vettel and was subsequently reported on the aforementioned 3RR noticeboard archive discussion.
• In his "I hate disambiguation" campaign, he attempted to change the PF[25][26][27], ESC[28][29], and Georgia[30][31] pages, among others (and bluntly used "I hate disambiguation" in the edit summary of one of the Georgia edits[32]). These edits were reverted and he was subsequently warned.[33][34]
• In a dispute with the
  Eurovision and Eurovision (network)
  .
• A checkuser confirmed that User:Markschmitz, a now-blocked user, used the same IP as Phanuruch8555.[42] Phanuruch8555 claimed that he was not Markschmitz, so the former's autoblock was lifted.[43] But now because of these disputes, I question whether it indeed was a sock.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I answered my own question. His immediate conflict is the dispute regarding the

Eurovision issue, so any further reversions on his part should constitute as edit war blocking, yes? As per the guidelines, the 24-hour time limit for the 3RR can be extended indefinitely if a user continues to revert against consensus of previous discussions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk

) 07:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that the consensus is pretty clear on where the

Eurovision redirect should point, I have protected it instead. I get the impression from reading the editor's talkpage that English is not their first language and they are a little confused about certain things that other editors are trying to explain to them. Black Kite (t) (c)

08:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also noticed that he edits on the Thai Wikipedia, among others. So it's probably better for the page protection than an outright block. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that

CT Cooper · talk

11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Zzyzx11 is far more lenient than I would be. There are so many serious problems here that in my opinion there are far more than enough grounds for a block. Phanuruch8555 has not only edit warred numerous times, but has openly announced the intention of continuing edit warring, including declaring the intention of gaming the system by such methods as waiting for 24 hours before making a fourth reversion. Phanuruch8555 has deliberately tried to conceal the nature of edits, including blatantly lying in edit summaries. They have also repeatedly shown total contempt for consensus, making it quite clear that they intend to push their own views no matter what anyone else thinks. As for the sockpuppet issue, it was I that gave Phanuruch8555 IP block exemption to avoid the autoblock, but I have now looked further into the matter, and I believe I was mistaken. Apart from the checkuser evidence, behavioural evidence strongly suggests to me that Phanuruch8555 and Markschmitz are indeed the same person. Almost all of Markschmitz's edits were to pages that Phanuruch8555 has edited, and it looks to me very much like a matter of creating a separate vandalism account in a sort of "good hand/bad hand" way (though I think "bad hand/extremely bad hand" would be a better description). Some other problems with his editing exist too. Phanuruch8555's edits in the past amounted, in my opinion, to vandalism, and it looks as though they decided to segregate their vandalism into a separate account. As I have said, I think there is more than enough reason to block, but I will interested to see if anyone else has anything to say about this.

talk

) 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have had a number of experiences with Phanuruch8555, and to be frank I would question whether he has the maturity to be a productive contributor of this project. I immediately reverted his cut and paste moves on

12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

The user doesn't seem to very interested in responding to the points raised on this page. On the issue of

11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

talk

) 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in these circumstances a final warning was justified.

CT Cooper · talk

16:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I concur that administrative intervention is needed here. Here are just two diffs in support of the request: [45]. The edit removed a tag via an IP identified as a sock-puppet of this user. Also, this edit. A visit to User talk:Lloydbaltazar will provide evidence of a long history of disruptive editing. At the very minimum, a stern warning from an administrator is needed. This might be backed up by a block. The last block was 48 hours. The next one might need to be a week. If this continues on much longer, we should move to ban this user. However, it would be preferable if we could get him to change his ways. Maybe mentorship is what's needed here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mentorship, cooperation and all that require a "conversation" with the user in question. The appropriate background music for that talk page would be

The Sounds of Silence. We have never heard from that user - ever. Just seen reverts. History2007 (talk

) 17:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

His user contributions list confirms that he has never edited his talkpage in all the years that he has been here. He has only three edits to article talkpages, one from 2008 and two from 23 July 2011 [46] and [47] that have the unfortunate effect of making him come across as a religious nut, which can't have helped matters. Since he manifestly takes no notice of anything placed on his talkpage (all the way back to 2008), I have blocked him indefinitely - ie until he starts talking, and left a nice clear message for him. If he starts to communicate, any admin can unblock him and start a discussion about his editing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Elen of the Roads. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good block, I would have done the same thing. -- Atama頭 18:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A request for a policy-based edit to a fully protected page has languished for over 24 hours now and become yet another venue for debate in a tedious dispute. The page in question is

.

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

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

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

LOL, yep, that's pretty much the accurate description, Ironholds. LadyofShalott 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I believe Ironholds just paged you. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

*bites down on the first five responses that want to come out of his fingers*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Personally, I think the disputed categories should have been removed until the issue was resolved, but at least it is closed now. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of interest, what was supposed to make this more difficult? The main culprit managed to get sidetracked into ranting at Jimbo (and I'm beginning to understand that if for nothing else, user talk:Jimbo Wales is a crucial part of this encyclopedia simply because it acts like a pitcher plant for kooks and miscreants) and the actual matter was a stonewall (pun not intended) BLP violation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

)

User:4/VVWDDHDAUÜDWEAKAAUDMDAEBSASADBNDSDS/Mitglieder has forged signatures, which I feel is in serious violation of the policy. The page should be speedy deleted ASAP. (User is retired, so is a block necessary?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If the editor decides to come back for whatever reason, a block could be done just in case. I brought it to MfD because before he retired, the editor was an active Wikipedian.

talk

) 21:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the editor has been active and creating articles right up until the present (notwithstanding adding the 'retired' template in March). Singularity42 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that a few seconds ago and that he said that he was retired months ago. Odd.

talk

) 21:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

They're indeed active. I say delete ASAP and block. This could be harmful to the project. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Guys, guys. The German text says "Look, guys, this page is so long, you really expect me to translate it into German?" This is clearly intended as a joke - yes he very patiently wrote all the comments and forged all the signatures (except User:Diego Grez (go figure)), but an admin even moved the page in 2009 - with all the signatures - when the creator changed names. I've declined 10 pound hammer's speedy - it can go to Mfd--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • While it is true that it is a joke page, it was created to insult editors that he disagrees with. I also wonder what the editors that are mentioned would think about this just being a joke.
    talk
    ) 22:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I also think that all user pages are automatically transferred to the new name when a username change occurs.
    talk
    ) 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
• Ten Pound Hammer - edit warring to put the speedy tag back on is probably not the smartest thing you've ever done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

... fairly common recently, unfortunately. (

BWilkins ←track

) 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe I just saw this come up - where was that discussion? It was about edit-warring CSD tags back in so another admin would look at it, effectively admin-shopping, and/or the first step to wheel-warring. Why is the second admin coutnermanning the first? Have new circumstances arisen? If not, leave the original decision be. I'm not satisfied with the outcome here, even though I think it's long-term correct. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I had closed the MFD based on the speedy deletion, but Athaenara reversed course and reopened it (along with undeleting the page) per Franamax's objections, so the MFD is back on course. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry about this. It was basically a translation of the meta association AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD because the German translation wasn't yet linked, so I wasn't aware of its existence and created one. I went a bit overboard though, so thank you for deleting it, and I'd like to put this behind me. Sorry. Currently I use my userspace only for mathematical-scribbling purposes that won't harm anybody.--

T C

07:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've learnt my lesson about this and won't do anything like that again. It was exceptionally poor judgement on my part to put in a translation of that page with all those comments. Sorry. --

T C

07:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not have the intention of insulting anybody, was just translating the whole page. I didn't even know who they were. I sincerely apologise for what this has become, and request that all these pages be deleted as soon as possible and that I am not blocked for this.

T C

07:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the translation was by

T C

07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't block me, I've learnt my lesson. --Sincerely,

T C

07:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would not support a block in this case. As per

) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• The sky is falling!. FuFoFuEd (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The answers to Ten Pound Hammer's original post seem to be (1) yes, the page needed to be deleted, and has been, (2) the editor is by no means retired, despite the user page banner saying so, but the editor last edited the page in November 2009, and no block is necessary. I suggest that we can now drop the matter.

talk

) 19:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You may want to open a

request for comment on these images, in order to stimulate further discussion on the matter. SchuminWeb (Talk

) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

You don't want to pursue

talk

) 02:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know where to bring it because

WP:DR to cover at this stage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 02:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

It's easier to do several MW rollbacks in a row than it is to do several Twinkle ones in a row. And I severely doubt that removing orphaned image deletion tags from image pages when they have been put back onto articles constitutes abuse of MW rollback. And in the instances where it was done to replace fair use rationales that you removed, I clearly statd my reasoning on your user talk page afterwards, which is fully in line with what I have been told is acceptable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

And it would help if SchuminWeb did not constantly send these images through the various deletion processes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 17:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be starting an RFC on the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already reported

19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The account has already been reported as a VOA at

WP:DENY as a rationale. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk

) 19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind; already blocked. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Squeaky wheels get noticed. Wheels that

quack get noticed faster. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk

) 19:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a user over at this page continually adding unsourced/poorly sourced information detrimental to Larkin's character and of no apparent notability both under the user name Arom1221 and from the IP address 74.215.251.150. He has been advised both in edit summaries and on his own talk page by myself and others that this behavior is not appropriate and is not only unrepentant, but vows to continue until everyone gets sick of reverting him. We could use an admin to try and reason with him and, if that fails, take appropriate action. Indrian (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a clear

WP:3RR in order to keep the questionable material in the article. I've warned Arom1221 regarding 3RR and watchlisted the article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk

) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Alan: clear-cut case of unreferenced addition of controversial, defamatory information about a living person, also

edit war. I'll WL this as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk

22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note on Arom1221's talk page regarding the continued BLP violations (to compliment Alan's 3RR notice).--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I

suspect the IP editor is Arom1221, logged out. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk

) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

) 22:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice that there's something going on here that I should be looking at, but I don't see it. Here's the message as it was posted to my talk page:

• Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone tells me otherwise I'm going to assume that it either was not important, or the message was left there in error. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to relate to this [52] archived thread. The discussion seems to have fizzled out unresolved though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ctwomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, since it appears that users both find my block appropriate and inappropriate, I am asking that users review my block of Ctwoman. Since I do not wish to color people's opinions too much I will just point out the various places that this discussion has been taking place: my talk page, the only place I knew about as of the time of the block; Joe Chill's talk page, and Sphilbrick's talk page. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What you've done is pretty standard practice with promotional accounts - just ask

User:OrangeMike. This appears to be the tell - why would a newbie who was trying to navigate our rules blank the page rather than make some effort to respond to the offers of help? --Elen of the Roads (talk

) 21:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To the extent I have commented on this matter, I do not impute Reaper Eternal for the discretion used in blocking the account. I merely believe Sphilbrick has introduced equally viable conclusions which if considered would indicate a less antagonistic approach has merit. I entirely favor good faith assumptions when they are reasonably applied and for conduct which propagates a welcoming environment for new users. My76Strat (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unhappy myself about this. Sphilbrick's comment on his talk page seems to be an assumption that I did not try to help since I didn't add a rationale in my reverts. I did try to explain to the editor what my rationale was on the talk page of the now deleted article, but Ctwomen removed my comments and then continued adding stuff relating to the organization to articles without asking questions about it. I'm saying seems because I am not sure.

talk

) 21:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, Reaper has kindly unblocked, and I will try to discuss this with Ctwomen. Just to be clear, I don't think this was an inappropriate block, in the sense that I think many admins would have handled this the same way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Reaper's block was accompanied by this cleanup of WP:UAA. Sadly, the user has yet to engage anyone in constructive discussion.   —

04:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Please can you report Nickyp88? He insists in removing music genres without a consensus and I've noticed from his talk page that he has already been blocked before. Thanks. 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.212.145 (talk)

• User has been notified. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

86.181.212.145 is an IP used by the banned editor User:CharlieJS13. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Coca-Cola_Company was archived, it seems that the old data was not removed from the current file. Thus, we seem to have the same information both at the above page and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Coca-Cola_Company/Archive_1. Sincerely,

) 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems fine to me.--Atlan (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it quite obviously isn't. This is the problem. Just delete the sections which haven't changed since they were original archived. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I only checked the top thread, which was different from the archive and from 2010.--Atlan (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just received an abusive email from Ttstlkr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a 'new' account but obviously some sort of sockpuppet. Can appropriate action please be taken? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Acroterion already blocked it. Pretty obvious 't t stalker'. Syrthiss (talk) 12:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, obvious troll, email blocked. SPI might be needed if more appear. Acroterion (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to bring it to general (Please note, I am not naming any users for obvious reason, I'm targeting no one) notice to the current discussions and editing practises on the Falkland Islands Article/Talk page. Please note, I have no personal opinion on these situations - I am merely going by what I have seen on the talk page and such - After observing the page over three months now as an anon user I am, I find the general tone to be unpleasant, and unwelcoming. It doesn't speak well to someone uninvolved initially who may want to improve the article in question. I get from the page a very "Grinding teeth, Mexican-stand off" atmosphere. I don't know if anyone is POV pushing, playing games and all the other accusations being thrown around very recently, but nothing ever gets resolved from it, nothing gets seriously discussed about it, and the unpleasantness continues. Edit warring often goes unchecked, seemingly baseless accusations are thrown around and nothing ever comes from it in a productive sense. Observe the current discussions on the talk page, and review all the evidence. Thank you. I just want to see this page have a friendly, more civil, more productive and more engaging level of activity. If it's a problem that I haven't named specific editors or edits, please say so. But I think it speaks for itself at the moment with minimal searching needed. --85.210.104.98 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This needs admin involvement right away. My last

WP:WQA request has gone nowhere.Alex79818 (talk

) 23:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

An SPA I would susgest that this is a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course its a sock. BTW its an election year in Argentina, the Falklands articles will take a battering for the next couple of months. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue, however, may well be real. It would not hurt for more eyes on that article in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Josephjordania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ketih King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Charles J. Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 124.188.26.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These four accounts seem to be operated by the same person, not a native English speaker. All the accounts appear to be promoting the work of the Georgian musicologist Joseph Jordania on wikipedia. The first version of the BLP, still largely unsourced but containing detailed personal information not available elsewhere, was uploaded here.[54] I am reporting this here because it appears to involve both sockpuppetry and BLP puffery, which extends to many articles. Eminent musicologists, like the Harvard Bach scholar Christoph Wolff, do not normally get this kind of coverage on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yepp, and that's what the particular subspace is for. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? We encourage non-encyclopedia use of Wikipedia?

talk

) 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It took me two clicks

to find out about this. You could have done the same — no? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ}

22:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be a jerk. You could have pointed that out without being nasty.

talk

) 22:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

No need to be a jerk indeed. I see you apologized. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep.

talk

) 22:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

---

This Corporation is just a front for a scam

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

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

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

Posting to delete - under {{

) 10:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

Thank you. May want to review that user's recent contributions - especially with his

WP:PA to an admin for deleting a category he created here. This appears to be a new WP editor that may not understand how to use deletion tags properly.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS}

13:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This is/was an article about a company, not about a person. I took great effort to make sure the article did not have puffery and was as neutral as possible. The correct action would have been to discuss the issues first, especially since this was on the grounds that it wasn't notable. (See

WP:BEFORE, particularly point #4). If you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us. MLM models typically have a lot of criticism, but they are legal. A simple Google News search on Visalus turns up enough RS sources to establish notability. If it didn't, I wouldn't have created the article in the first place.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS}

18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I certainly hope you didn't take me to be implying that the guy running this scam isn't, in fact, an extremely skilled and effective con-man who's very good at sucking people in.  If you thought that I was saying he wasn't really good at it, I apologise for the confusion.

As for the WP:Before, thanks; that's the first time I've seen any mention of anything other than speedy deletion.  I'll be sure to try to take that entire group of pages into account should I, in future, come across anything else I think should be deleted.  And my sincere apologies for my having mistakenly used the Speedy process when I should have done otherwise; I can certainly understand how that would come across as a real negative thing; sorry about that.

As for your MLMs are legal, I'm not trying to be condescending but, I'd suggest that you read section 5 of multi-level marketing; I think it'd be more accurate to say that MLMs can be legal.  I believe you might be making a common erroneous assumption that they automatically are.  And I'm betting that you haven't undertaken the long list of precautions identified there by the FTC.  I personally have no interest in investigating Visalus' commission structure and reviewing the legalities of their contract terms; but I'd be mildly curious to know what you find out from doing such an investigation; that might even make for a good article, except that I guess it'd qualify as OR.

I assume good faith in your creation of the article; but, with regards to your comment of: "[i]f you have a RS that shows this company is a scam and not legal, then please enlighten us", I can only point to 6 BBB complaints (5 Resolved) and the aforementioned scam.com postings at this point, I fully acknowledge Mr. Blair's efficiency at manipulating web search results to ensure that every title that claims to be a complaint (or at least the 10 or so I could be bothered to check), redirects to another advertising page of one of his dealers *cough* suckers *cough* or to some blog that I consider equally unreliable (but then I am the untrusting type); why don't you check and tell me if the 168,000 hits that Google returns for "Visalus scam" are all equally redeeming.

With regards to Visalus' notability, there certainly are between 835,000 and 997,000 Google hits (depending on when I hit the search button) for Visalus; I've seen visalus.com, visalusscience.com, visalusshakes.com, visalusreview.com, visalusproducts.com, visalusshop.com, myvitools.com, visalusbodybyvishakes.com, visalusquebec.com, visalus-canada.com, visaluscompetition.com, visalussciencesscam.com (by the way, when was the last time you saw a WalMartScam.com site, or a McDonaldsScam.com, or a NutribarScam.com, or a WorldComScam.com or SubPrimeMortgageScam.com for that matter), visalusbodybyvireviews.com, and that's the first 5 of apparently 56-odd pages; not quite sure how that equates to 835,000 hits, but that's unimportant.  Since you're creating this article claiming the company is (at least in some way) notable (I find almost a million hits of self−promotion), please identify an RS's presentation of this company as notable; I haven't found any such source, and I've looked far more than I ever cared to.

And on a second review of your response just before hitting Save, I see that your search was of Google News.  So, which of the 16 matches is it that you think makes the company notable? Is it the Forbes (Blog), the Midland Daily News, the Forth Worth Star Telegraph, the SmallTownPapers News Service, the South Coast Today story about ViSalus Sciences’ partnership with Hulk Hogan and pro-wrestling, the DailyBusiness.ro (I’m guessing that’s either Spanish or Italian), or one of the others that you deem to be a Reliable Source?  I’m actually not trying to be a prick (I’m really good at that when I’m trying), I simply recognize and have dealt with this kind of guy before; a few thousand dollars will get your name in a whole bunch of newspapers, I’ve (unwillingly) had my 15 seconds of fame in one such PR purchased prime-time tv news spot (the moral of the story is don't believe everything you see on television or read in the newspapers); but I’m not seeing anything legitimate about this guy, just skilled media manipulation by a photogenic con-artist.  And I don’t believe Wikipedia should provide any appearance of respectability for him or his company which are, IMO, equally interchangeable scheming persons as the law would call them both.

By the way, regarding the guy that you listed in the article that invested all that money and was buying all that stock, were you able to find out if he is in fact Ryan Blair's multi−millionaire step−father who started him out in, and financed all of his, business ventures?  That was what the non−RSs that I was finding (who were citing an Amazon.com nobody's paraphrasing of his new book) were saying about him, but I don't know step−dad's name to be able to confirm.  Might be another POV to keep things neutral should you restore/recreate the article.  — Who R you? (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The "guy" you are referencing is a publicly-traded company on the New York Stock Exchange,

WP:V. I may suggest, we move the bulk of this discussion over to WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. I don't see this being an AN/I issue.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS}

01:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you seriously just paste a large block of copyrighted text to the incidents noticeboard? Please do NOT do that again...

a/c

) 05:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

"Blyth" is the name of the company, not a person. Again, conversation about notability needs to be done over at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 15. Notability is not an AN/I issue.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 12:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine, then I will now proceed to that area to continue this discussion; I assume before checking that a section already exists for this article where I will look for your identification of an RS.  I obviously missed the earlier reference which I now see appears pointing to that area.  As to "Blyth", please feel free to read all past comments as "Blyth (principal of)" if that makes it any clearer for you.  Meanwhile, I suppose I will check back here again at another time to see if anyone other that you has any further comments; I am assuming, Leef5, that yours and my further communications will continue as appropriate on the page you have identified.  — Who R you? (talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention to what I consider to be 3 legal threats on my

) 19:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Of note this was previously discussed at DRN where I became involved. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• I see that Sarek has left the user a warning. Is that enough? Drmies (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • We let anybody who hasn't been explicitly warned about NLT before off with a warning? /sarcasm Hasteur (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Zhardoum's response to Sarek's warning sarcasm or some kind of alternate reality? [72] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I have now given him a specific instruction to remove the threat from Hasteur's talkpage. If he edits again without doing so, he should be blocked. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Guy has had plenty of warnings about legal monkey business, see [73]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Zhardoum's post on Sarek's talk page was in response to Sarek's edit to the article [74], not to Sarek's warning. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the way I read it, yes.

WP:DOLT, after all... --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. That makes more sense. He does need to take the notice off Hasteur's talkpage though - he has been warned before about bringing external legal issues onto Wikipedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Could somebody tell Tachfin to stop cursing?

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

First of all, you either need to sign your posts with a ~~~~ or fix your signature, per

WP:NPA) are being violated. Finally, this is the English Wikipedia, so please try to address other editors in English, this edit was useless if the editor claims to not understand it. -- Atama頭

23:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You must also inform any user who is the subject of a discussion by placing the subst:ANI-notice template on their talk page.OpenInfoForAll (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Really I don't know what he's talking about. He's probably annoyed because I reverted one of his edits which was incompatible with an infobox template format. I don't know what he means by "Cursing" and if he understands what this word means. This user has many other issues but I don't want to expose it here. Take a look at his talk page to see what other editors have been telling him about his editing patterns.

talk

) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

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

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

• Talk:Almoravid_dynasty#Almoravides_are_not_Morroco
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_was_founded_by_the_Alaouites.3F.21
• Talk:List_of_rulers_of_Morocco#Morocco_versus_History
• Talk:History_of_Morocco (sections 4 to 16!!)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saadi_Kingdom_of_Fez (note Ecemaml's comment / Ecemaml is an admin in the ES.WP)
• Talk:Muhammad_al-Idrisi#Muslim_vs._Morroco
• User_talk:FayssalF/Archive_K#User:Bokpasa

This previous case shows the same thing again:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#User:Bokpasa_tendious_editing_and_personal_attacks

Note that he was indefinitely blocked on ES.WP and FR.WP for the same reasons on the same articles ([75] & [76]), and already blocked two time on En.WP for (again) the same reasons ([77])

And at last the archives of his own talk page: [78] [79] [80]

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

Regards,

) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

•  Done Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU has, to date, taken this dispute to not two but three articles. At location one,

diaper fetish, I decided to let WLU show what he would do if I didn't hold him in check. I think the deleted text "Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilia" was reasonably well-supported by section "302.81 Fetishism" in the DSM (pgs 569-570 in 4TR).[95]

. The RSN debate was only about 302.83, a separate section.

This is WLU's second attempt to remove details (specific page numbers) from the first article[96]. In the first, he didn't question the DSM's quality as a source. Notably, the only "edit war" WLU succeeded in picking there and then was with a bot.[97]

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

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

 Dealt with what I could from an Administrators point of view. Two pages protected, going to warn both users about edit warring, and they can take it to

(t) (e)

14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the page doesn't deal with the central issue -

verify

the text it was attached to in any of the pages it was used.

I will happily take any suggestions on how to resolve this; the central issues that a source is being mis-used across multiple pages and edit-warred to keep it in place. What should I do? Protecting the page doesn't resolve this, and the last time the page was protected, it was protected with the DSM still being inappropriately cited for three days.

_complex

14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WLU should consider constructively joining the discussions that followed from the third opinion request, at Talk:Paraphilic_infantilism. He's now at 3RR at a second[98][99][100] of the of the three locations.

Of course, he and I differ about what the central issue is: He was at 3RR in the first location BEFORE questioning DSM as a source. Those edits were to all obscure page references[101][102][103]. BitterGrey (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Initially my edits were to collapse references to DSM pages from three different page ranges (568, 569-70 and 572-3) into a single citation to the entire chapter (pages 535-582 [104]). The dispute became so pointless and acrimonious that I simply edited elsewhere for 4 months. My next edit along these lines again compacted the references to the DSM to a single one with the <ref name = > tags, covering a six page range (568-73) since Bittergrey thought citing the entire chapter was excessive [105]. I also did some citegnoming involving the {{

verify the text they accompanied (discussed here). Accordingly, I spent several edits removing the references [106]. My interpretation was subsequently supported with a clear consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard (see my initial ANI post, or the entire RSN section [107]). Since the DSM was used inappropriately in two further pages, I removed and adjusted on those pages as well - diaper fetishism and list of paraphilias

.

The DSM clearly does not support the text it accompanied. It was clearly misused on three pages. My actions are clearly in line with

_complex

17:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, when the discussion at RS/N

) 18:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My request for a third opinion was made at 15:12, 10 August 2011, BEFORE WLU's RSN request at 11:19, 11 August 2011. (I chose WP:3O because WLU had expressed a preference for it at the time[109].) However I have to agree with FuFoFuEd that forumshopping did occur. We merely disagree about who was doing it. I had previously respected FuFoFuEd for not claiming to know everything, and was optimistic about his potential neutrality. Well, I _was_. BitterGrey (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Since the RSN and 3O requests are, as I have said, totally separate issues, the timing is irrelevant. The 3O request was not about whether the DSM was appropriately cited. Once it became clear that the DSM was being misused, the sole issue the 3O had to resolve was the use of {{

_complex

19:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

From the WP:30 request:"...there is an editor seeking to reduce the specificity of the citations(eg. [110]). DSM is dry reading and it seems worthwhile to point people to the relevant page(s) instead of making them wade through the whole section..." Seems quite clearly to have been about the DSM citations. BitterGrey (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I thought we were making some progress at Talk:Paraphilic infantilism. Anyway, same problem as reported for Paraphilic infantilism and the use of the DSM exists for Diaper fetishism. That is that the source does not support the content at present. FiachraByrne (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To expand on FiachraByrne's comment, I'd like to point out that I have let WLU make whatever edits he wishes to Diaper fetishism, and he has[111]. Last I checked, the previous DSM citation to pages relevant to fetishism and general points regarding the paraphilias was replaced with a citation to just the one page defining infantilism, as a subcategory of masochism. According to the DSM, masochism and fetishism are separate paraphilias. Again, the present version FiachraByrne wrote about is WLU's version. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In regard to the DSM, that page looks fine now. FiachraByrne (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

To clarify this [112] is the version of the article Diaper fetishism where the DSM was mis-attributed. As Bittergrey suggests, WLU fixed those citations. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me what just happened? Between 4:36 and 8:43 Aug 16, the page went from having a "problem...the source does not support the content at present" to "fine now", but there were no edits to the page[113]. To keep FiachraByrne from putting words in my mouth, I assert that the citations were correct BEFORE they were modified by WLU, and now are not correct. Why shouldn't a fetishism article cite the fetishism section? It did before and now does not.

I agree with the 'contradict' tag that FuFoFuEd has added to the "fine now" page. BitterGrey (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As

Diaper Fetishism page. As we've established, WLU had in fact already resolved any problem with the use of the DSM on that page, at least from my perspective, and I was in error to have presumed that the page had remained unchanged from the last time I had looked at it (which would have been some time just before 14:38 on the 14 August). As soon as I realised that the page was in fact rectified I posted that information here, but I guess other editors were already aware of that. As to putting words into Bittergrey's mouth I'm not aware of any occasion where I've done this. FiachraByrne (talk

) 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Bittergrey's contention "that the citations" in the Diaper Fetishism article "were correct BEFORE they were modifed by WLU, and now are not correct" ....(I'm afraid I've also had to post this on the RSN page) ...

Just to clarify, here we can see the Diaper fetishism page prior to WLU’s edits. The DSM IV-TR was then used to support the following statements in that article:

1. Diaper fetishism, "Nappy fetishism" or Diaperism, is a paraphilia in which a person feels a desire to wear or use diapers. This is normally not due to any medical need whatsoever

The DSM does not mention Diaper fetishism although it does of course discuss fetishism. It is undoubtedly supportable that Diaper fetishism is a fetish and a paraphilia but the DSM IV-TR does not provide that support. Nor does the DSM describe diaper fetishism in any way or state that the wearing of diapers in such an instance does not stem from medical need.

2. Diaper or nappy fetishism is differentiated from paraphilic infantilism (sometimes simply called infantilism) in that those who engage in infantilism and fantasize about being regressed to an infant or small child state (a form of role-playing) do not involve in sexual activity as such. While in a (temporarily and intentionally induced) state of regression, this fulfils an emotional need that may result from very early childhood experiences. Pure diaper fetishism, on the other hand, refers strictly to the practice of wearing diapers for emotional or sexual gratification, although there is a spectrum of practice between the two. The popular term for a diaper or nappy fetishists is diaper lover, or simply DL. Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias

The only source for this series of statements was the DSM IV-TR. The DSM IV-TR does not mention diaper fetishism. It does not distinguish it from paraphilic infantilism. It does not discuss infantilism in terms of regression or state that it does not involve sexual activity as such. It does not say that this temporary state of regression fulfils an emotional need or that this emotional need is derived from an experience in early childhood. It does not define diaper fetishism. It does not state that there is a spectrum of practices between infantilism and diaper fetishism. It does not mention Diaper Lover. It does not state that diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism (a tautology in any case) or identify it as a paraphilia. To a greater or lesser degree, other sources would have supported most of these statements. Then, perhaps, reference to the DSM may have been appropriate if one was to make a general statement about fetishism. But the way this text is constructed one would presume that the DSM recognised diaper fetishism as a specific paraphilia and engaged in a long discourse about it. Thus, the use of this source was misleading.

3. Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children.

It is true that the DSM IV-TR does not seek to link fetishism to paedophilia but that is different to the statement above.

4. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism.

As above, the DSM IV-TR does not support this contention. Other sources may although there are a small number of cases of co-occurrence. Another source, Malitz, was cited in support of this statement, however.

5. Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention.

The DSM IV-TR does not use the phrase ‘diaper-related paraphilias’ or any approximation of this and it does not discuss a differing focus of attention amongst those with the diaper-related paraphilias.

6. Some are aroused from "wetting" (Urination) their diapers, or, to a lesser extent,

There is no such statement in the DSM IV-TR. It could be supported by other sources.

7 Some do not use the diapers at all, for arousal, or bladder and bowel movements.

This statement was supported by another source (Malitz) but the DSM IV-TR makes no such statement. The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR. Urophilia and coprophilia are listed in the DSM IV-TR as examples of 302.9 Paraphilias Not Otherwise Specified, but not in such a way as to support the above statements.

FiachraByrne (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor point - the DSM does mention diapers on page 572, within the context of sexual masochism - "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ('infantilism')." As far as I can tell that is the sole mention of both infantilism and diapers. Other sources do identify infantilism as something associated with masochism but as discussed above and elsewhere, the DSM does not.

23:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for checking. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably won't have time to address all of FiachraByrne's claims, but will touch on a few to show that they are as throughly unchecked as her previous claim about the article[116], which disappeared suddenly after it became clear that she could not blame it on me. It reminds me of WLU's accusation "Bittergrey's same misuse and mis-citation is indeed now appearing at diaper fetishism and the list of paraphilias page."[117] This ended when I pointed out that the ref to the DSM at list of paraphilias was added in 2008 by someone who was now arguing against the DSM[118]. It is great to be addressing this issue in a forum that won't be so easily votestacked or swayed by spammy shouting.

"Diaper fetishism is a type of sexual fetishism, which is one of many paraphilias."

• Sexual fetishism is specified because fetishism refers to religious or magical artifacts.
• pg 569-570 (302.81 Fetishism) A list of items "among the more common" fetish items is given. The only exclusions listed are female clothing (in the case of cross-dressing) and masturbatory aids such as vibrators.
• pg 566 (Paraphilias) "Paraphilias include...Exhibitionism (...), Fetishism (use of nonliving objects), ...

Thus, with few exceptions a <whatever odd item> fetish is a sexual fetish, and (sexual) fetishism is a paraphilia.

"Those with diaper-related paraphilias differ widely in their focus of attention."

• pg 569 (in the section differential diagnosis) "The individual paraphilias can be distinguished based on the characteristic paraphilic focus."
• pg 569 (302.81 Fetishism) "The focus in Fetishism involves use of nonliving objects (the "fetish")."
• pg 572 (302.83 Masochism) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and cloted in diapers ("infantilism").
• It seems relatively clear that diaper fetishism and infantilism are diaper-related, and per the DSM, they do differ in their focus. Also per the DSM, they are both paraphilias.

"Pedophilia is a psychological disorder independent from diaper fetishism."

• Pgs 568-569 define fetishism, 302.81. Pgs 571-572 define pedophilia, 302.2. They are separate paraphilias. Yes, they are not mutually exclusive, but this text being supported doesn't say that.

"Diaper fetishism does not include a sexual preference for children."

The symptoms for fetishism are detailed on page 568 of DSM 4TR. A sexual preference for children is clearly not among them.

By the way, if anyone still thinks this is about the DSM, they should note that all the pages that were relevant to fetishism or paraphilias in general have been removed from the

diaper fetish article by WLU. It now only cites the page 572, on masochism. Within the confines of AGF, this doesn't make any sense.BitterGrey (talk

) 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll skip the rest of the details, and get to the main point: We have a set of people trying to push their position on the DSM, without even having done a careful reading of it.

• "I've read them all [pg 572 and other pages of the DSM], paraphilic infantilism doesn't appear." WLU[119] after hitting 3RR to modify DSM citations en masse to make them harder to check.
• "The word diapers does not appear in the DSM IV-TR." FiachraByrne[120], in grandiose but flawed presentation posted to both ANI and RSN, and after seven thousand words of discussion at RSN about the paraphilic infantilism definition on page 572.
• DSM 4TR pg 572 (302.83 Masochism, in the Paraphilias section) "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer... The individual may have a desire to be treated as helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism").

One of the things that makes the DSM a great reference is that it is in most libraries. You don't have to depend on what people like this say - you can check it for yourself. BitterGrey (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

It's not your talkpage, it's Wikipedia's, and you may not remove the ISP tag; it's one of the few things you can't remove from a user talkpage. I note that this was explained to you on the talkpage. WWGB and Favonian are not sockpuppets, and you're not being oppressed. Acroterion (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Is your user page yours or wikipedias? I bought a static IP from my ISP, that's how I choose to identify myself. Your response is scornful. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 02:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read

WP:BLANKING? Tiderolls

02:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@108.132.92.8: If this bothers you, you can make it go away if you

userpage. As an unregisterred editor, control over your userpage is something you have less of. It is part of the tradeoff you get for not registering. You are free to edit Wikipedia articles while not registerred, but other things which come with registerring an account (including a watchlist, the ability to maintain your own userspace, the ability to create new articles, etc.) are unavailible to you. Again, no one says that you have to register to edit articles. But you shouldn't complain about not getting access to the other rights of a registerred user if you don't choose to register. --Jayron32

03:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the consequences of allowing unregistered editing is that the point of origin of unregistered edits is associated with the IP in the history. Wikipedia's talkpages are associated with the IP or a registered account as a consequence of the attribution required by the Creative Commons copyright. The content of those or any other WP page is governed by Wikipedia policy and community consensus: that includes registered users' talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

It seems to me a close call as to whether

WP:RESTRICT and look him up. PhGustaf (talk

) 05:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I find the repeat reports of disruption disturbing, but as I noted before, we should not be stretching community sanctions every which way to cover other disruption. If the community wants to extend the sanction the community can write up a larger topic :ban and !vote on it.

Claudio - I would like to urge you to consider if you're doing something wrong in how you are engaging here on Wikipedia. You seem to be walking down a path that eventually leads to exhausting the community's patience, and an overall ban. I think you should reflect on how you're working here and consider alternate approaches that don't push quite so many buttons.

That said, I don't see anything I am going to action right now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Claudio: I have not been involved with the Eugenics in the United States article, and ceased editing the Planned Parenthood article after being informed of the sanctions placed there. Several editors involved worked towards and gained a consensus on the PP article regarding the alleged eugenics link, despite tendentious editing by yourself. The problem is that after the expiry of your block, the same tendentious pattern of editing has continued on Eugenics in the United States, with the exact same subject matter that agreement was formed upon on Planned Parenthood (specifically this). There is a continued demonstrated effort upon your part to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way, despite mass consensus not to do so. The results of a RFC on the topic at Talk:Planned Parenthood had many non-involved editors plainly stating they thought linking the two was inappropriate.

Going through the exact same arguments over sources that you put forth on Talk:Planned Parenthood to include your point of view on the matter is tendentious in the extreme. I, not sure how else to proceed, brought it here for cooler heads to review your behavior, lest I am misreading it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think re-interpreting the editing restrictions to include eugenics is slightly absurd, but it does seem appropriate that we should consider new community sanctions to also include eugenics topics.  - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 02:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

As an example let us consider the diff mentioned above. Falcon8765 is arguing about the content that he (dis)quilifies as tendentious and an attempt from my part "to link Margaret Sanger with the eugenics movement in a negative way". That could be a content dispute but it should not be resolved here in the ANI with an attempt to ban the opposite editor, or am I wrong?. Meanwhile the cited content was removed from

WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, and I did NOT restore this content again. Nevertheless, last to mention that the alleged tendentious content is based on an article written by Margaret Sanger self. It was taken from this source (p.11) provided by Metallunchbox. The quoted expressions there used were exactly the same used by Sanger self. If Falcon finds that Sanger is connected to eugenics in a negative or a positive or a tendentious way, it is a Falcon's conclusion but it is nothing that I argued nor published; the very same diff provided by Falcon is an evidence. -- ClaudioSantos¿?

04:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither involved in the dispute at Eugenics in the United States, nor will I become involved. I have not suggested you be banned either. The content itself isn't the main problem, as has been stated. Your behavior on Planned Parenthood exhausted the patience of the editors attempting to work with you, and after that has been resolved, you are trying to start a dispute over the same content on the eugenics article too. I don't think it unreasonable to find this behavior frustrating and inappropriate. If another editor besides yourself thinks I am in the wrong, I will be happy to drop this and let you continue your quest. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is not a dispute at Eugenics in the United States. The article stands still. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ClaudioSantos here, the articles are relatively stable now and while there was the beginnings of an edit war, he chose not to pursue it beyond a few reverts. It is likely that this discussion had some effect on his editing behavior. I suggest we give him a pass for now and all of us can consider this discussion to be a serious warning to him that continued tendentious editing on this topic will likely result in sanctions.  - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that 9 of the 15 contributions that ClaudioSantos has made in this discussion have been revoked by Oversight. I assume these things happen for a good reason but is there something that we should know about those edits? Seems kind of strange to me. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 08:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• 146.179.213.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP has been been disrupting

) 09:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. Mathsci (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

) because, well, he has Twinkle and he's just gonna use it, gosh darn it!

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

It's not possible any more. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two weeks for copyright violations before I saw this thread. If an extension of his block to indef is agreed upon, I have no problem, as I believe this user is too incompetent to edit on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(

WP:COMPETENCE applies here. —KuyaBriBri^Talk

17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Block review

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

The block looks good to me. We are choosing to link to a website, http://fsi-language-courses.org, which offers the FSI language courses for download and asserts them to be in the public domain. This would be our default assumption anyway for work of the US government. The IP seems to be unhappy with us considering them to be in the public domain. Maybe he should take that up with the owner of fsi-language-courses.org. I checked the PDF of one of the language manuals that the site provides for download. It says it is published by the State Department and it carries no copyright notice. EdJohnston (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The one caveat to that is a statement in one of the scanned manuals: "The DLIFLC may not have full rights to the materials it produces." The DLI, and the government in general, doesn't always indicate or acknowledge from whence a particular work originated. Still, if FSI Language Courses is asserting public domain due to government publication, it would likely be they who would receive the heavy end of the hammer if a copyright-infringement case were initiated regarding the DLI books and/or tapes. (Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Hi,

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

I went back to delete it myself, but

User:Atomician had already done so.

Perhaps an admin can delete the edit if he has time? Best,

 Done It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 12:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism on "Pallet" article

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Spam removed and spammer blocked. Thanks for reporting this. You should be able to use the "undo" function from the article history page to remove such edits. Acroterion (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

An admin killed him with a forklift. –MuZemike 16:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ziiing.

talk

) 16:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That must have left someone feeling a bit flat. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will transport them away...

talk

) 16:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

DEEP HURTING. Syrthiss (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Circuit dreamer and his disruptive editing

Community editing restrictions are approved by consensus as follows: 1.Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing all electronics articles, broadly construed 2. Circuit Dreamer is banned from editing talk pages associated with above. There is not consensus that the mentorship would be useful or constructive under the circumstances. The community (or Arbcom) can revisit a mentorship if editing in other areas proves unproblematic. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:19, 17 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.

---

disruptive editing

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

I am continually running into the well-intentioned

WP:SYNTHESIS of User:Circuit dreamer

and his lack of sources. He edits many articles in the area of electronics. Although he has some knowledge in the area, he often exceeds his expertise and writes material that is seriously flawed. His behavior has gone on for years.

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

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

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

User:Dicklyon sums up the experience of dealing with Circuit dreamer:[130]

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

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

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

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

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

The problem has been going on for years.

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

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

History of past problems

ANI archive Circuit dreamer (then User:Circuit-fantasist) brought an action against User:Zen-in on 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) ANI/Archive570; The action concerned Zen-in's reverting CD's edits to the articles: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance User:Ecoman24 proposed some compromises. CD (19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)) promised the following: I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions. I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense. He has been reminded of these promises: User talk:Circuit dreamer#A Reminder Also in that dispute, Zen-in has agreed not to revert CD. The relationship between CD and Zen-in is clearly strained. Talk:Negative resistance#Edits to the lead CD made this edit.[131] User:Oli Filth reverted and started the thread on the talk page. Oli Filth claimed the addition was so wrong it was not worth editing. CD defended his addition as starting point, but Oli Filth demanded reliable sources for it. CD developed his own classification of negative resistance and wanted to find sources for it later: Let's first build the classification; then we can find sources that second it (if there is such a need). Here is my proposal. Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 17:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC) User:Spinningspark told him it has to work the other way around: It is completely the other way round, find sources first and then write from the sources. Talk:Negative resistance#About the last major edits CD inserted some material including some figures in Negative resistance some time ago, but his edits were removed for lack of consensus. After waiting some time, CD reinserted his figures and added new text. Around 2 July, 2011, SpinningSpark asked CD to self revert. Support from User:Johnuniq, User:Glrx, User:Zen-in, and User:Steve Quinn. CD found no support. CD did not revert his edits. (Steve Quinn recently backed them out.) Electronic oscillator Back in January 2011, CD added new material to Electronic oscillator [132] I reverted the edit.[133] CD restored.[134] I reverted [135]; edit summary asked him to gain a consensus CD restored. [136]; edit summary spoke of "great truths" I reverted. [137]; edit summary specified unsourced material There was a discussion at Talk:Electronic oscillator#Relaxation versus LC oscillations CD was using his thinking about relaxation oscillators. "I have been asking myself many times what the word "relaxation" means in this context." I opposed the material for lack of sources. WP:OR . CD then offered his revelations about LC and relaxation oscillators I opposed the addition of the material based on WP:OR . CD commented: As usual, the same idle talk again... Have you written [sic] my detailed explanations and examples in italic? Can you make (at least one) reasonable comment about the topic? Do you understand something from the written at all? And where have you seen some references to a wikibook material? Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 18:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Skip forward to July in the same article. CD likes to use negative resistance interpretations. CD has been editing the negative resistance article. CD edits the Electronic oscillator article.diff The article is using both positive feedback and negative resistance. Using both approaches is confusing and unneeded. I edit out the negative resistance aspect. Positive feedback is common explanation of LC oscillator. Negative resistance is uncommon explanation. [138] CD gives a bizarre negative feedback turns into positive feedback at resonance explanation.[139] I revert [140] CD inserts "Absolute" negative resistance (his terminology) [141] The talk page discussion about the above edits is Talk:Electronic oscillator#Negative resistance LC oscillator. CD states his philosophy; it includes sharing his "insights about circuits" ... "in Wikipedia because of its highest Google rank." I pointed out that his insights were WP:OR . User:Chetvorno agreed with me. I revert using Chetvorno as a WP:3O to revert[142] Baker clamp Back in April 2011, User:Dicklyon and I searched for sources the Baker clamp. The term is used loosely, and we wanted some solid sources to identify what circuit configurations were properly Baker clamps. See Talk:Baker clamp#What is called a Baker clamp? Dicklyon then took out some unsourced tangents in the Baker clamp article.[143] CD restored the tangent for TTL.[144] I reverted.[145] The actions were discussed at Talk:Baker clamp#Unsourced tangents. CD wanted the tangents restored even though he knew there were no sources: We will certainly not find sources making these connections but this does not mean that we should not use them to explain to visitors odd circuit phenomena and odd circuits implementing them! These associations serve as "bridges" between apparently different circuit solutions. If it is not so clear, I can explain the written in more details! Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 04:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Neon lamp CD and I clashed again at Talk:Neon lamp#Why the neon lamp is a negative resistor and how it behaves when voltage driven. CD made several edits to the article diffs These edits used his terminology for negative resistance, for example S-shaped curve. His edits claimed the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge involved an avalanche. Gas discharges are nontrivial. There are at least 7 distinct discharge modes. The Townsend discharge is already an avalanche. Electrons are accelerated in a field, collide with molecules, and kick free other electrons in a cascade. It is a simple finite gain determined by the field and the path length; there is no feedback. The glow discharge (normal glow) is a breakdown. It is a positive feedback phenomena: each electron that leaves the cathode can ultimately causes >1 additional electrons to leave the cathode. Consequently, an arbitrary number of electrons become available. Sources vary about the transition from Townsend discharge to glow discharge. Some term the transition a "subnormal glow". It is clear that the distribution of ions is different between the Townsend discharge and the glow discharge. Many sources describe a neon tube in the saturation discharge (Geiger counter mode) and Townsend discharge conditions. Many sources describe a neon tube in the normal glow condition. It takes time for heavy positive ions to move. These slow ions must reorganize for a normal glow. During normal glow, there are distinct regions such as the cathode fall and the positive column. Most sources ignore the details and characterize the transition as a state change (ie, breakdown). The IV (current and voltage) characteristic may be graphed as a discontinous jump. Some sources refer to the transition as unstable. A few sources refer to it as a negative resistance region. (GE, for example, says it may be a negative resistance or unstable.) There are exotic sources that attempt to map the instability of the subnormal glow characteristics of a gas discharge. The IV characteristic may not be single valued. There are operating regions where the IV characteristic is not static but rather oscillates. I removed the reference to negative resistance, the S-shaped jargon, and confused claims. [146] CD did not revert, but did open discussion on the talk page (the link above). Those edits were his OR. He reinserted his diagrams. His diagrams don't have the load line found in the usual sources (such as GE), but they have his own terminology of "instant resistance". I objected to his OR and SYNTHESIS. Wien bridge oscillator The latest episode is in Wien bridge oscillator. There were discussions on the article talk page about his original research. Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Some intuitive explanations; CD copied the material from an earlier discussion at Electronic oscillator. CD claims the material is difficult: I will add to this discussion all RC oscillators (e.g., Wien bridge) that are a big challenge for human imagination. Why? Just because it is too hard for a mere mortal:) to imagine how the humble RC circuit can produce sine wave, how it can act as a "resonator" at all. Three years ago I managed to reveal how the more sophisticated LC circuit does this magic. Despite claims of being a challenge for a mere mortal, CD offers no sources. Zen-in objected to his characterizations CD claims he searched for and found the truth; he wants help to find more truth [147] I stated his OR was inappropriate. [148] Starting 29 July 2011: CD introduces three unsourced views of how the Wien bridge oscillator works. There are factual errors. He does not understand the distinction between avalanche and feedback. CD does add one source: a TI application note by Mancini and Palmer. CD does not understand the application note. He uses a quotation, but the quotation is out of context. His text does not describe any limiting process; the TI AN addressed the output voltage running into the rails. I removed CD's edits (2 August) diff and started editing the article CD reverted. diff I reverted diff claiming Zen-in as WP:3O I started talk page thread Talk:Wien bridge oscillator#Revert of new material CD reverted diff I cannot continue to revert Circuit dreamer because it will appear that I'm in a continual and global edit war with him. Zen-in cannot support my reverts because Zen-in has agreed to never revert CD's edits. I marked CD's added sections as disputed. I open WP:NORN#Wien bridge oscillator The discussion at NORN makes it clear that CD is providing his views. CD is asked for sources, but CD states: IMO the main problem is that my mind is arranged in such a way that I manage to see, extract, generalize and explain easily basic circuit ideas. This affords an opportunity to me of reducing the complex circuit solutions to extremely simple and comprehensible equivalent electrical circuits that do not need citing ("...it would be comic to cite them"). Maybe, this is a unique mental ability since I cannot find sources revealing circuit ideas in such a way; thus the problem with citing. User:Dmcq states It does look like the idea of verifiability and no original research rather than promoting ones own POV has not quite caught on here despite repeated attempts. Not only is CD's material unsourced, it is seriously wrong. CD does not understand how oscillators work. User:Constant314 is continuing to engage CD at Talk:Wien bridge oscillator, but CD continues to show a failed understanding of basic oscillators. CD continues to believe the lamp resistance "must vary (quickly) as well in a response to voltage variations for a more principal reason - just to obtain sine oscillations". Sources such as Meacham (1938), Bauer (1949), and Strauss (1970) use the lamp to nearly balance the bridge; the sources expect the lamp resistance to vary slowly; the sources do not use the lamp to obtain the sine wave. CD does not understand the material, yet he believes he is competent to describe the material to others without the benefit of sources. WikiProject electronics edit war discussion about Circuit dreamer Others have had WP:OR problems with CD.

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

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

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

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

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

SpinningSpark 06:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

arbitrary break for length

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

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

or

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

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

If you're requesting other community members to spend more energy on this, at least have the decency to read through the, not unreasonably large amount, of discussion here and preceding the AN/I report. You're also pulling a bit of a strawman here. The main problem is that CD refuse to abide by

WP:OR. He doesn't really have a choice of agreeing to this or not, he simply has to. So far he refuses. The consequence of this is that cannot continue to be a part of this community. No amount mentoring or dispute resolution will change this. Only his choice to abide by the five pillars will. —Ruud

18:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now read the

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

18:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Argeeing to "some" editing restrictions and "him beleiving" to be following them really is not sufficient. He actually needs to actually abide by

WP:OR. Until he explicitly agrees to do this (as he has explicitly stated not to be going to do so) and actually does this he cannot continue to edit. —Ruud

19:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. We have difficulty dealing with situations like these, where a seemingly intelligent editor refuses to participate in community norms yet absorbs significant community resources. I know nothing of the scientific subject matter germane to this discussion and am not a participant in the underlying conflict, but after reading some of the background and particularly

this talk page thread it's apparent to me that Circuit dreamer is unable to successfully collaborate in this content area (at a minimum). Normally I would advocate for a user conduct RfC to begin with, but the pattern here seems long and the efforts of other editors to engage with CD seem ongoing and genuine, to little effect. As such I understand the reluctance to run this whole matter through an RfC--perhaps largely for the sake of process--when the problems are already so well documented and long term in nature. A topic ban is a fairly mild step and one which is very much reversible if Circuit dreamer is able to take a different approach to editing. Given that action is clearly needed, a topic ban seems to me to be the best outcome for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

12:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Comment by initial reporter.

I appreciate the reluctance of EyeSerene, the extended defense by SPhilbrick, and Chetvorno's concurrence. An indefinite ban is a big step, and perhaps it is an extraordinary one. For what it's worth, I did do a 3RR in January 2011. See

WP:DE

until recently; I would have reported him sooner. If there had been earlier reports that led to some small sanctions, maybe CD would have corrected his behavior. If CD had persisted, then the current situation would be clearer.

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

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

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

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

Before posting at AN/I, I posted a long response on the Wien bridge oscillator talk page.[149] It has a lot on the failure to use or cite sources and CD's misunderstanding of the oscillator. CD believes a diode-limiter circuit is a Wien bridge oscillator. In my post, I explain that a source, Strauss, distinguishes the limiter circuit from a Wien bridge oscillator.

After posting this thread at AN/I, I notified CD via his talk page at 02:21, 11 August.[150]

Presumably after receiving notice of this AN/I thread, CD replied to my Wien bridge talk post at 15:50, 11 August.[151]

I recommend reading that reply in the context of the current debate (e.g., the 10 points at the top of the thread). Ignore the insult, but consider his position in the context of his informal bio and philosophy. CD does not care about sources. Anything that is obvious to him is true. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. A Google search trumps any reliable source.

Although a topic ban is more extreme than I am comfortable with, its effect of shifting the burden to Circuit dreamer is appropriate.

Glrx (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

A word on mentoring

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

how about a different tack

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

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

How about a really different tack

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

Or is it just fantasy? rdfox 76 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't know that you're dreaming! Your Lord and Master (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Like Wikiversity? –MuZemike 07:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Continuance

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

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

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

On mentoring

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

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

Some likely conditions are:

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

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

It is very generous of you to make this offer. Essentially the same arrangement was tried after the last AN/I, but for a longer period of time. The editors involved in this earlier mentoring effort are very experienced EEs. You might want to read their comments above so you will know what to expect. Zen-in (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I did a quick search earlier and didn't see that earlier deal. (The change of name doesn't help either...). I fear the wording may not have been watertight.

If the community is still favourable, I would still be happy to go with mentoring if clear lines are drawn for the benefit of all concerned, and if it's clear that there are no more second chances.

There is clearly a very persistent problem, but somebody has to do something. I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban - but if the community wants to go down that avenue, I'll happily stand back. Alternatively, people might prefer to take some other DR path. It's good to have more options, though; mentoring is another option on the table. Either mentoring succeeds - delivering a favourable outcome for both Cd and the rest of wikipedia - or it fails and delivers the same topic ban that folk have been pushing for above. bobrayner (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am skeptical that there's consensus here and now for a topic ban. Really? Every member of the community who has previously has dealings with CD and has come to this page has declared in favour of it as far as I can see. Anyway, I am cool with mentoring as long as the mentor is allowed to set strict conditions, intends to so do, and the community agrees that breaches of the mentor's conditions can be followed by admin blocks. I am tempted to list what I think the mentor's conditions should be, but until CD actually agrees to mentoring that is pointless and he has shown no sign either now or in the past that he is willing. SpinningSpark 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There was never a formal arrangement or deal to mentor CD after the 10/09 AN/I. However a few editors did make an effort to work on improving some electronics articles with CD. This Emitter coupled logic talk page documents this effort from 10/09 - 12/09. The goal was to add more inline citations, as can be seen by reading this discussion. Examining the edit history of the ECL page will show continuous edit warring after this. Other editors tried working with CD in the Operational amplifier applications page. This [talk page] is worth reading. There are several cases where CD added material that had no inline citations and that simply appeared to be made up. These edits were reverted by other editors and their reasons for doing this were given. Their intent was to mentor CD and to help him learn how to edit as directed by the AN/I. The result has just been more edit-warring. The credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia's electronics pages has improved in the last 2-3 years but at what cost? Why is it necessary to have continuous edit wars? Zen-in (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have just recently become aware of CD, but I recognize the pattern of this type of editing. There is a continual tendency to opt for promoting and presenting original thought while eshewing reliable sources. Specifically, (as noted in the drop down box above) he prefers to picture how circuits work in his imagination, and relying on that instead of reliable sources. Feedback from others who edit according to Wikipedia standards appears to have no effect. There is a continous wearing down of other editors. I read where editors who were part of this project have left --- Quote: --- [152] "... and it appears that other editors have left the field...".

This editor has already effectively hi-jacked one article [153], [154] before finally being restored to the community. (Also please edit history of that article).

This mentoring is a generous offer. I am sorry to say that I am skeptical that it will work. However, I accept the above terms pending community consensus at this ANI. However, there must be a time where CD accepts responsibility for their own editing behavior. If mentoring is not going to happen then I also support an indefinite topic ban as proposed by SpinningSpark. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

A suggestion for natural resolving of the problem

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

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

The solution. In the very beginning, I would like to say that there is a more natural and painless way of resolving the problem than banning me. I mean that I have to ban myself from Wikipedia editing since this year I have to finish my dissertation about applying this heuristic approach to understanding, presenting and inventing electronic circuits (I have spent five years for Wikipedia and now I have to spare some time to my life work). So, instead the suggested indefinite or topic ban, I agree some kind of suspended ban. I realize that the big problem is my massive blocks of edits. So I promise to refrain from such manner of editing and to keep only more episodic editing. If I do not respect my promise, you may impose some kind of ban to me. The trap. I regret that Grlx had no patience with my last edit about Wien oscillator since it was my last massive initiative for this year. It is interesting that just he was the one who provoked my imagination to begin thinking about how sine oscillations conceive in an RC oscillator and thus I arrived at Wien bridge oscillator: "...I'm not sure that a phase shift oscillator is properly a harmonic oscillator. It generates a sinewave, but I'm not sure that is enough. It does not have a typical resonator... Those ideas fit with one of your comments about relaxation oscillators not having a resonance. Does that mean a phase shift oscillator is a relaxation oscillator? It doesn't have a switch element, but it does have negative feedback..." Reading these decently said words I had the feeling that Grlx showed an interest and curiosity... and he wanted to consider this topic in all frankness... and I began developing the topic... and thus I fell into the trap... The only way to clarify the situation is to say, not to save the truth... the home truth... as it is recorded in the history. Early Wikipedia edits. I joined electronics Wikipedia in 2006 with great enthusiasm. I was noted that Wikipedia articles in this area were formal and theoretic; there had not introductory sections saying what the idea actually was. Thus I came with clear and obvious purpose - to reveal the basic ideas behind circuits by clear and obvious explanations based only on basic electricity and electronics laws, human intuition and common sense. I posed them on talk pages and began waiting for wikipedian response. Alas... there was no response... Then I began creating and filling the missing introductory article sections starting with this unlucky Negative resistance. Then some of the heroes above appear and began pressing me for sources. I tried to explain that such primary explanations cannot be sourced (if I had to cite, I had to place links to Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws) and suggested to discuss these elementary and more than obvious truths... No one heard me... I met awful people - a kind of evil genius that only wanted to remove me (from articles, from talk pages, even from history pages if they could...) One of them, I can cite his name, advised me to stay and to teach students in Sofia where should be my place... Believe me, before joining Wikipedia, I had never seen such people! And what was more surprising for me, imagine they were even tolerated! I have never understood this psychological Wikipedia phenomenon - to tolerate, encourage and even instigate mediocre, vain and sterile people and at the same time, to keep down, to oppress thinking, productive and creative people! I began gradually realizing the sorry truth about this handful of people inhabiting this area - they did not understand circuits; they knew circuits but they did not understand them! What they were and what they are! Wikibooks. Instead to be improved, my edits were brutally removed and I was banished. Then I established Circuit idea and created a lot of circuit stories. But I had a dull time there. I needed hot discussions and two years later, I returned to Wikipedia. I had already accumulated some edit experience and began creating quite pretty articles. Present Wikipedia edits. In the last two years, I revealed, in the introductory article parts, the fundamental ideas behind such legendary circuits as RTL, Diode logic, TTL, ECL, Latch, Gyrator, Schmitt trigger, Multivibrator, Differential amplifier, Operational amplifier (the internal op-amp structure). I created and completely finished Miller theorem and finally, I reorganized and structured the poor present Negative resistance to obtain this unhappy article. I assume personal responsibility to say that all that is written by me in these articles is the very simple, obvious and clear truth about these circuits. It can be immediately seen if only look at the written; it can be immediately verified (if do not believe me, place here my assertion and I will immediately answer to you). It is a truth that can be explained to and will be realized by every ordinary human being. It can be explained (of course by using appropriate analogies, metaphors and relations) even to a curious 6-year boy (Einstein)! This is the power of my intuitive, qualitative explanations; this is the reason to not cite them (only them, not at all). It will be unnatural, comic and absurd to cite every sentence in Wikipedia; to not think, to not express even the elementary thought... this will make normal people laugh... Only people with dried, formal, sterile and damaged minds can do it... will look for and dig up ready-made and cut-and-dried phrases, and will try to assemble an article from them! These people have gone too far respecting Wikipedia policy and have reverting NOR from useful and positive to oppressing and negative thing (like NIC:) You can see remarkable examples of this approach in Wien bridge, at the end of Wien bridge oscillator talk and in the contribution pages of extremely orthodox wikipedians. And yet, it revolves! I would like to say some words to the triad of extremely dogmatic, scholastic and orthodox wikipedians forming this plot against me. The naked truth is that you cannot, do not want and will never accept me; for you I am just not one of you... I am nobody for you... just because I am not a resident of United Kingdom or I do not work at Silicon Valley or I do not teach at Berkeley... This is the sorry reason because of that you hate me and you do your best to banish me forever from Wikipedia... I stay before you as before the Holy Office and I must persuade you that "it revolves" ("there is true negative resistance") to not burn out me... About you. You (the triad and your likes patronized by you) are different but still there is something common connecting you - you do not understand circuits; you know circuits but you do not understand them! You are clever but wicked and underhand... you are evil genius... I prepare an open letter to Jimmy Wales to ask him if this was his idea when he established Wikipedia - (administrators) to stimulate mediocrity, stupidity and meanness, and to stamp creativity? I have 7200 contributions and in each of them I have written something useful, some simple, obvious and clear truth about circuits; please (here I mean the other wikipedians, not the triad), browse through them to see if you have some notion about circuits. Then look at the scanty 650 contributions of this person to see what he has created in Wikipedia through years. You will see... nothing... just nothing. If you have found something, please place it here to see... but I am absolutely sure you will not find anything. Then I ask people patronizing such paradoxical persons, "What do they do in Wikipedia? Why do encourage them to continue behaving in this nonsensical, useless and foolish way? Is this your function in Wikipedia?" I will pose this question in my open letter... (to be continued...) Circuit dreamer (talk, contribs, email) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Oh, Chris, your golden triangle ring is in the mail, just FYI. We didn't forget you, we just had some problems with the jeweler getting the size wrong. Anyway, I think the diatribe above underscores exactly why people are tired of dealing with CD. I personally don't have any prior interactions, and haven't weighed in above in regards to the ban, but I think I'm understanding why so many people support it. -- Atama頭 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we can take that as a pass on the offer of mentoring anyway. SpinningSpark 18:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Well, it was worth a try. The response above has a whole lot of... text but no actual recognition of the problem, despite being given another chance; so I think the best answer may be a topic ban. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Balkans edit warring

Resolved

 – Edit warring parties blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

talk

) 22:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours for edit warring, Alan.Ford.Jn (talk · contribs) blocked 1 week for edit warring unsourced allegations into an article after an ARBMAC warning. IP also given ARBMAC warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

98.210.215.121 on Oakland and San Francisco articles

IP

travel-guide like edits, the user is now engaged in edit-warring, section-blanking with unexplained removal of content, and reverting all good-faith restorations of said unexplained removal. He/she has already been warned on their talk page

. The user is currently on a tear this evening, edit-warring with several editors on the page, as the history page will show [155].--Chimino (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The IP is calling me conflicted and manipulative, supposedly in bed with San Francisco interests writing against the city of Oakland (my home town!)

I don't know what good this noticeboard entry will do, but the person behind the IP is editing from a mistaken understanding of what motivates other editors. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Same pattern on the

WP:AGF but then saw someone else had already done that.[158] The IP also has a history of apparent vandalism.[159]TVC 15 (talk

) 20:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi and Palestinian edits

Palestinian rabbi is still at Afd. Debresser (talk

) 09:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Debresser has removed “Palestine” under an unusual pretence: [160]. Please fix as I do not want to get dragged in to this again. Chesdovi (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

causa sui (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fut, what am I suppose to do? I bring it here precisly beacuse I do not want to be banned! Chesdovi (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Why would I be topic-banned? Chesdovi is the one creating 7-8 "Palestinian" categories (all deleted per Cfd), creating articles like " disruptive editing. Debresser (talk ) 11:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You dont "force" on wiki, you discuss. You should heave learnt that by now. If Deberser does not like my edits he should discuss first, not revert then discuss. Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) As far as I'm concered, I will not edit is this area until the Afd closes. If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages. Chesdovi (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) <reply to previous post, editconflict> And WP:BRD? I remember discussing with you. In the mean time you continued with your edits on other pages. Sorry, but the only way to deal with you is take you to WP:ANI right away, or have you banned. In view of your history, here and elsewhere, the latter seems the correct course of action to me. Debresser (talk ) 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) WP:DRNC. This is different. Chesdovi (talk ) 11:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Please, I do not revert for the sake of reverting. There is a consensus against your edits. Haven't you noticed that yet? Debresser (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC) On what do you base this consensus? Half, if not more people agreed at the Rfc and Cfd that the term is valid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I quote from the closing comment I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces QED. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) That is why I intend to go to DRV in due course. Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Admins, please notice Chesdovi's reply just now "If the new article stays, I will contiune to add it to other pages." He is clearly not willing to abide by WP:BRD, or consensus. No articles used the term "Palestinian rabbi" prior to Chesdovi's edits. Because nobody considers them such. Chesdovi just now stated that he will continue pushing his tendentious editing against consensus. Debresser (talk ) 11:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC) If the article stays, it shows that the term has the consensus needed. Please note that Debrseer's assertion that no articles had used the term before my addtion is false. Chesdovi (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It does not show that you can call other people that. Just because we have an article homosexuals does not mean you can call people that. :) Debresser (talk ) 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC) What it does mean is that if we have an article on a Polish Pope we can like it to Polish Popes. I will repeat that the term was used in numerous articles before I added it. Chesdovi (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC) For the both of you: "where two are fighting, have two guilt." (waar twee vechten, hebben twee schuld). talk 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC) NotBW: What is going to happen to Palestine at Israel ben Moses Najara? Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Nightof the Big Wind. You can't sell generalities here. Nor could you sell them to Dutch marines of Rotterdam, trying to defend their country against Nazi invasion in 1940. I am clearly trying to defend Wikipedia against the massive onslaughts in several namespaces of an editor with such huge POV problems that he is already banned per WP:ARBPIA and his edits are heavily protested as soon as he shows up. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Aha, there is the smokescreen again! Another attempt to defuse the situation by steering it into the wrong way... talk 11:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Huh? Wasn't it you posting some rather irrelevant and annoying generality here? Debresser (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC) It is a fact, my friend. You two are fighting over something, and neither of you is innocent. And I fail to see any relationship between this Palestina/Israel-struggle and the talk 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Forget about it. Not important here. If you like, remind me on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Debresser had consistantly denied it has anything to do with the I/P conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I'm beginning to think your edits here and there stem from the same POV. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC) I ask Debresser to please make sense. He has consistently used each and every opportunity to publicise my previous block and bans. Yet he doesn’t seem to know what they were for! (They were seen by others as being POV in favour of pro-Israeli interests.) He cannot have it both ways. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough of this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For me it is quite simple. If Palestinian rabbis is kept, that is a green light to add it to all Palestinian rabbi articles. Debresser talks of consensus, but there are only two votes for delete at Afd? Chesdovi (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said before. You can't just call people "homosexual" just because we have such an article. You'll need something better. I have brought you specific reasons in most of the editsummaries why this link is inappropriate. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Like

BWilkins, I support a topic ban and interaction ban. Both of these editors are nice people, but they cannot seem to work together productively, particularly with respect to Palestine/the Land of Israel. I oppose a broader topic ban on articles related to Judaism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

17:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I really am shocked that anybody would consider me for a topic-ban, when I am trying to defend consensus-editing here. Debresser (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that your seeming addiction to getting baited into arguing with him makes it difficult to outsiders to distinguish between you. This is compounded by the number of times you've gone to ANI despite the result being the same (i.e. nothing) every single time. If you want to settle this without a topic ban, avoid engaging with Chesdovi directly entirely and instead engage with other editors either through the WikiProjects or RfC. I personally agree with what I've seen of your position on the content disputes but that's no excuse for the ridiculou drama generated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you seem to understand where I am coming from. I feel bullied by WP:ANI trying to punish me for defending the system from attacks by a disruptive editor. This is the opposite of the welcome I think I receive. Things might have developed different if WP:ANI would have shown some basic insight from the beginning, when the problem first arose. Something like "if a guy comes up with something new and people don't like it, perhaps we should not let him go on with it until he can show consensus". It surprised me that nobody came up with this simple though rather brilliant idea. Excuse the sarcasm, but I really was surprised when that happened.

In addition, I want to post a question. Since when is "creating drama on WP:ANI" sufficient reason for a topic-ban or block? If admins here see no reason to take action, they should just close a thread or refer it elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI is not a dispute resolution mechanism. This applies the first time you take something to ANI and the 99th time you take it to ANI. Continuing to take things which ANI cannot or will not deal with to ANI, or exacerbating the same by constantly replying to them, disrupts the project and makes admins look for the simplest root cause, which in this case is a content dispute between you and Chesdovi. The simplest solution (which is typically the first one that comes to mind) is to simply eliminate that interaction. When it comes to that point, the onus is on you to explain why that isn't optimal. It has most certainly come to that point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 00:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I come here to make sure Chesdovi stops. Because he will not listen to anything else. And he does stop when I post here. There is another solution, which is a topic-ban for Chesdovi, even only for article namespace. That would eliminate the whole problem at its source. Because the source of the problem is Chesdovi. Any "simplest solution" need not involve me. Debresser (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, Chris Cunningham, when you said "roughly the dozenth occasion", you were exaggerating by a factor of 2. Debresser (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• My experience with both of these two is that if you touch anything they are discussing with a 10-foot pole whichever you disagree with will go on a full-scale attack claiming you are an uniformed person and so on. They spend son much time going after eachother that few other people want to join in the general fight. That is why issues they bring up do not get resolved, they scare off the other editors who do not want to get nasty statements on their talk pages. I would say that they both could do a lot better at assuming good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hang on. Before we rush to deliver mutual topic bans, I think there's room to try and resolve this without sanctions. It'll be very unfortunate for the Judaism topic area should both these editors get topic banned over this.
  Rabbis of the Land of Israel and that be the end of it?—Biosketch (talk
  ) 07:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some compromise can be worked out. Likewise on the Afd of Palestinian rabbis there have been similar proposals. The problem as I see it, is that Chesdovi keeps trying to come at it every now and again from a new angle, and the whole thing starts anew. Debresser (talk) 07:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic and interaction bans per Bwilkins. They should still be allowed to file WP:AE reports against each other if they wish, because the format there is much less prone to drowning independent admins in endless discussion between the parties, and calling something as being from Israel vs. being from Palestine amply qualifies as a valid topic area at AE. FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that it’s unfortunate that people support bans over a content dispute. I do not understand why either of us should be penalised here:

FACT 1: There were originally numerous pages with the term “Palestinian Rabbi”

FACT 2: I added the term to more pages, basing it o n the fact that the current majority at the Afd support the term’s usage.

Debreser reports me for doing so, and I report that Debresser removed the word Palestine, and people want us blocked for that? I call that stifling editing because people can’t be bothered to sort out sticky subjects and prefer to just brush it under the carpet…. Is that the wiki way? Chesdovi (talk) 10:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Stop stirring the pot Debresser. I want answers, not having to be bullied into accepting what you feel is correct. If you stifle discussion as you have on so many occasions, we will not get anywhere. You answers so far are absolutely unsubstantiated. I would prefer if other users would kindly take up a more credible discussion with me to resolve this. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I hope people look at what both of you have done at

WT:JUDAISM. Another good reason for an interaction ban and a topic ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

03:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, if I took the wrong course of action, please advise how I should go about this instead of recommending bans which will not resolve anything. This will not just sort itself out. Do you think Dwellers suggestion of Mediation is good? Chesdovi (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi. You may start by recognising that the word "Palestinian" is a loaded word, which you should try to use as little as possible. When adding it to more then a few articles (inside the article or inside a category) you should first establish clear consensus. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and how do I go about getting that elusive "consensus"?

"By posting at Wikiproject Judaism for the views of other experienced editors"

I have done so in the past, but nobody seemed bothered to respond.

"You saw what happened at the RfC with all those "heavy protests"

But they only came after those categories had been created. I.e. One has to create facts first to the required response to gain consensus. It will not come any other way. One cannot "first establish clear consensus."

"This can't be right"

Yes it is. I am within my right to create Paalestinian rabbis and link as many pages to it as I want. If there is a reaction, then discussion can start.

"Should I have reverted your changes?"

Ideally not. You should have rather gone to the talk page to resolve the dispute.

"I did originally, but you just carried on with your edits."

The discussion had not reached any acceptable conclusion before you started reverting over 150 of my edits.

"We have to keep the status quo."

So stop editing wikipedia then. Chesdovi (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Malik, independent from Chesdovi I too am surprised by your support of a topic-ban. Because the issue of the proper use of the "Palestinian" needs to be solved sooner or later. And also because both of us contribute in many positive ways to Judaism-related articles. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but please see User_talk:Chesdovi#Palestinian that Chesdovi's point of view (as in POV) as to the meaning of the word "Palestinian" is not normative and not acceptable on Wikipedia. He denies that the word Palestinian has more than one meaning (actually three). An editor with such an opinion can not be allowed to edit within this topic. Debresser (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

A new article Market America was created recently by a SPA (User:Mjchipol) - I ran into it after updating its categories and was immediately "warned" on my talk page that he owned the article and check with him before editing it: [161] I responded with a link to

WP:OWN. I then went to engage the user on his talk page, however he put in redirects from both his user page and talk page to the article: Old revision of User:Mjchipol, Old revision of User Talk:Mjchipol

. After fixing those, I placed the correct OWN warning on his page, and tagged the article page with a COI tag. Mjchipol responded to the tag on the article talk page asking how he could make the article seem less promotional "so it doesn't sound like I'm advertising for the company." [162]. I responded asking if he had a COI [163]. He responded he did not. [164]. I took him on good faith and removed the COI tag and added the {{Criticism section}} tag to the controversy section, and asked that he work on integrating the controversies into the main text in the appropriate areas.

An hour or so ago, an anon IP came by and appears to have outed the identity of Mjchipol and confirms there is a COI. I won't post the details here in case an admin needs to take action on the outing: [165]  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I don't propose the article be deleted, as there is some good content there worth keeping. It just needs to be NPOV-afied.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 19:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the guy outed himself by choosing to use the same name as his other publicly accessible accounts, very close to his real name; is it really outing him to notice that, esp. when he's making up silly stories instead of admitting COI? Maybe so. Do we have a good alternative process for dealing with such COI problems? Dicklyon (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think it's an outing problem, user was clear enough about his relation to the company. Just delete the IP's remarks if they seem out of place, and see if you can keep on working with the editor. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the user lied that he had a COI - this was kind of a dual-purpose AN/I. One a COI SPA who created an article of the company he works for, and then lied that he was a student doing this for a project and he had no COI. Then, we have the outing by the IP address. Although, I agree the outing isn't much of an outing with such an obvious username issue. Looking through Mjchipol's twitter stream, he even tweeted to get his followers to Google + 1 his new wikipedia article he created and he linked to the Market America article.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Warning got to final warning and user is still edit warring comments off the article talk page. I reported to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism, however they removed it since there was a discussion going here in ANI.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Leef5 did good work on this article. I have done some peacock trimming. But parts of the article still seem designed less to inform than to bullshit. (And that's before we even look at the sources that it's based on.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Winward

talk

) 07:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He also introduces mass edits without consensus (and per this discussion, the consensus was actually against him), and given his recent contribution at some AfDs, I am concerned that this user does not understand basic notability. GiantSnowman 13:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's been told not to do that many times, but he doesn't listen to anyone unfortunately.

talk

) 14:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Although mainly nuisance edits, his blitzing of celebrity and movie star articles causes a lot of remedial work. Is he stopping or just taking a rest? Someone giving him a Barnstar is also illogical and tends to reinforce the "non-consensus" behaviour... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

He gave the barnstar to himself.

talk

) 15:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

...and obviously been campaigning on his behalf in other forums, (sigh...) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Barnstar self-presented with this edit. GiantSnowman 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Too funny; I am resisting the urge to be derisive... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

The only time I can see him communicating (other than talking about going for adminship) with another user is saying "thank you" when somebody wished him happy birthday - but 11 months after the initial post! Very odd... GiantSnowman 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As a side note, he was blocked by

talk

) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

He's currently running through his own contributions history and self-reverting everything he can. It is unclear if he is doing this because he finally heard the message and is trying to clean up after himself, or if he's just pitching a "hissy fit" and overreacting to the situation. --Jayron32 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest he's doing it to increase his edit count. See above.

talk

) 15:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Posted my third (and might I add final) invitation to contribute: [169] around quarter an hour ago. This time firmly implying that he should come and talk here.

talk

) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry ive took a while to reply ive been quite busy, also sorry about all the edits ive made but dont worrie ill have them all reverted within the next few days :). Tony (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

And you won't do any of this again? If so, then this can be closed, no admin action needed. But if you repeat then you will probably be blocked from editing, you should know that.

talk

) 23:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

ok. Tony (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm satisfied with that, and if there are no objections, I'd like to close this. User seems to have gotten the message.

talk

) 01:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! World's greatest rabbi under attack by an Israeli Soldier

Please block User:Israelisoldier. Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, we must thank that editor for reminding us that protection on Moshe Feinstein had expired but is still needed. I've reprotected the article and given an a token of appreciation to the editor. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the best DMacks. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong and rollback

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

Asking for outside input in minor disputes from anyone on IRC, admin or not, is not within the scope of my arbcom limitations. I am not allowed to ask someone to perform an administrative act against someone with whom I am in a content dispute. Also,

WP:ROLLBACK#When to use rollback states "Rollback may be used...To revert edits in your own user space". I was exercising that right, regardless of the content of the message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 02:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That warning on their talk page, that's more a shot across the bow than a real warning--it's not very specific. If your sketch of what Ryulong was asking for is accurate (and barely knowing what IRC is I have no other recourse), then they did not fall foul of their restrictions. Asking someone to look into something, though it can certainly be an invitation, is hardly the same as asking for some specific action. As for the rollback, mwuah. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me, and it's not an ArbCom notification that they rolled back--it's a message from you containing reference to an ArbCom restriction. How about this: Ryulong, please consider not using rollback in such circumstances, OK? Drmies (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine... And use masculine pronouns to refer to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be similar to what I brought up earlier on ANI about use of rollback. A picture is really starting to be drawn here that is demonstrating that Ryulong either does not know how to use rollback properly, or is unwilling to use it properly. I would recommend removing rollbacker access from his account. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't his desysopping specifically mentioned his use of rollback? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Correct - a lot of the arbitration case that led to Ryulong's desysopping did revolve around misuse of the rollback feature. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb, I explained why I did the edits you complained about, but you never responded. Nor have you responded to the RFC I started. I know how to use rollback, thank you very much, and I used it properly in every single instance, as

orfud}} tags from fair use images in use in articles or replacing fair use rationales which need not have been removed in the first place to be tedious to do manually, particularly when there are several pages to do this on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanket Reverts Modern liberalism in the United States‎ in lieu of talk page discussion

Rick Norwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted a good days worth of constructive edits[170] that I made to Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) with an edit summary of "A major edit such as yours, which removes a large amount of referenced information, should be discussed first in talk.", but no feedback on the article talk page about which content removal was problematic.

After discussing the issue on our talk pages: User_talk:Rick Norwood, User_talk:Aprock the only feedback that was forthcoming was that "It may be that some of your edits are ok, but some are clearly not". I specifically invited him to present more specific criticism on the talk page. In the meantime, I made several constructive policy based edits to other sections, all discussed on the talk page, with open invitations to discuss any issues with specific changes, engaging editors in a civil policy based discussion of content.

Rick Norwood did another blanket revert without entering into discussion on the talk page[171], taking issue with a single edit that I made which was discussed on the talk page[172]. I appreciate the desire to protect the article from arbitrary and unconstructive edits, but blanket reverting constructive edits because of an issue with one edit seems disruptive. Please advise. aprock (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Response from Rick Norwood

Aprock made a major edit to

embedded lists. Please help clean up the lists

by removing items or incorporating them into the text of the article.