In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC).

• DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

(A list of possibilities, this will need to be refined/changed as the draft is worked on)

1. DIREKTOR will reform the conduct outlined in this RfC.
2. DIREKTOR will agree to make a significant effort to engage other editors in a civil manner.
3. DIREKTOR will agree to make a greater effort to comment on the content, not the contributor, and to refrain from references to ethnicity or nationality of editor or authors of sources.
4. DIREKTOR will agree to refrain from repetitive arguments and be more concise on talk pages.
5. DIREKTOR will agree to state his views concisely in discussions of article content, even if he disagrees with the outcome of discussions.
6. DIREKTOR will limit his work on articles related to the Balkans, broadly construed, to WP:1RR for the next three (?) months.
7. DIREKTOR will expand his work on article to areas beyond those related to the Balkans, broadly construed, for a minimum period of three(?) months.
8. DIREKTOR will accept a mentor to help guide his conduct.

DIREKTOR has a long history of editing in articles related to the Balkans, and much of his work has been considered valuable to the community. That being said, DIRKETOR is often aggressive in discussions, accusing others of edit warring, POV pushing, and of coordinated efforts to oppose him, which amount to accusations of meat puppetry. DIREKTOR also tend to tenditiousness in discussions, producing walls of text and repetitive arguments which have the effect of wearing editors with whom he disagrees down and has driven some editors off. He walks very close to 3RR on a regular basis, even though the most of the articles which he edits are covered under ARBMAC and thus subject to a higher level of restriction(?). DIREKTOR often attributes the positions of other editors to an ethnic or nationalistic bias. He also tends to adopt a dictatorial attitude in discussions, asserting what he will and will not accept, and threatens to report other editors with whom he disagrees. While his actions do not generally cross the bright lines established in 3RR and NPA, the overall effect of DIRKETOR's actions create a corrosive atmosphere and violates the spirit of civility and good faith.

This has be a theme of DIREKTOR's comments since the latter phases of the formal mediation related to the Mihailovic/Chetniks article. DIREKTOR apparently believes that basically everyone involved in the mediation, even the mediator, Sunray, gamed the system, cooperated to push a POV with which he disagreed, and engaged in coordinated edit warring.

1. Accusation that Sunray contrived a ploy to block his desired edits.
2. Accusation at AN/I that Nuujinn and FkpCascais engaged in coordinated POV pushing and section blanking.
3. A similar accusation in the edit summary as made on December 11, after a number of editors agreed to a provisional title the day before.
4. Accusations that Sunray engaged in canvassing, and that he and Nuujinn figured out a way to push a pro-Serbian POV in drafts composed by Nuujinn (although I, Nuujinn would point out that the drafts were in place for relatively long periods of time and open to comments and edits by other editors).
5. A fairly recent accusation of tag team edit warring by Nuujinn and FkpCaisais

DIREKTOR tends to argue that editors with whom he disagrees are motivation by ethnic or nationalistic bias. While bias is to be expected, as none of us are completely neutral, continuous insinuations or accusation of ethnic or nationalistic bias are corrosive to cooperative editing and suggest a battleground mentality.

1. Frames discussion at Draza Mihailovic in terms of Serbian editors being in the majority
2. DIREKTOR asserts he is the only editor on the "non-Serbian" side of the debate as the others are on vacation
3. Describes edits he disagrees with as being done by "pro-Chetnik users".
4. And again, editors with whom he disagrees are "pro-Chetnik"
5. Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Have a look at the Intelligent design or Occupy Wall Street articles, just for starters, and get off your high horse. According to Gallup, 40% of Americans believe they were magically poofed into existence. Seems to me you could probably use a few more Teslas over there.
6. Characterizes an edit as "pro-ustaše nonsense.

1. An accusation that JeanJaquesGeorges is not equipped to write an article and doesn't understand Yugoslavia.

DIREKTOR is a visitor at AN/I. Many of the reports made by him or made about him are clearly justifiable, but many seem ill-advised and are largely or completely ignored by admins. This begs the questions as to whether his actions make DIREKTOR a sort of lightning rod for disputes, and whether or not he is misusing AN/I to achieve particular versions of articles. DIREKTOR regularly threatens to report other editors, a tactic which exhibits a battle ground mentality.

1. Refusal to accept a section version with which he disagrees.

A good example of this aspect of DIREKTOR's editing style was .

1. DIREKTOR asserts that he will continue to push his position and 'keep bringing it up until the facts cease to be censored by "popular vote"'.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:OWN
3. WP:NPA
4. WP:DISRUPT
5. WP:GAME
6. WP:BATTLE
7. WP:SPA
8. WP:MEAT

1. WP:PUSH
2. Wikipedia:TEDIOUS

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. DIREKTOR initially participated in [formal mediation] in regard to Draža Mihailović and Chetniks, but [withdrew on April 27, 2011]. During that time and after, DIREKTOR received quite a bit of guidance in regard to his actions, from Fainites 1, 2 and Sunray 1, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIREKTOR&diff=443071897&oldid=442512521 2], 3.
2. DIRKETOR was topic banned by Fainites. This was later overturned on the basis that Fainites was not uninvolved by ARBCOM, but that decision left open the option of another admin instituting a ban, and [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive94#Suggestion_For_Closing WGFinley indicated that some kind of ban was like justified, and made the suggestion "DIREKTOR is cautioned that while this ban may have been improper it wasn't necessarily unjustified, he needs to avoid tendentious editing especially in the WP:ARBMAC space."
3. DIREKTOR has receive advice on conflicts with Timbouctou [1].

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.