Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Personal attacks by User:Neuraxis previously known as User:DVMt

We have a number of examples of this user personalizing discussions and attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps. They were also made aware of behavioral expectations on May 8th,2014 [1]

In this edit from May 13th, 2014 they state

1. "your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [2]" were the page linked to is "Profile of the Sociopath"
2. "you again point to Ernst, which is outlandish behaviour as you admitted to being in contact with him (COI and meat puppetry, possibly) but he is representing the fringe opinion" however speaking with an expert is neither a COI nor meat puppetry. And Ernst is a well known and well published expert with much mainstream support.
3. "You, and other enablers, including an admin, have deliberately stymied any discussion that centres on the current practice characteristics of the profession". Those of us who disagree with some of his positions are not "enablers" and there is no evidence we have "deliberately stymied" anything. I have mentioned that he should try a RfC to get broader input on some of the questions at hand.

In this edit from May 16th, 2014 he makes the accusation of "engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags." without providing any difs.

More current issues include this comment from June 6th,2014 were he writes " Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature". Concern regarding this comment was raised here on his talk page where his reply was "That's not an attack but a request that he please abide standard WP policy and to assert facts not opinions. Brangifer made a claim, I rebutted it" and "I do want to note, however, that the point I made was legitimate".

These are ongoing issues with this users editing. They were indefinitely blocked on May 24th,2014 by User:Kww for the continuation of previous issues and were unblocked by User:Adjwilley on June 2nd,2014. A previous block in April of 2013 was for sock puppetry.[3] and the one before that was for edit warring. Please note that I edit in this topic area as it falls partly under medicine and thus would be involved. In light of this I am of the opinion that a indefinate topic ban of User:Neuraxis is warranted. User was informed of the ANI discussion here [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am away for the evening for a family engagement. Although I don't currently have the time for a proper rebuttal, I would like to present some contextual evidence. My discussions were with QuackGuru who is a long known problem editor. He was blocked last week [5] and there has been ensuing conversations about potentially topic banning QG [6]. I wrote a min-essay about my experience [7]. Doc James seemingly gives QG unconditional support which may or not be related to a conflict of interest [8]. QuackGuru has edited Doc James' biography and removed any content related to his real life controversies. I was concerned about a retaliatory measures by a high powered admin, so I began collecting diffs [9] about questionable edits with Doc James' with respect to Chiropractic and related subjects. What I see is a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental issues regarding in how the page is edited [10]. I am also presenting evidence that supports the notion of 'scientific chiropractic exists and is the mainstream within the profession [11] , [12]. You can see from my contributions that I am in no way destabilizing any article relating to the topic in question. A topic ban is basically an attempt to censor a conversation that has been occurring elsewhere [13] surrounding the debate of mainstream vs. fringe. In short, this is who I am [14]. Dogmatic skepticism here at WP always tries to polarize the debate. At the top of this ANI, Doc James asserts that I am 'attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps." That is not true. I am asking simply "Are the use of manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders fringe or mainstream". I have provided evidence to support such a view, and there seems to be some cognitive dissonance and conflation going on with some editors who have a radicalized stance on this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis has two agendas, but only mentions one above, which is "simply" his

• minor agenda. He "simply" asks: "Are the use of manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders fringe or mainstream"? Well, if that was all he was "simply" asking, then why is he doing it in the context of a controversial article like Chiropractic, and also Chiropractic controversy and criticism, one which he wants to delete? If his intentions were peaceful and "simple", he would be sticking to peaceful articles like Manual therapy and Joint manipulation, where his concerns are dealt with.

His choice of articles belies his claim and makes plain his real

• primary agenda, to advance "scientific chiropractic"[15] (the same agenda advocated by the indef blocked User:CorticoSpinal, also a Canadian chiropractor editing from the same area).

We're looking at a backdoor attempt to push the primary agenda, and not a "simply asking" about the minor agenda. His choice of articles indicates he wants to do battle in an attempt to whitewash the articles and portray chiropractic as no longer a controversial profession which still has issues with fringe elements and unscientific ideas, but as an uncontroversial mainstream profession. Sorry, but there is still plenty of controversy and opposition found in RS which document existing problems.

If he really wished to do as he claimed with the minor agenda above, he would have chosen peaceful articles, like the ones I have mentioned (where his concerns are already settled). They would be directly on-topic to that minor agenda. The ones he has chosen are only tangential to that minor agenda, but directly related to his primary agenda, which is rather disconcerting and creates unnecessary disruption.

He's carrying on this campaign with the same wordings, tenacity, combativeness, and tactics as the indef blocked User:CorticoSpinal, and I have advised him to "avoid the same mistakes" by finding "different and better arguments if you're going to fare any better at improving these articles." CorticoSpinal was blocked for socking and doing lots of things that really wasted our time, and the same is happening again. We don't need a rehash of the same failed issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a radicalized stance to recognize that Neuraxis's goal is to distort Wikipedia's presentation of chiropractic topics by deemphasising the history and foundation of chiropractic medicine in favor of the small subset of the practice that has some legitimacy: he outlined his plan to do so here. His previous editing history at acupuncture related topics makes it abundantly clear that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia in any way.—Kww(talk) 23:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe Kww misreads that diff; Neuraxis says his aim is to represent the evidence base properly, and he adds that he's seeking mentorship on WP:PAG. Re acupuncture: Neuraxis has no more than 14 mainspace edits since Nov. 2011, and has used the talk page more than mainspace (24 edits), and imo constructively. This most recent edit was good apart from an inadequate source, and he didn't revert when the source was removed. (Also note that Kww was involved in a recent episode over a block of Neuraxis; I don't know the details, but see the block log.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Relatedly, Neuraxis has also twice attempted to remove critical views of osteopathic manipulative treatment reported in the lede of Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, and is arguing for removal of these critical views on that article's Talk page. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To some editors, criticism of alt-med is a one-way ratchet: there can never be too much, and anyone who thinks it's excessive must be an alt-med apologist. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 13:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, no. You're telling half truths. See the discussion at the talk page [16]. I'm asking whether or not it's an over-reach as seen in this discussion here [17]. Not providing context and outright lying about removing things entirely vs. over-reach are apples and oranges. Neuraxis (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Neuraxis -- Comments like that show that you do need to turn down the rhetorical heat. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• This deletion discussion and this newly created alternative draft as well as this one may be relevant to this discussion. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note: there is a pre-existing disagreement between Neuraxis and Doc James, cf. User_talk:Neuraxis#Conflict_of_Interest, in which the former has expressed concern about the latter's neutrality regarding the conduct of a third editor. (Note re context: The opening sentence, annoted, would read: "His (QuackGuru's) special relationship with a high-rank med admin (Doc James) seems to be a conflict". Additionally, I also commented on that discussion.) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 19:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Middle_8&oldid=611487841#Mutual_puffery Middle8 is misusing his talk page to rant about bogus COI allegations. Is this acceptable behaviour? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru2#Outside_view_by_Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29 and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Proposed_six_month_topic_ban_of_User:Middle_8_and_User:Mallexikon for previous problems involving Middle8. Middle8 is well aware of the sanctions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the first post by Doc James above, this seems to be a request to have Neuraxis topic banned. That being the case, I have added a section below for specific discussion of such a ban, as well as other possibilities. I leave the section open for @Doc James: to provide the definition of the exact scope of the ban. Based on my own review of the contribution history of the editor in question, based on the current discussion at ArbCom clarification and enforcement, I find in the history of the editor since November 2011, including some 2000-2500 total edits, only less than 10 article and article talk page edits which do not relate directly to alternative medicine in some form, including acupuncture and chiropractic, and on that basis have some question whether there would be any particular purpose to banning this editor from the topic of alternative medicine only, as it seems to be virtually the only thing they have ever shown any interest in. I have also added a section for mandated external review, which would mean that Neuraxis would have to propose any changes on the article talk page first and receive approval from an uninvolved administrator before making them to the page, if anyone thinks that would be their preferred method to deal with this situation. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your proposal, John Carter. So far, administrator DocJames has provided only one diff showing that Neuraxis is calling another editor a sociopath. I highly disapprove of any name callings in Wikipedia, and I think Neuraxis owes an apology. Reason for topic ban (!), certainly not. I don't see any connection between name calling and alt-med articles. If someone figures out such a connection, please let me know. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Neuraxis is well aware of the sanctions.

Neuraxis claims there is a Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers. IMO this was unconstructive and a waste of time. The lede does summarise the body. See Talk:Acupuncture#Strong Bias towards Skeptic Researchers.

Neuraxis wants to replace the current lede with text that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal.

Neuraxis edited my previous comment to add a space that broke the link.

Neuraxis wants to make significant changes chiropractic page but it seems this was a previously resolved dispute.

Neuraxis said Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. Neuraxis also said later at the chiropractic talk page I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [18].[19] The link posted by Neuraxis[20] takes you to the website Profile of the Sociopath. Neuraxis accused me of "engaging in stalking behaviour and posting bogus tags.[21] Neuraxis said "Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature"[22]. This is uncivil behaviour and seems like an attempt to provoke me.

Neuraxis previously stated the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. This was the same sentence that was in his sandbox that is currently in mainspace. I spotted the possible copyvio again and discussed it on the talk page. I said There was consensus at the chiropractic page it was a copyvio for the same text. The text should at least be in quotation marks but quotes do not have an encyclopedic feel. He claims I was the only editor insisting there is a copyvio. I provided evidence from a previous discussion there are concerns it was actually a copyvio. Rather than try to rewrite the text he accused me of: I see you're coming out to battle (again).

I asked for verification for the claim "chiropractic medicine". But no verification was provided and my comment about the possible original research was repeatedly ignored. See Talk:Chiropractor#Lede changes.

I requested for Neuraxis to show where was the consensus to restore the Doctors of Chiropractic page in 2013. Without consensus the page was restored. But the previous discussion resulted in consensus to merge back in 2009. An editor tried to restore the page but he reverted his own edit back to the consensus version. Without providing evidence, he claims con has changed. I asked again for evidence where was the con.

The text is sourced[23] using the newer 2008 source but Neuraxis claims the text is original research.

Neuraxis attempts to persuade User:John Carter by using a primary source but that was the same source that he was trying to restore to the chiropractic page without consensus. There was no consensus to restore the tag to the top of the chiropractic page but Neuraxis decided to add a tag to the chiropractic again. The tag seems like a badge of shame. Neuraxis thinks secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims but User:Jmh649 told him to resolve the dispute to use secondary sources.

Neuraxis calls me Quack[24]. This appears to be Déjà vu[25] again per WP:DUCK. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)(Note: In the past Neuraxis attempted to whitewash the chiropractic page. The entire Safety section was deleted against broad consensus. What could possibly be the explanation for such radical changes? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC))

Yes, my stated opinion was there there is bias. Since when do we allow one anti-CAM researcher and his minions to define that all of CAM is pseudoscientific? Skeptics don't own the definitions of the science of CAM. I was also discussing how there is a non-traditional view/practice of acu as stated in this cochrane review A westernised medical application of acupuncture involves the use of acupuncture using trigger points, segmental points and commonly used formula points. Medical acupuncture may involve the application of acupuncture based on the principles of neurophysiology and anatomy, rather than TCM principles and philosophy.. Thus, labelling the entire practice of acu 'pseudoscientific'. Alternative medical theorem would be better. [26] QG, you made the claim that I was introduced OR, but asides from the accusation, but provided no evidence that the new sources were OR. I was not aware this occurred, was not my intent, and I apologize for breaking a link. No, what the diff states clearly, was that I wanted to wait for outside opinions before there were any significant changes. This diff provides strong evidence of not wanting to make significant changes until there was consensus and discussion. And, to date, there have been no significant changes made to the article, other than yours [27]. QG, there are a list of 14 editors here [28], who have problems with your editing behaviour in 2014 alone. Here is a direct thread another editing who was going to snap dealing with the very same issues I and many, many, others have dealt with you. You're the common thread in all these discussions [29] in all these debates. You did misrepresent the literature making error riddled changes to EC [30] which was why you were blocked. No, there was disagreement whether or not quotation marks should be used and MelanieN stated she didn't feel it was a copyvio as per this discussion [31] I did provide verification [32]. We did discuss it, and it was supported that a rename of the article was preferred [33] and the previous discussion regarding the consensus that was established prior to that to not move DoC to chiro ed [34]. There was no CON; 2 editors disagreed with this, and I had provided evidence in Archive 37 where the imbalance was. Also, there was disagreement over DJ's narrow perception of use of primary sources by User:FergusM1970 here [35]. So, again, I was not alone in my concerns. Quack is short for QuackGuru. You're reading too much into that. The accusation of a white-wash was claimed, and as I stated ad nauseum, I am not attempting to white-wash anything. The safety section was not deleted at all. The diffs show this as well. Neuraxis (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Jayaguru-Shishya

In my personal experience, user Neuraxis has been the reconciliating party trying to settle the disputes. He has always discussed his edits at the article Talk Page and seeked for a compromise with well-grounded arguments and source material to support his views.

First, I'd like to reply to the allegations made by DocJames (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)):

1. Seems pretty inappropriate behaviour to me, and I think Neuraxis owes an apology. A reason for topic ban? No, not certainly.
2. This one is pertaining to QuackGuru, am I right? So what was QuackGuru's answer? Otherwise, what on earth has this to do with personal attacks? QuackGuru's private email correspondence is of no interest in Wikipedia, no matter whether concerning scientific editors or his personal love life.
3. Where is the personal attack? Providing diffs could be a good start.

As far as I can see, only one of the aforementioned can be understood as personal attack. Implying that one is a sociopath certainly isn't appropriate, but proposing a topic ban for it (!) demonstrates total lack of sense of proportionality. Seriously, how can you pull the strings together between calling one a sociopath and a topic ban? An admin would be expected to have high sense of discretion.

DocJames, you also brought up in your post (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) comments, such as "Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature". So where is the personal attack here? If he phrased it differently, like "I think you are misinterpreting the literature in a similar fashion that QuackGuru did, and therfore I'd like to suggest...", would it be better? Not commenting the disupte between Neuraxis and Brangifer behind that (whatever it is), I don't really get where is the personal attack. Down to this point, only one personal attack has been demonstrated.

@Doc James:, you also said (19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) that: "These are ongoing issues with this users editing." If you have something to complaints DocJames, please provide the specific diffs that you disagree with the editing of Neuraxis and discuss it; do not complain about his behaviour. That's what you said in a thread concerning the disruptive editing by QuackGuru at traditional Chinese Medicine, the diff here[36]. Are you applying a different rule on different editors? That was not a rhetoric question and I will be waiting for an answer.

Brangifer (23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)) said that:

We're looking at a backdoor attempt to push the primary agenda, and not a "simply asking" about the minor agenda. His choice of articles indicates he wants to do battle in an attempt to whitewash the articles and portray chiropractic as no longer a controversial profession which still has issues with fringe elements and unscientific ideas, but as an uncontroversial mainstream profession. Sorry, but there is still plenty of controversy and opposition found in RS which document existing problems.

I have to quite disagree with this one. Like I mentioned befofe, Neuraxis always supports his claims with proper sources and discusses the proposed changes at the article Talk Page before making any edits. I haven't noticed any attempts to deny the fact that chiropractic still remains controversial in many ways: what I have seen is Neuraxis trying to point out that there has been given an undue weight to one thing over another in the article (like 90% of chiropractic patients are for musculoskeletal disorders, or something like that)

I couldn't see any diffs to support the alleged claim of so called whitewashing. Therefore, such ungrounded claims should not be taken into account. So far, the only personal attack Neuraxis is guilty of, is implying that one is a sociopath.

Kww, you said that (23:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)):

It's not a radicalized stance to recognize that Neuraxis's goal is to distort Wikipedia's presentation of chiropractic topics by deemphasising the history and foundation of chiropractic medicine in favor of the small subset of the practice that has some legitimacy: he outlined his plan to do so here.

Could you please address that in which part in particular Neuraxis declared his "plan" for some sort of advocacy? I couldn't find it from the diff you gave. All I could find was Neuraxis telling open and honest his connection to chiropractic. Considering that you are an administrator, I expect you to be familiar with Wikipedia:Advocacy#Experience and expertise, Wikipedia:No paid advocacy#Subject-matter experts, and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#External relationships; primary and secondary roles. Are you implying that Neuraxis is a paid advocate, or why the diff?

Annie Delong stated (15:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)) that: "This deletion discussion and this newly created alternative draft as well as this one may be relevant to this discussion". Where are the supposed personal attacks? Off-topic remarks, to be disregarded. So far, only one personal attack brought up.

QuackGuru said (19:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)):

The lede does summarise the body.

There is no such WP policy. Besides, how is that a personal attack? You are getting distracted from the topic again.

Conclusion

All in all, after this lenghty ANI where only one diff has been provided by DocJames to support his allegations, the totally distracted off-topic comments by couple of users like Anne Delong and QuackGuru who support this ANI, the fact that DocJames doesn't agree with Neuraxis does not qualify as a reason to topic ban anyone. Pulling the strings between "calling a sociopath" and a topic ban is very amusing. Considering that DocJames is an administrator, he should certainly know better.

It seems obvious that admnistrator DocJames is on a spree agains Neuraxis because of the the thread on his talk page (Conflict of Interest where the unique relationship between user QuackGuru and administrator DocJames is examined.

This ANI is not about anybody's behaviour, but about the alleged personal attack. If somebody wants to open another ANI about the behaviour of Neuraxis, one if free to do it. I doubt there would be anobody doing that, especially when considering the countless incidents concerning QuackGuru. Those don't serve as a very good precedent or a solid ground for such. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Neuraxis

• Comment - Of the three options, and given the nature of Neuraxis' edit history as I posted at ARCA and again here, although I am not yet sure that I actually support any sanctions on this editor, this option seems both the least restrictive, given Neuraxis' status as a virtual SPA, and least problematic to implement. I also note the editor's extreme fondness for what seem to me to be attempts to overwhelm discussion and possible disagreement on my own user talk page and at WP:ARCA. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes as they only edit alt-med a site ban may be best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

On what basis, exactly, are you deciding this on? There's been allegations (suspicions) raised, but I see a double standard taking place. I have not done anything to destabilize any article at any point, yet I'm being treated like a heretic for trying to present the middle road. I've been mischaracterized as a fringe-alt med pusher when all I am doing is presenting research on the topic that disputes some of the current status quo. More perplexingly, we are trying to site ban me when we are ignoring what bigger problem is: QuackGuru. His block log and his indef banning from alt-med articles has done nothing to change his editing behaviour. In fact, if we look at the diffs you can see that this very year there was an investigation about ownership regarding QG and chiropractic. Despite after promising to improve his behaviour [37] and stop editing chiropractic [38] he continued to do so, he has 50% of the edits alone in 2014 to chiropractic[39], and even stated that he shaped the article from top to bottom [[40]. He has misled editors continuously about reforming his behaviour [ [41] and continued to be disruptive [42] Despite asking him several times to engage in talk, there were repeated attempts of not listening [43], [44],[45], [46], [47], [48], [49]His chiropractic article [[50] has become unreadable [51], while he continues self-congratulates himself claiming the article is just peachy [52]. He even implies that he may be Edzard Ernst [53] He continues to bait by stating "very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself.. [54]. This seems very bizarre to me. With so many different editors experiencing the same problems with Quack, past and present, it's clear that despite repeated blocks, and a yearlong topic ban hasn't changed anything. And yet, here I am in the cross-hairs but trying to clarify something with @John Carter: then made a slew of 'suspicions' that I was trying to overwhelm arbcom. The evidence I presented was overwhelming, in the fact that it described a scientific approach to modern practice. John felt I was trying to circumvent the proper channels by discussing what I felt was an error in the perception of the case. The allegation that I was trying to get a source into the article that had been "rejected" is nonsense. After all, I was asked to provide data where I came up with the statistics that I was quoting. Also, my user analysis [55] shows a very different picture than John is presenting. First, you'll note that 75% of my edits are related to talks. What this demonstrates is that I am discussing the subjects and trying to learn about where bottlenecks are in the debates, learn more about policy, etc. So far, I have seen no one attempt to reach out and try to sort through the facts, merely treating me like a second class wikipedian where I am presumed guilty until proven innocent. @MelanieN: who describes herself as a neutral party, has been around for the shenanigans which occurred at Chiropractor and would be best to comment on the discussions on the talk page. In short, I have not seen anyone at the alt-med pages who are critical offer me any good faith and are always accusing me of having ulterior motives. I have done my utmost to be transparent about the issues, have suggested DN and RfCs when discussions have bogged down and have been smeared by these accusations and more of the same with me being vindicated that I was a meat and sock puppet. Whereas I admit I had made some mistakes in judgment in 2013, after a self-imposed year long wikibreak, I came back with lessons being learned and discussing things. Every single editor here (save Middle 8) is skeptic/cynic so I am not going to win a popularity contest. I simply ask that you look at my actions, vs. QuackGuru's and tell me how they stack up. I am at a loss how I am labelled a SPA when the rules clearly state that editing a broad topic (like spiders) isn't considered SPA [56]. Also, I'm sure that Adjwilley or LeProf 7272 and perhaps WhatamIdoing have some comments to make as I have interacted with them as well on these topics. Neuraxis (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment since I was pinged: I have no opinion or recommendation about any of the personalities here, and I have no brief for or against chiropractic. I have been following a couple of articles related to chiropractic for the past year or so, simply because I stumbled upon them as sites where edit-warring was going on (specifically, repeated blanking of one article and redirecting it to another; I was able to stop that a year ago, and had to stop it again when it recurred last month). I occasionally weigh in on a dispute or clean up a mess at the article. My only goal is maintaining Wikipedia's integrity, specifically Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. That means that I sometimes agree with one party, sometimes with another. But I don't know the users' history, I was unaware of this discussion until now, and I will have no recommendation here. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: can probably come up with specifics better than I can, and I am pinging to provide specifics. Also, Neuraxis, if at all possible, and I realize this may be hard for a person who is apparently even more of a wall-of-words editor than I am, could you try to cut back the length of comments to something remotely reasonable? Some of the details put forward in the above section deal with the complaints against you. It's a long read, of course, but I have to assume you of all people have no good reasons to object to having to take some time to read the comments of others. John Carter (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Providing context to my defense, which takes time to explain is not remotely reasonable. Then you ask an editor who I have professional disagreements and who others, including myself, have shown great bias in defending the chronic problem, QG, to be involved. I provide you evidence that shows genuine and long-standing edit warring, ownership and disruption and the chiropractic page, twice, and has already had a topic ban, and not a single word. I asked for diffs in my case, none are provided that shows any pattern of disruptive editing meriting a topic ban. You will forgive me if I think this whole process has jumped the shark. I am away until Sunday so I will not be able to respond until then. Neuraxis (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You also apparently as per your first post refuse to read the comments of others in the section above before starting yet another of your wall-of-words comments, similar to those I have recently been subjected to on my user talk page and ArbCom was subjected to at WP:ARCA. You seem to be incapable of differentiating between posting excessively long statements with comparatively little support and providing defense. You also seem to have jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that I myself had actually expressed an opinion on way or another yet, which seems to continue a bit of a tendency to paranoic refusal to abide by WP:AGF. The primary cause for action against you, so far as I can see, is that you are for all purposes apparently a single purpose account as per WP:SPA in a dubiously-respected pseudoscientific field, chiropractic, in which you seem to have a profressional degree, which, if true, raises extremely serious conflict of interest as per WP:COI issues. The wall-of-words comments on article talk pages and elsewhere could, presumably, not unreasonably qualify as soapboxing as per WP:SOAPBOX, and perhaps as an attempt to cast the community in a bad light, and oneself in a good light, in some sort of violation of WP:GAME. All that taken together could lead to real questions as to whether or not you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, as per WP:NOTHERE. There are may also be questions whether you may have exhausted the patience of the community, I don't know. Like I said above, which you seem not to have read, I have myself made no decision regarding this matter, although your comments above seem to indicate that you in your ongoing distrust of others didn't bother to read them. The comments here are simply my attempt to state what seem to me to be the most likely reasons to request sanctions. As I said in my first comment in the discussion, I added these sections primarily to indicate the available options. In doing so, unfortunately, I omitted a section on discretionary sanctions, and will add such a section below. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Or WP:LAWYERING perhaps? ^^ Could you please stick to this WP:ANI's topic: personal attacks? Thanks.

I did read the comments above, and because I am not allowed to explain myself, or, when I do I am accused of overwhelming and now with more wiki-lawyering. I am not soapboxing, I am here to build an encyclopedia, I do not have any conflict of interests, I am not gaming anyone or anything. The patience of the community? Based on 5 skeptics who are targeting me? You are well aware that you are to comment on the contribution and not the contributor and ever since i tried to clarify thing with you on your talk page you've not focused on my edits whatsoever or provided any sort of evidence that would merit a topic ban and instead have lobbed 'suspicions' that so far are a) not assuming good faith b) gaming the community, c) being a SPA, d) deserving a topic ban e) trying to be duplicitous and f) soapboxing. Do you know what it's like to be accused of something you didn't do? Do you realize even he allegations of such will stick to me permanently? Doc James has been called out [57], [58] for his relationship with QuackGuru by several others, so it's not a matter if me not assuming good faith, but rather being treated like a second class wikipedian by those who happen to disagree with his viewpoint. Alexbrn, Brangifer, QG are all cynics, so I am not surprised to see the pile on to shun me away from discussing the issues that are related to MM. So, based on precedence, where is the evidence that suggests I warrant a topic ban or any other sanction asides from opinions. I think that this process would be a lot easier for me to understand if there was a legitimate case build and we can compare and contrast. Regarding the SPA, I directly addressed that with you and I have heard of no rebuttal. A broad topic like MM covers a lot of topics, including chiro. But, I will make a proposal. I will voluntarily withdraw from editing any chiropractic article for 30 days and focus on other articles. I would like to be assigned a mentor, and I would like there to be a series of uninvolved admins to supervise any chiropractic-related article. Adjwilley, for instance, would be someone that seems very reasonable. I think that this discussion would be more proactive if we could negotiate in this regard. I am open to ideas. Ok, I am heading away now, work is done. Also, I do have email, so if anyone wants to communicate with me can email and I will check on my cell phone. A good weekend to all. Neuraxis (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the rather regretable "I'm a martyr" dramah queen attitude please. The wiki-lawyering doesn't help either. You might also try to get some basic grasp of the rules of the administrators noticeboards, something you apparently lack, as these pages are supposed to be about dealing with problematic behavior. I still have not made a decision, but, honestly, the hysterics, irrational allegations, and general attitude displayed above would make virtually anybody question whether you are capable of behaving in accord with guidelines. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

So now we're onto the ad hominems. You should know better, John. But given the escalation here, I'm not too surprised. it seems other users have seen this playbook before [59]. I've asked you several questions which you ignored, and whereas my allegations are irrational, despite providing diffs, you are free to make some against me, with no evidence. Now you're canvassing Doc James for diffs [60]. Again, on what grounds are you proposing a topic ban or an indef block and how come the same standard has not been applied to QuackGuru? I've made a proposal above which you ignored and I am trying to be constructive here. No one is infallable, and I daresay that your attitude towards me is now bordering on outright hostility. I would please ask that you take a step back, and focus on providing diffs and evidence for the allegations you're making against me. You know, comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Let the diffs prove or refute your assertion(s). I can appreciate constructive criticism, but I don't really see anything constructive in this dialogue. Neuraxis (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you once again demonstrate that you have not in fact read the early section of this thread. If you had you would have seen that it was DocJames who proposed a topic ban and I only pointed out that in your case a topic ban would be fundamentally the same as a site ban. Thank you for demonstrating once again that you pay little attention if any to the comments made by others. And honestly your rather vapid repetition of insisting that others comment on the contributions not the contributor provides serious indirect evidence of your having no understanding of the nature of noticeboards which under the circumstances could be seen as raising serious questions regarding competence in general. You indicate in your last post above I believe either a wilfull or incompetent misrepresentation of my asking Doc James who first proposed sanctions against you to provide the evidence to support them. To my eyes, doing so seems to continue the hysterical behavior which seems to be exhibited by you any time you are questioned or challenged. And frankly as you have before the last comment above already twice in this discussion indicated you would not contribute more you seem to be displaying a profound inability to even predict your own behavior, and also what some might see as a bit of a devotion to arguably nonconstructive edits. Given the behavior from you which I have seen from you since I was first exposed to you, including your comments on my user talk page, that really shouldn't surprise me. Also please respond to the matter raised by QuackGuru below. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And honestly your rather vapid repetition of insisting that others comment on the contributions not the contributor provides serious indirect evidence of your having no understanding of the nature of noticeboards

Just provide the diffs about some specific contributions, if any. DocJames and I agree with that[61].

@John Carter:, this ANI is about supposed personal attack. QuackGuru's post isn't dealing with personal attack, but are blatantly distracted from subject of this ANI. In this diff[62] you told Neuraxis to "cut back the length of comments", right? Now, why did you not tell QuackGuru the same with the comment you are pertaining to? Are you applying different rules to different editors?

Please reply to these concerns. The diffs indicate you are a net negative for the project. You have not taken responsibility for your actions. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I don't see any possible upside to Neuraxis's participation here.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. I am going to change my !vote completely. Neuraxis is now showing a totally uncollaborative spirit (see their edits in the last couple hours), and by failing to AGF are making serious errors and accusations. We can't have that. They are refusing to accept any advice on their talk page, aren't following the advice in edit summaries, and are instead dealing with anything as if it was "baiting and trolling". They are no longer an asset here at all. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I am trying to stay away from BR. He is fanning the flames and getting me worked up. He has been attacking me for incorrectly assuming my intent [63] and continuing to mis-represent me or any 'agenda' [64] Misrepresentation that I am trying to white-wash. I am not as I stated here [65] and have decided to disengage [66] as there are more pressing issues elsewhere. I have blocked him from my talk page after asking repeatedly that he cease to make contact [67]. He has been poisoning the well against me in other pages that I have nothing to do with [68]. I asked him to de-escalate and he continues to follow me around [69]. This is getting out of hand. Neuraxis (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user is not only a POV-pusher, they are unwilling to accept that their agenda is not in line with Wikipedia's core goals. And what they are doing is classic for chiropractic advocates: they de-emphasise the quackery and harm that dominate the field, and emphasise an idealised model which does not reflect real practice. We simply don't need this. Reux: come back when no chiropractor learns or references the non-existent chiropractic or vertebral subluxation. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Another allegation of POV-pushing despite no diffs or evidence. Does not move the conversation forward. Non-existent subluxations are very clear in the ICD-10, MSK, biomechanical lesions [70]. I would expect you to know your material. Another baseless allegation of trying to white-wash, and another failure to read my bio [71]. This talk about 'agendas' is getting tendentious and not assuming any good faith. I have been clear, as my bio page shows what my interests are. Neuraxis (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban of Neuraxis

• Changed to Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. (see above). --- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per John Carter's comment above (18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)), I tend to favor a topic ban, rather than a site ban. Neuraxis has obvious abilities which could be used better on other subjects. If a topic ban on all alternative medicine subjects is effected, I don't see any need for any "mandated external review".</s?

Not using a topic ban and having such a "mandated external review" process would likely cause even more disruption than we are currently seeing, since Neuraxis already uses talk pages nearly exclusively, IOW their disruption is primarily talk page disruption, so a topic ban (which would cover any and all parts of Wikipedia, including talk pages and personal userspace) would force him to use his talents elsewhere. The topic ban would be indefinite, but appealable after one year. That year should demonstrate a lot of editing on other subjects, thus creating a track record of positive contributions and positive interactions with other editors. A year without any activity would be useless for judging whether the topic ban should be lifted, and would be an indication that it should not be lifted. could be limited to one year, after which an appeal could be made for lifting the topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean that the topic ban would be indefinite and not be appealable for the first year after imposition? John Carter (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct, and amended accordingly. I have also added a condition for even considering lifting the topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I might myself add that participation in the Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user program, which would with luck give Neuraxis the chance to work with someone rather more aware of policies and guidelines who might help Neuraxis in understanding them, and actively displaying a greater comprehension of policies and guidelines would be very useful in allowing others to think they have a more competent grasp of wikipedia's procedures. Pending DocJames' indication of the specific conditions s/he saw which led to him/her requesting the ban, this seems to me to be a not unreasonable option. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Neuraxis

• Changed to Strong support for indef ban, and blocked talk page access. (see above). -- Brangifer (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Against'. Not using a topic ban and having such a "mandated external review" process would likely cause even more disruption than we are currently seeing, since Neuraxis already uses talk pages nearly exclusively, IOW their disruption is primarily talk page disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Neuraxis

• Has Neuraxis got a warning of DS yet? If not, it would be best if an admin did that ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Neuraxis was notified of the sanctions but thought it was "spam". QuackGuru (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, he did remove it, but not before replying, so we know he read and understood it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Russavia#Unblock_request

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

---

Russavia (talk · contribs · email · block log · global contribs)

Forwarding this to ANI for community opinion as suggested by Spartaz. Jee 09:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's time. Block him again if he trolls again. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Anthony, I work extensively with Russ on Commons (just to be entirely open, he re-nominated me for adminship there) and his dedication to the free content movement is unwavering (just one example - he often lets me know if he has found or uploaded a good photo we can use to improve an article on en.wp). He would, I believe, still be bound by the terms of the topic ban imposed by Newyorkbrad which restricts him from interacting with Jimmy and I'd expect that topic ban to remain in place for the foreseeable future if unblocked. Nick (talk) 10:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Spartaz's comment on Russavia's talk page in response to the request: inadequate recognition/contrition of his disruption. Also, his block log shows problematic activity too recently. DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unblock. Our only purpose here is to build a source of free knowledge, and Russavia is very much committed to that and has been a very positive contributor. The existing block was appropriate, but it has served its purpose now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  (Just a general comment: In cases like this, there is often too much stress on wanting to see grovelling contrition. But we shouldn't be here for that, just to determine whether an editor will make positive contributions in the future. I personally don't care whether Russavia is even sorry or not, as long as I don't think he'll do it again. And I don't. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC))

• Is a Jimmy Wales topic ban and a one-way user Jimbo Wales interaction ban proposed to prevent any possibility of further trolling in that area? Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Continued concerns as the user says the "cause" was simply "drafting an article" where it is clear that the cause was not simply the "drafting" of an article, but was a tad more far-reaching than that. I will note that I have edited on articles brought to my attention on the UT page where I found Russavia's concerns valid. Collect (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Here's my problem: Russavia does some good work. However, when he goes off the rails, he goes so far off the damned rails that he end up in a different area code. Saying "stop it" doesn't work. Saying "seriously, stop it" doesn't work. Saying "for fuck's sake would you STOP" doesn't work. Unfortunately, the level of damage to both the project and the goodwill of its editors/readers between the first "stop it" and "for fuck's sake" is astronomical. I'm not seeing any way forward noted towards this issue the panda ₯’ 11:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  I share that concern too - but surely a quick block would be the answer in the case of future problems? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  I haven't decided here, but I think Boing! is on to something. A few editors here (who shall be nameless) do a lot of good work but occasionally go off the deep end, and we have resigned ourselves to the fact that the best way to deal with them is to just block them for one to four weeks every now and again when needed, but not indef block them. Is this one of those cases? I'm not sure. Handling editors this way isn't exactly covered by policy (excepting perhaps WP:IAR) but is often the most effective way for usually productive and prolific editors. I'm curious if this is one of those cases.Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock. As the saying goes, unblocks are cheap (and by extension, reblocks are cheap as well). I'm personally of the opinion that the higher profile the unblock request is (i.e., getting an ANI thread and multiple rapid responses), the faster a reblock will be issued should the editor in question deviate from all but the most appropriate behavior. In this particular case, I get that there's a pretty long history, and possibly some concerns as to whether the unblock request sufficiently takes ownership of the problems that led to the block. I think in light of Russavia's work at Commons, we can afford to be a little accommodating. Taking ownership of past problems is best, but I don't know if I'd call it so essential as to negate everything and anything else a user could possibly bring to the table. Now, whether the "anything else" Russavia brings to the table is still enough to offset any concerns with the unblock request is, frankly, not one I'm prepared to answer... but I'm personally willing to take the chance based on what I've said above. Yes, there's a long history of problems with this user... but an evident energy and dedication. I'm not willing to say Russavia is either a malefactor, nor am I willing to say Russavia can not contribute positively. And if following the unblock things go back to how they were... again, reblocks are cheap. Those involved might even gain support for a full-on siteban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at the moment. Russavia's explanation of his June 2013 block is disingenuous to say the least. He was blocked for trolling and BLP violations. I don't expect him to grovel, but I do expect him to acknowledge this and would like to see a clear statement that he will cease the dramamongering he is rather well known for. Either way, I think Newyorkbrad's topic ban as mentioned here should also be carried forward as a condition of unblocking. Resolute 13:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Just a few notes - I see a very extensive history of problematic behaviour and a remarkable stubbornness and inability to drop an issue when he thinks he is right. However, anyone looking at the unblock request should be aware that a lack of apology for the past is only relevant if it would determine his behaviour in the future - is he likely to make the same mistakes? Animosity over past behaviour must be balanced with the likelihood of recidivism in the future. In the event of an unblock, I would presume that certain editors would be closely monitoring Russavia's behaviour and would not hesitate to reinstate the block. So Russavia would be walking a very fine line. The question is, does his potential positive contributions on Wikipedia outweigh both the effort in monitoring his behaviour and the risk of a recurrence of drama? —Dark 13:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Boing's point has merit in that a quick reblock will likely mitigate a large portion of the drama involved, assuming of course that a potential future block is done promptly and accurately, and is clear-cut. However unfortunately I think we all know that a less optimally placed block may not have the same effect. This is too often the case with high-profile controversial editors. Not to mention that effort must be exerted to monitor his future contributions. My point is that reblocks are much more... expensive than they may appear. —Dark 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Based on this users past actions, the act of unblocking itself would lessen wikipedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support – He's a pretty constructive contributor both at Commons and here, and should be given another chance, but an admin should block him if he trolls again or violates his restrictions. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - We all fuck up on occasions and IMHO we all deserve second chances, or perhaps 3 or 4 chances with some!, He's a constructive editor both on here and Commons and If I'm honest I can't see a repeat happening. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - by my count he has been blocked 14 separate times. What makes anybody think that the next time he is unblocked will be any different than the previous times? He is a serial troll and loves to make personal attacks. Please see the deletion request on Commons for the trolling video (discussion ending about January 1, 2014). Russavia hasn't reformed his style of personal attacks, attacking even the closers on this. He can't admit that he is wrong, even when it is blatantly obvious. And for those who say that it will be a simple matter to block him here if he trolls again, read deletion request carefully and see how long it took, how many cheap shots he took and how many cheap tricks he used to delay the inevitable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you provide specific links to the personal attacks please. I would also like to note that discussions 6 months ago is perhaps not the best indication of future behaviour. —Dark 14:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • examples

"He's said all he needs to say? Really? Did you know that I would be well within my rights to sue the pants of Jimmy if I were so inclined. Remember that it is Jimmy who regards these projects as a workplace, and he has publicly accused me of sexual harrassment, without any solid evidence to back it up. In the real world that is called libel. And in the real world, we wouldn't have the peanut gallery and fanboys like we have surrounding this issue, it would be me and him. And things such as this ("I'm actually just a talk page troll.") would be introduced into evidence. As would the multitude of witnesses I would be calling who have been publicly defamed by Jimmy. And then we have his numerous boneheaded tirades against many in the Commons community, and against the community itself, because people in the community dared to question him. So cut it out Colin, Jimmy is far from innocent. Don't like what I have to say? Stiff shit. russavia (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)" (from hatted section

(further down) "Umm, no, I have never had disputes with Jimmy, I've asked him to supply OTRS once, gave him a couple of user rights here on Commons, and responded to a posting he made on COM:AN, and asked him to comment on a proposal to make it easier for child porn to be reported. That is the extent of my interactions with Jimmy. The whole dispute thing was the invention of User:Newyorkbrad who read some crap on an external site, and when I challenged him on this, he said that I was being ingenious and I should go look at Commons. When I proceeded to challenge the meme that Newyorkbrad pushed, the solution was to indef block me from en.wp. Oh, and I defended Jimmy once on Quora.com when he was being hounded by trolls. Now, if you have evidence of disputes, show me where these disputes are please. Otherwise, if all you have is the above, I must be the nastiest, pettiest and most vindictive son-of-a-bitch ever to walk on the face of this planet. russavia (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)"

It may not be obvious on that page, but the now removed picture, that appears to be signed by one of the closers, and places the closer in a negative light, was added by Russavia.

As far as Dark's "but that was 6 months ago" complaint. Please allow us to consider what he did six months ago, as well as for the 14 times that he has been blocked here - what else have we got to go on? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I see the 6 month period as a mitigating factor. Obviously the discussion is important but only if they determine future conduct. If Russavia had been without issue for 6 months, why could he not do that on this project? —Dark 15:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, Russavia has trolled Jimbotalk and poked Jimmy Wales — for which he was punished. He did the crime and has done his time; obviously a repetition of similar behavior will end badly for him. However, Russavia remains a dedicated and productive Wikimedian and is entitled to a reasonable path back to En-WP. Punishments should fit transgressions, bans and blocks should correspond to actual actions and not hysterical anticipations of potential bad actions. If he screws up again, another lengthy block is a simple thing. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Someone with a long track record of blocks, someone who has attacked and trolled other editors, and someone who doesn't acknowledge the reasons for the legitimate block they are requesting be lifted should not be unblocked. Deli nk (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Russavia has his big, big share of disputes and problems, but I don't see a big issue in giving him another chance. We can always block him back if he misbehaves (again). → Call me Hahc21 15:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I've never seen much of a problem with what he was blocked for in the first place (others, obviously, disagree), plus there was much baiting and tainting from the other side as well. At any rate, we would be depriving ourselves of a net positive contributor if we let this block stand.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2014; 16:20 (UTC)
• On Process If I'm not mistaken, shouldn't this be at WP:AN instead of WP:ANI.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Arguably it belongs at AN rather than ANI, but it is probably too late to move this discussion bodily over there. I will post a cross-notice instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with that. Thank you.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock. I failed to see any reason other than his conflicts with Jimmy here as the block reason. He used Commons for it where he was/is much strong. But we stopped him there. He was de crated and that controversial work was deleted. It is already too late to forget those things. And it is up to him whether or not to make a clean start. Here, in Wikipedia, he is just an editor without any additional rights. Then why afraid to give him a chance? Jee 16:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Firmly Opposed Fool me once... Seriously, we have a stubborn user with a gift for extending disputes for the sake of prolonging the drama who successfully harrassed and humiliated another user to perpetuate a long standing and bitter feud. Are we really so short of home produced drama that we want to extend a welcoming to a user whom I guarantee will actively help to further corrode the toxic editing atmosphere here. I don't see any acknowledgement of the harm or trouble that they caused. Enough surely? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I won't cast a !vote here as, shortly before the indefblock by Spartaz, I imposed a sanction against Russavia pursuant to the BLP special enforcement provision, prohibiting him from making any edits or uploading any images concerning Jimmy Wales. Since the indefblock on English Wikipedia, as noted above, Russavia continued to pursue what I perceive as harassment and trolling of Jimmy Wales on Commons for several months, suggesting to me that he did not accept that his conduct in the Pricasso matter was disgraceful. Separately, Russavia has been using his English Wikpedia talkpage (to which he has had continued access) to (among other things) draw attention to on-wiki copyright violations. In and of itself, that is commendable and is certainly a more productive use of talkpage access than we see from a lot of other indefblocked users. However, in one instance, Russavia pointed out a copyvio from the Encyclopedia Britannia; the copyvio was deleted from the current version of our article, but not from every previous version (it affected enough versions that removing all of them would have compromised the attribution history); when an administrator declined to go back and rev-delete every previous version, Russavia stated on-wiki last month that he "contacted EB on 13 May 2014 to inform them of this copyright violation, and the community's seeming[] refusal to deal with it appropriately." While I can imagine that one might in good faith contact a copyright owner if Wikipedia was refusing to address a copyright violation in a fashion that posed a serious and immediate threat to the value and integrity of the subject intellectual property, that was not what was going on here, and I have absolutely no idea why Russavia acted as he did, except to cause trouble. I also note with disapproval that this past weekend, in connection with Wikimedia mailing list discussion of a poorly written and error-laden magazine article about a recent Wikiconference, Russavia suggested that "[t]here is the option of contacting [the reporter] directly, or the chief editor of the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Wikipedia way--create a totally neutral on-project biography. ;)" Despite the "smilie," any such suggestion that we would create a BLP of a journalist in retaliation for the journalist's coverage is severely out of order. BLPs must never be created or edited as a form of retaliation against the article subject or misused in connection with an off-wiki dispute, nor may any suggestion of doing so be made at any time. If Russavia is to be unblocked, which I'm not personally convinced is the best idea, it should be with appropriate restrictions bearing in mind the types of issues with which he has been involved to this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  My impression on the mailing list comment is that it was made in jest. However whether it is advisable to make such a comment even in jest is questionable, sometimes things are better left unsaid or maybe to a more appropriate audience. —Dark 17:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I, too, took the mailing list comment as ironic impersonation - mocking Wikipedia's propensity to be used to torture one's enemies. But you know irony and the internet.

As for his contacting Britannica about us hosting a copyright violation in the article's history: That was done after requests for clarification or RevDel were either dismissed or ignored by User:GorillaWarfare, User:Tom Morris and legal@wikimedia.org. I wonder if it would have progressed to that if someone had explained the situation to him as User:Moonriddengirl later took the trouble to. Regardless, that he alerted Britannica to (what he perceived to be) a violation of their rights is no reason to ban him from contributing here. If there were dozens of encyclopedias sitting at the top of Google for just about every query we could act like a cult and exclude critics. While Wikipedia enjoys a monopoly, we don't enjoy the right to exclude anyone for expressing concerns about the project to non-Scientologists non-Wikipedians.

I'll support a permanent ban from this project (and all other projects) if his future behaviour shows he hasn't learned the difference between critique and using the project to perpetrate a gross sexualised insult. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Since my name has appeared, I should note for the record that Russavia did tell me about the copyvio over IRC. Alas, I have been quite busy in real life recently, so didn't get a chance to look into it. I have no strong opinion on Russavia's unblock. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock pace NYB's valid comments. Russavia will be on a short leash, I have no doubt. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support (and assume the NYB restriction remains in place.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock - The unblock request doesn't actually cover the real reasons for his block, so there is no evidence that they see the reason for their block or any promises to abide by the rules so they don't get blocked again. I'd like to see a proper unblock request that actually speaks to those reasons. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose After his polandball racism, the penis paintings, I am surprised anyone actually takes anything he says seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support with some reservations and a very short length of rope, including some restrictions discussed above. We ARE here to build an encyclopedia, and on a good day Russavia has proven he is helpful towards that end. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Judging by his actions while blocked, unblocking him would only lead to even more waste of time and energy. Too bad en.wp can't do something about his antics on Commons as well. —Neotarf (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose Russavia isn't here to build an encyclopedia anymore, Russavia is here to challenge what we're willing to accept in the form of decency and advocate the free culture. There are two camps, those that view Russavia as starting drama and those who view the reaction to Russavia's actions as disruption. I'm in the camp that believes Russavia is fully aware of how his actions will be perceived and either has poor judgement or willful disinterest in the good of this project and is the cause of the disruption himself. I find him callous, full of himself, and rude. Further, Russavia has proven that he cannot work within the confines of any restriction placed on him, proposals above for any sort of condition for his unblock are folly and unwise. We can look at his history to know how any restriction he agrees to will end. His block log reads:
  • "Please don't use talk page to announce an intention to sock"
  • "Violating the ban from interacting with Volunteer Marek"
  • "Eastern Europe topic ban violation"
  • "Continued violation of TBAN on talk page, TBAN Per AE report"
  • "Violation of interaction ban"
  • "Interaction ban violation"
  • "Violation of unblock terms (Posting at AC/N). User will be unblocked when and if an ArbComm request concerning the mailing list incident occurs."
  • "Making legal threats: This wikilawyering has gone on long enough"
  • "Violation of Soviet history topic ban while blocked by soapboxing on own talk page"

Frankly, Russavia is incapable of respecting any restriction set on him. He has zero self control. There is no arguing here, we have ample history to judge him by. Any positive contributions Russavia was capable of providing the encyclopedia has long since expired. He has dug himself into such a hole that it would take a paradigm shift of enormous proportions to return to the type of character traits that are beneficial to the encyclopedia and to lose the ones that lead him to disruptive behavior. No no no, do not unblock.--v/r - TP 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Above, Newyorkbrad has shown nicely that nothing about Russavia has changed since the last time he was blocked. Nothing good will come of this. --Conti|✉ 20:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is an extremely productive user with a large number of high-quality contributions, many of which are in much-neglected areas of Wikipedia. We cannot afford not to take advantage of his knowledge and productivity - after all, building a comprehensive, high quality comprehensive encyclopaedia is our goal. It is now well past "time served" for this user. I'd like to note that, during his time in the enwiki "jail", he has been very active in Wikimedia Commons, where he has uploaded an astronomical amount of high-quality photographs among other contributions. It is now time to let English Wikipedia profit from this user as well. It makes no sense to continue confining him to Commons and deprive our encyclopaedia of his high-quality contributions. Nanobear (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newyorkbrad's analysis. The unblock request indicates that Russavia does not realise the magnitude of his previous behaviour, and if we unblock we would likely see that behaviour repeated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Nanobear. Overall, I believe that this user will be a net positive if unblocked. I don't question the idea that he has problems: that's blatantly obvious, but he has more positives than problems. On top of that, some of the "oppose" rationales are nonsense; for example, Polandball was definitely not racist: it was an intra-European thing, not to mention the fact that writing about racism doesn't necessarily make you racist. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support basically what Nick said. Legoktm (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock Russavia has made some fine contributions, provided he can manage to keep himself on the straight and narrow (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) unblocking will be a positive. I am sure that given the high profile, a reblock will be swift, if necessary. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unblock. I don't believe that Russavia has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, and is unlikely to be a net positive if unblocked here. He's done valuable work on Commons, but has also more than occasionally engaged in behavior that would likely bring him a civility block if he had done so here, not to mention his prior block record. Additionally, his unblock request doesn't meaningfully address the reasons he was blocked in the first place, and with anyone other than Russavia, would likely have been procedurally declined. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brad and per TParis. Russavia hasn't changed a bit, from what I can see. Also, massive time-wasting dramaz follow him wherever he goes - Alison ^❤ 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drama has always been part and parcel of wikimedia Allie, its probably what makes this place interesting. I'm not a big fan of him on commons but over the last year or so, He has proven to be a good editor and I always believe in second chances. Some of the work he does on commons, having access to enwiki can help the wiki greatly...--Stemoc (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe in second chances too, sometimes third chances. How many is Russavia on? Right off the block on his last 'second chance', he paid to have a painting made of Jimbo with a penis and then edit warred to keep the picture on Wikipedia. What is he going to do immediately after this unblock request?--v/r - TP 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Give Jimbo a vag?...in all seriousness, the word '2nd chances' is a loosely used term, everyone on wiki atleast once was given a second chance, heck some even went on to become admins. The one good thing is that he can always be blocked again, its not like he is a 'vandal-only' account, he has over 70,000 edits to this wiki, most of which is good. If we started blocking users for having opinions, there would be no wikipedia..we have to assume good faith here. If we continue to ban experienced editors, what example are we actually setting for future editors?..--Stemoc (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • This is NOT a second chance. By my - albeit crude count - they've already been given roughly 20(!) chances.[72] Are you saying that everyone deserves 20(!) seconds chances? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me twenty times? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "we have to assume good faith here" No assumptions are needed. You do not have to assume something when you have history and facts to demonstrate something. Simply look at the user's history once unblocked, look at their willingness to abide by any restriction we place on them, look at their disregard for the community's time, and their disrespectful approach to the community. Russavia treats himself as a distinguished editor who deserves to edit here and acts as if he is the project's lone savior against prudes and censors so much so that he can't accept when the community feels he has gone too far.--v/r - TP 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Deli nk, Spartaz, Only in death does duty end, and many others. I would suggest instead that we limit this user to make such requests otherwise they will continue to waste the community's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, per others, especially Newyorkbrad. Given that Russavia was involved in epic-scale trolling on his talk page related to a copyright issue just three weeks ago, assertions that he has "done his time" seem rather premature. (And those familiar with my own history will be aware that I am far from being one of those "all copyright is stealing from humanity" wingnuts.) Deliberately creating pointless drama is a recurring theme, and one which seems – based on recent evidence – unlikely to abate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per the extensive history of drama and bad behavior. The need to keep him on a short leash is reason enough not to reopen the cage at all. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The only thing we know for sure is that an unblocked Russavia would end up at the center of more drama. Regarding the suggestion that a reblock could occur, the problem is that some people are expert at expanding boundaries. Is anyone going to block Russavia if he goes to Jimbo's talk and says "Hi, I'm back!". How about something more pointed? There is no way a block for gentle poking would work, so an unblock means there will be more polandballs or pointed paintings or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Horrendous block log for a variety of offenses. I see no sincere intention to change his disruptive behavior. The very notion that he will somehow stop trolling after yet another unblock is interesting. I know of very few "reformed" trolls. None actually, but YMMV. I certainly don't believe that this editor is reformed from his penchant for trolling. He glosses over his extensive disruption as engaging in "some controversies", wanting to "continue to engage as a good faith member of our community". I do not buy that. This thread has no realistic chance of achieving a consensus to unblock. Maybe a supportive admin should just boldly unblock him and we can watch the same show all over again? Doc talk 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The quotes presented by Smallbones clinch the matter for me. Russavia continues to harbor a poisonous grudge which is a toxin we do not need at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Russavia's block log tells a story of broken promises. Every single entry that is a "violation" is Russavia going against an agreement. So for anyone who suggests that Russavia is going to behave this time, what is different now from every single other time? I think that it's about time we say, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me a dozen times, shame on the community". -- Atama頭 05:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. During his absence from this project, Russavia has continued to troll and disrupt elsewhere, and I don't see any indication that this particular leopard has changed its spots (for reference, see his recent contributions to his talk page and on wikimedia-l). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
• Strong Oppose in the most serious terms enough has been said. Enough has been done. No reason for return. satusuro 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The unblock request is ingenuous to the point of dishonesty; the mailing list comments regarding the writer of an unfavorable press piece show the same attitude toward abusive content that led to the current, well-deserved block. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - being a 'good' editor is not nearly enough of an excuse to try and justify DICKish behaviour. He's been given enough chances in the past and blown them all - now it's too late. GiantSnowman 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brad and per my unpleasantly vivid memory of the Pricasso affair. I don't care if that was a year ago, I do not believe Russavia has become a reformed character in that space of time. Recent editing of his talkpage doesn't suggest it either, to my eyes. Incidentally I've removed a trolling oppose from an IP above, about what Russavia is like in real life and about how "he must be punished". The IP is requested to use their account if they want to post crap like that. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose per NYBrad, TParis and the mighty Bishonen.--MONGO 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure I can say any more than has already been said above. This is really just a not good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. I see nothing that suggests that Russavia's behavior will be any different in the future than it has been in the past. His behavior did not improve after his multiple prior blocks, and it would be foolish of us to expect otherwise this time. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see any evidence that he has changed or that the problems won't continue if he's unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Djsasso. Graham87 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Content contribution is not a free pass to act badly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose serious issues resulted in the ban, his life on Commons isnt as rosie as its being said he lost that communities trust in August[73] but a person can operate a on Commons without issue even totally isolated from much of the community as it doesnt have the collaborative demands necessary to write content. Gnangarra 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no real indication that problems won't continue, TParis and NYB summed up the issue quite well.--Staberinde (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much drama, no indication provided that anything will change. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion - Unblock only for the purpose of allowing Russavia to appeal his block to ArbCom. If ArbCom declines to hear the case, reblock. If ArbCom agrees to hear the case, leave him unblocked in order to present his case to ArbCom. If he engages in personal attacks or trolling while the ArbCom case is in progress, ArbCom can take into account, and can decide to ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • On a practical level, arbcom usually handles block/ban appeals over email, not the case pages. An unblock isn't needed for him to email arbcom. On a different level If there's signifigant consensus that the community doesn't support an unblock IMHO it's be inappropriate for arbcom to over rule the will of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see Arb accepting the case anyway. Clearly the community is capable of dealing with the issue, and Arb doesn't accept a case unless the community is incapable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock We do have some editors that give good service and who also cause some trouble. I missed what he did this time at the time, but I feel that there'll be so many people watching him like shitehawks that he won't have much chance to do very much wrong before it gets stopped. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. In addition to my reasons stated on Russavia's talk page, I should mention that the editor stated an intention to "look at having topic ban removed" for Aeroflot; this implies that the editor is interested in returning to areas where he caused problems before. I echo the comments bade by Spartaz, TParis, and Newyorkbrad above. Also restating the obvious, Russavia can continue to contribute to the project on his talk page and on Wikimedia Commons. (edit conflict) - tucoxn\^talk 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nothing in Russavia's recent behavior either here or on Commons convinces me that he won't immediately resume drama-mongering. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Many editors, myself included, have wasted far too much time analyzing Russavia, searching without success for indications that he is not really a highly sophisticated troll. He has had a score of "second chances", and always returns to disruptive behavior. Enough is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any reason he still has talk page access? —Neotarf (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock I've had some limited interraction with Russavia and he certainly seems committed to the project. Sure, his past behavior has been aberrative on occasion, but if we lift the block he's going to have a lot of eyes on him; as Anthonyhcole says right at the start of this discussion, "Block him again if he trolls again". IMHO, no editor can have too many chances, providing that their overall contribution to the project is a net positive.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough time has been wasted on this drama magnet. — Scott • talk 17:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough trolling is enough. No sign at all that the user understands and has moved on from past behaviour. Note also this diff, in which arbitrator Roger Davies suggests that Russavia, in his dialogue with ArbCom that led to his unblock last time, promised to turn over a new leaf and in fact did no such thing. (Pinging Roger in case I am in any way misreading him.) I see no reason we should believe him this time with that track record. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  Nope, you're not misreading me at all,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  This is one of those threads that has not a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. How much longer can we keep it open, knowing the inevitable? 'Til Hell freezes over! I look forward to further, extended discussion on this thread. He's really quite close to gaining an unblock here, clearly. Doc talk 06:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fully understanding that this is not a !vote, and not analyzing at all the strengths of the various arguments (well beyond my capability), a simple headcount at this moment shows:
  • Oppose - 41
  • Support - 21
  • Other - 6

That's not in "snow" territory, but it's not close (on the count alone) to a consensus to unblock. BMK (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a minor (but important) difference between "no consensus to unblock", and "consensus is to not unblock" ... the panda ₯’ 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, except that since being blocked is the default condition here, they wind up with the same result. And just to note, none of the !votes above are mine - I have no dog in this huint. BMK (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no !vote above either :-) the panda ₯’ 19:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that the closing admin(s) should, in conjunction with presenting a compelling rationale for their decision, set the process and terms and conditions for future unblock requests on this matter (assuming of course that they decide that there exists no consensus to unblock which seems likely). —Dark 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds way more complicated than it really is. "There is no consensus, leaning towards oppose. Russavia should take note of the discussion to address any concerns and reapply in 6 months." The closer has ZERO AUTHORITY to set conditions for a future unblock request. I would likely revert any closer than attempted to fix conditions in the close. That is outside the scope of the role and outside of any policy that I'm aware of. It isn't a supervote, afterall. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. No, the closing admin doesn't have any authority written in policy. However, if the closer finds that there is enough discussion about conditions here, which there arn't really, then they could have authority in WP:CONSENSUS to do so. Even then, if the closer feels that the community has had enough, they could invokve an WP:IAR authority. Then it's a matter of if the community objects enough. If not, then silence means consensus.--v/r - TP 17:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that if the closer is summarizing consensus, that is different than imposing unilateral rules. As for IAR in a case like this, a number of people would revert a close with terms outside the discussion, however. WP:IAR does allow for such a thing, but that is a rare thing that would never be likely to stand in a high profile case like this. So you are technically correct, but practice would never see it. I still feel a close similar to what I provided would be sufficient, the discussion pretty much speaks for itself. The situation is complicated, but there are enough articulate and well thought out votes here that the message is clear: no real consensus, but it is leaning oppose. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's a yes and no. I'm one of the sysops that has involved IAR on a topic like this in the past and been successful; several times in fact. I don't know if I'd do it here. But this is really an issue of WP:BEANS. The topic hasn't been brought up before, but now that it has been brought up we're likely to discuss it. I'd support a 6-month moratorium on future unblock requests (I'd support a year too). A closing sysop can see these late changes in a discussion and weight them differently. Arguments brought up late in a discussion and widely supported after that point should be weighed much more strongly than arguments brought up earlier. Who knows, by even talking about what the closing sysop should do, and saying they shouldn't impose restrictions, this may have opened up the discussion necessary to actually achieve consensus for those restrictions.--v/r - TP 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support a 6-month or 1-year moratorium on future unblock requests. - tucoxn\^talk 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I, too, would support a 6-month or 1-year moratorium on future unblock requests, preferably the latter. This user's misconduct has been a huge time sink and determent to the project. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As this is the only unban request in a year, putting a restriction would be punitive and I would react as such. This is twisting the knife, and a solution where there is no problem. He hasn't been peppering WP:AN with requests every month. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - but I still don't see any unblock request being effective within six months.--v/r - TP 00:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Russavia has been punished with a lengthy block, which I think has been good enough for now. Russavia was a definite net positive to the project, but sadly his occasional nonsense got in the way. I personally believe that after unblocking Russavia will keep the nonsense to himself since this is more than likely to be his last chance to be welcome here. Unblocks are cheap, if Russavia continues to be disruptive after being unblocked he can just as easily be reblocked. Not even sure if my opinion will matter since the consensus looks like people want him to stay blocked. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Unblocks for relatively unknown editors with hardly any history are cheap. Unblocks for editors who have been around as long as Russavia have, have as much history as he has, and are as controversial as he is are very expensive. They cost community time, patience, sanity, and resources. Any future block, as a violation of unblock conditions, his topic bans, or other rationale, are all going to be controversial no matter how legitimate they are and will be heavily debated and cause high tensions. We don't need more of that.--v/r - TP 17:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, since blocks aren't supposed to be punitive, the block is in place to prevent Russavia from causing further disruption, not to punish him. Because of that, the situation shouldn't really be viewed as "he's done his time, now unblock him". G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - too problematic of a history and given the topic area in relation to current events, maybe its just me but I dont see this going down well. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. I remember the controversy that got him blocked. The way Russavia's unblock request puts it, he got blocked because Jimbo was offended by his article, not because of anything that Russavia himself did. That doesn't inspire confidence that his behavior will change. If he rewrote his appeal to more readily address his own behavior, that would be more compelling. Maybe next time? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not trying to put words in your mouth,but your comment appears to be more of the "opposed" nature than "neutral". BMK (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's OK. It does read a bit that way, doesn't it? I'm fine either way, but I can't personally vote to support an unblock based on the current wording. Maybe he'll amend it or take this whole ANI discussion into consideration for his next appeal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While somewhat moot at this point given the consensus against unblocking above, I note that Russavia did not apologise or acknowledge his errors in the unblock request, and is basically asking to be unblocked because the events occurred a while ago and he hasn't been grinding this particular axe. The odds of him continuing his disruptive behaviour if unblocked seem to be pretty high. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Something new

If the request for an unblock failed, and Russavia started editing with another account, what should we do? bobrayner (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Tokusatsu (self imposed)

The last AN/ANI issue that involved me dates back to this community unban in relation to this appeal which I originally agreed not to edit tokusatsu articles. As suggested by Penwhale an administrator can hold a user to a voluntary restriction, which I have seen many users in the past impose voluntary restrictions on themselves and violate those restrictions and an administrator block them by the violation.

I quote from that appeal (note the emphasis on the topic ban)

If allowed back, I do not intend to return to the tokusatsu articles which I had edited during my first tenure. For my second tenure, I will make efforts to balance out my time as an editor with that of the janitor (but first, I must start off as merely the editor). I will not go off on every single instance and say "hey man, I really think you shouldn't have done that" nor look for every conflict on Wikipedia and get involved for the sake of getting involved. I will turn more attention to my work rather than caressing the details regarding the actions of others.

The original topic ban was imposed as an enforcement provision pertaining to this gratuitous mention of Ryulong who I edited the topic area with which I felt at the time because I struck the comment when asked meant no further action was needed which as all a part of my mechanical interpretation of policies/sanctions I maintained at the time. Looking back now out of all the "examples" I could have chosen, I took to bringing into an inappropriate unrelated venue the one user whom due to our past history I'd have no business commenting on regardless of the rights/wrongs of such a mention.

At the time of my unban I re-imposed that ban on myself as a means of further assuring there would be no return to "old habits" as it would give me time to develop interests outside of the tokusatsu articles and unobsess myself from Ryulong and ease back into the project for a fresh new start. Now, having had unfinished business to attend to the topic area as I still have yet to help produce the guideline I was advised among the other participants of the WikiProject to produce. In response to this ANI discussion and this clarification request, the arbitration committee passed a motion basically barring me from verifiability/reliable sources polices unless comments about said policies were used toward the production of the advised guideline. I intend to use that opportunity to show that I am here to work collaboratively, but also to experiment with new approaches/ideas/tactics toward my current approach as opposed to my old so called "general approach".

Since my return a year and a half ago (which I was semi-active up until May 25, 2014 by the way), I have edited almost exclusively in the article space. Most of my work is still very much janitorial, but the difference between now and then is I don't let that janitorial work get in the way of the purpose of building an encyclopedia and maintaining the upkeep of the enyclopedia.

Based off of the agreement not to edit tokusatsu set forth in my unban appeal and the consensus for my unblock whilst acknowledging my intention not to return to the topic area, I shall submit myself to the community to review the self imposed topic ban. —Mythdon 07:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really against lifting the ban, but I do have to wonder why you felt the need to first bury your talk page history to where nothing links to it anymore, right before making this request.--Atlan (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Those were just edits only by myself on an essentially empty archive so was just moving that empty history. For some odd reason I forgot to re-add the talk page header and archive search box once my talk page was recreated which I've just done now. —Mythdon 10:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. I'm not crazy about the idea of enforcing self-imposed bans (rather than treating the unceremonious breach of such commitments as evidence that the next time, voluntary restrictions might not be obeyed). I also think the limbo that could come up with stuff like this is yet another reason to disfavor indefinite editing restrictions (as opposed to ones with renewal provisions). Interestingly, another way of looking at this discussion is that a negative outcome (that is, the voluntary restrictions are not lifted) would have the effect of converting the voluntary restrictions into involuntary restrictions. I'm not sure what a "no consensus" outcome would do... probably the same. While I support allowing Mythdon to stop following the voluntary restrictions, I express no opinion on whether involuntary editing restrictions should be imposed in place of them. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong Any particular reason or just going for the !vote argument? Hasteur (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bandana_man95 and the philosophy meme

68.97.21.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bandana man95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP and editor (one in the same) have been making spurious edits to the first linked word in several articles in what seems to be a campaign designed to break the "Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy" meme. Most of these edits have been swiftly reverted, but I feel like this might be a single purpose account created to make a point. I gave a standard welcome and request for them to cite sources, but I think they may need some other attention if they persist. --Netoholic @ 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP and editor haven't done anything since not long after this report was submitted (no blocks were issued). It does look like Netoholic is right insofar as something fishy is going on with respect to Getting to Philosophy. There are good edits mixed in with the questionable though. To me, this looks mostly harmless... potentially how a truly new editor might get experience, by editing in topic area of interest. And we have good, experienced contributors who had much rockier starts. I think the best option here is to keep an eye on things, give warnings as needed, and if disruption continues blocking may be warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Intelligentguy89 again

Pursuant to this complaint that was archived without action, I'm afraid to report that IG89 is still engaged in tendentious editing and acting against consensus. Failing to secure inclusion of certain content in Indian general election, 2014, he posted the disputed content to 16th Lok Sabha. Another editor who was aware of that discussion at the election article found the content, and after asking if it needed removing removed it. IG89 has been edit warring and trolling since, and has been a tad abusive too, particularly against User:Iryna Harpy (Discussion here). I've tried reasoning with him and I've also given him a 3RR warning, but he's ranting and shouting. As a WP:POINT-violation, he also posted a edit war warning to an editor who clearly had not been engaged in any such warring. Can someone do something? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, this is getting a bit annoying. At first I thought that this content was placed and discussed in just one article, then I found two more with it, and he wants fresh talk page discussions to exclude it (rather than include) from those articles despite the prior discussions on the original article and at NPOVN. —SpacemanSpiff 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Intelligentguy89 has gone being beyond WP:TEDIOUS to plain WP:BATTLEGROUND. Previously, he'd accused other editors as being WP:SOCKS. While the original AN/I wasn't actioned, I was prepared to leave it to rest as he'd appeared to have settled down. Looking at his special contributions, however, the lull is attributable to a short period of inactivity on Wikipedia.

In order to be WP:POINTy, he posted an unwarranted edit warring template on my talk page.

Please note that he was fully aware of the fact that the discussion of the use of the self-same content was being continued at the original venue within the context of the use of this content in any related articles. User:Dharmadhyaksha had asked for input as to whether it was also inappropriate for use in the 16th Lok Sabha article. The only edit warring that's occurred has been by Intelligentguy89 (as evidenced by 5 reverts within the space of an hour). Calling for discussions to begin from scratch on every individual article talk page regarding content considered to be inappropriate in any context can only be construed as an attempt to game the system. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding all of the above:

• "Another editor who was aware of that discussion at the election article found the content, and after asking if it needed removing removed it." Did everyone at that talk page agree that the content in question should be removed from 16th Lok Sabha? Or is it that some editors' opinion is more valued than that of others? Besides, should not the discussion for 16th Lok Sabha take place on Talk:16th Lok Sabha, and not Talk:Indian general election, 2014? They are two different articles, dealing with two different topics. Just because some content is unsuitable for one, does not mean that it is unsuitable for the other, too. The latest version of the section describes some details of the members of the 16th Lok Sabha and is backed by valid third-party references. It is notable, encyclopedic content. And the latest version is not necessarily portraying the members only in a negative light. It has some neutral information too. It is a description of the members, and is not "meaningless" or "scandal-mongering" as User:Ohconfucius suggests.
• There is a request posted on the NPoV notice board, to resolve the issue of the content in question. But there has been no involvement of a third party administrator or NPoV expert editor in this issue. So it is surprising how some are thinking that there is "consensus", or that the issue has been resolved. It is still pending.
• WP:POINTy - As the page says, someone engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which they do not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition. I never made any edit that I do not agree with. User:Iryna Harpy undid my edits adding important information to 16th Lok Sabha, without initiating any discussion on the talk page of that article. It is not as if an edit war results only when 3 revert edits are made. By the way, User:Ohconfucius, who is having a problem with me posting a warning to another user after she made a single reverting edit, himself did the same thing on my talk-page, after I undid a single edit that had deleted a whole section on Indian general election, 2014. So he is losing consistency in principles when someone on his side is edit warring.
• User:Ohconfucius has not tried to "reason" with me any time. He seems to be doing the opposite. When informed and questioned about his unacceptable actions, he opens ANI after ANI, wasting others' time. He is also using language that may be considered as an attempt to threaten or intimidate. He is behaving as if he has a lot of authority and is above other users.
• Response to my observation that some editors may in fact be WP:Socks can be found at the previous discussion. I do not think there is any need to repeat it here.
• User:Iryna Harpy is either uninformed about what counts as a single revert, or is trying exaggerate matters. She should also pay attention to reading the time properly, from the article history. I did not make "5 reverts within the space of an hour" on 16th Lok Sabha. They were 3 reverts, withing the space 5 hours.
• Yes, I was aware of the discussion that was going on Talk:Indian general election, 2014#Constant removal of MPs with criminal background. I never denied that, unlike what User:Iryna Harpy and others may be thinking. But I am not unjustified in requesting for discussion of content for 16th Lok Sabha to take place on talk:16th Lok Sabha. Any so-called consensus on Talk:Indian general election, 2014 is not automatically valid for all other articles related to Indian politics. And it is not necessary that Talk:Indian general election, 2014 has received comments from all users concerned about content on 16th Lok Sabha. The talk page of another article may lead to a different consensus. And there is no consensus (or even valid argument) for exclusion of the said section from all Wikipedia articles. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing at semantics. Reintroducing content that had already been removed based on consensus, then reinstating it again (whether by reverting or by cutting and pasting precisely the same content again) is edit warring. The fact that, using one rollback to revert the content you'd reintroduced in two edits, it shows up as 2 reverts provides an insight into the methodology you're deploying in order to game the system. Incidentally, 2 reverts is not WP:3RR, whereas beginning at 21.00 and spreading your edits over into the next day at 1.00 is trying to fly under the radar. Every tactic you're deploying is purely insidious WP:TE. WP:BRD does not mean bold, revert, cast WP:ASPERSIONS about everyone who doesn't agree with you through personal attacks, accusing them of being WP:SOCKS and anything else that occurs to you at the time, then restoring the content you want to include and starting the process again. Edit warring is not restricted to 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You are engaged in a slow edit war, and all of your actions violate the spirit of Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Three reverts still count as edit warring; four reverts will earn you a block. Your defences are rather lawyerly and disingenuous. Although there were never any responses to my posts here or at NPOVN, it still means there was no support for your position, and three or more editors still ranged against your continued reinsertion and disruption. Kindly desist. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Town of Menemen

There are problematic edits made in Menemen page by User:Alexikoua. I wrote on its talkpage but no result only I am accused. Removes academic sources by calling them "povish". Even non-controversial items such as date of occupation is replaced with a unsourced broken sentence. Someone should have a look at this.Dunderstrar (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Is engaged in a biased revisionism of Menemen massacre. 1. edit [74] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. The changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [75] Removes Greek atrocities against Turks, rewords sentences in disregard of the sources used. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As we don't deal with content issues, could you explain how you've fared following WP:DR processes? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to distort the article, but there is no discussion on the article talkpage. That should be the first step. Sairp (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we only discussed the edits on its own talkpage . Dunderstrar (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User is still continuing revisionism on the Talk:Menemen. Dunderstrar (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to follow wp:HISTRS. To sum up: secondary academic level references from institutions such as King's college (Un. London), in this case, can't be so easy considered biased. I would suggest you take it to wp:RSN. Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, still continuing the same behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the exact dif where I say that "an academic reference is povish"?Alexikoua (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrote here "fixing severe pov issues",[76] while totally removing the source [Rethinking Violence, Erica Chenoweth]. Now Alexikoua wants me banned, Someone should warn it for this behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Simply, bad faith accusations, since the pov mentioned was about the way the new version was written (repetition of same events in pov fashion). I suggest you follow wp:NPA. Running straight in here and accusing editors of something they didn't claimed before even posting in the corresponding talkpage isn't a right approach in general, as you have been instructed by other users.Alexikoua (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User continues revisionism. It now claims that two different sources refer to the same event while adding more text about Greeks getting massacred. Shows revenge behavior. Explained on talk page the seperate events, its futile. Someone should look at this uncontrolled biased behavior. Dunderstrar (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretending that someone's "behaviour" is biased is a very serious accusation and off course wp:NPA breaching. This combination of excessive trolling and wp:BATTLEGROUND by a (supposed) brand new user is, is described in this sockpuppet investigation in detail.Alexikoua (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Again repeating. I asked why it made problematic edits on its talkpage. I asked to put events in context. User refuses to put events in context. Does revisionism. Removed even non-controversial items such as date of occupation with a unsourced broken sentence. Then I corrected and complained here. Itd didn't start using talkpage till mentioned here. Adds massacres committed on Greeks, tries to reword/remove events on Turks, shows one sided revenge behavior. Now wants to ban me so imagining none will oppose its edits. Dunderstrar (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Found another problematic edit by Alexikoua at Menemen massacre [77] removes location of the town. Adds broken sentences to remove the word "occupation"? Dunderstrar (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User insists in another massacre article putting a casualty number of 35 in detail. Does this in disregard of the multiple western sources which give the total victims above 5.000. Its first addition didn't mention that the inquiry is based on 177 people. Is repeatedly rewording sources in different meanings. Problematic behavior goes way back in time. Removed in 2012 the link to the town in the Menemen massacre. Can this behavior not be sanctioned? Dunderstrar (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet one more evidence for the sockpuppet investigation of DragonTiger23. Sockmaster shared the same obsession. It will be a matter of hours to close this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami edit-warring at Gaulish language

I am at my wits' end with Kwamikagami (talk · contribs). The other day, I intervened as a neutral admin in a bitter feud between Kwami and Skookum1 (talk · contribs) (see here). At the time, I was seeing the fault predominantly – though not exclusively – on the other side, and ended up formally warning Skookum [78], hoping that Kwami would also take on a more collaborative stance. The next day, I learned that Kwami had also been in another unrelated dispute, where his opponent User:Cagwinn had become just as exasperated and bitter with him as Skookum had been. This time, I thought I could help better not as an admin but by providing a third opinion as an expert editor [79], hoping to be able to quickly dissolve the dispute. But now I am finding myself in followup disputes with Kwami myself, and am feeling just the same sense of frustration with him as Skookum and Cagwinn did previously. I am up against a brickwall of intransigence on talk, bordering on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT obtuseness, and a persistent strategy of systematic slow edit-warring just below 3R, often using a variety of spurious "fact", "pov" or "failed verification" tags. The content discussion is here, but it's now shifted to an obscure technical issue that will probably be difficult for outside readers to even understand. Kwami has been revert-warring against three other highly knowledgeable editors (Cagwinn, myself, and User:Cuchullain). He was up just at 3R on 14 May[80][81][82] and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May [83][84][85], and again on 30/31 May [86][87][88][89], always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June [90], 10 June [91] and 12 June [92]. Kwami is alone against consensus on talk with this, and despite the "see talk" in his latest edit summary he has not made any further contributions there, and has failed to heed my advice to seek outside dispute resolution instead. He has also been edit-warring in parallel on several other related articles [93][94][95].

What makes it worse is that he has in the meantime also resumed his contentious behaviour in the other matter, where of course now I can no longer take administrative action as I would have otherwise. He made these hostile baiting edits to Skookum1's talkpage [96][97], after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here [98]. For these alone, I would normally have blocked him, given the prior history. He was also again revert-warring with Skookum on one of the pages in question [99].

At this point I really no longer know what to do with him. My patience for debating with him directly is exhausted; chances for getting more outside knowledgeable opinions to solidify consensus are slim (my own and Cuchullain's involvement were just that already, and the issue is too obscure for most non-experts to be able to contribute much); and he shows absolutely no sign of being willing to accept other people's views. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I had a quick look, as I enjoy reading language articles, though I don't have much to directly contribute towards them. I think the root problem is a general lack of collaborative editing - instead of just slapping {{fv}} on a sentence, ([100]) would it not be simpler to change one or two words so it fits the source? eg: " The more divergent Lepontic Celtic of Northern Italy has also been compared to Gaulish". DRN would be the obvious next place to go - that said, if somebody is repeatedly making three reverts (and no more), then they're obviously clued up on WP:3RR and deliberately skirting it to cause just enough disruption not to get blocked for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The is about Kwami's behaviour from the get-go. He's got a particular 'bee in his bonnet' which he's been trying to bulldoze into a wide swathe of Celtic language related articles since at least the beginning of May. I was briefly involved on Common Brittonic, Brittonic languages, Insular Celtic etc then. Same pattern of edit warring that switches back and forth between changing text/adding tags. I couldn't maintain my interest - but if the same level of bulldozing is going on now a month later then there is a real behavioural problem. An editor of his experience must know full well that he should be keeping it to the talk pages until he gets consensus. DeCausa (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333: it isn't about "changing one or two words so it fits the source". There isn't even any disagreement over whether the current summary matches what the source says. It quite obviously does. The source is about as unambiguous and explicit as you could wish for. What Kwami has got fixated on is that, by some convoluted WP:SYNTH reasoning of his own, he claims that what that author says in the paper cited is somehow logically inconsistent with something else he says in some other paper, and that therefore when he uses the term "Gaulish" in that first paper he must be meaning something entirely different than what everybody else means by that term, so it somehow isn't in the scope of what the article is about. It's outrageously OR'ish (of course, nobody else in the literature has sensed any such contradiction, and it can easily be shown that many other authors in reliable sources have identified the author in question as a chief proponent of the view that we are attributing to him.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah no, I just meant why didn't Kwamikagami copyedit the article to make things clearer respective to the source, rather than wantonly slapping a tag on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm agree that the edit warring and intransigence has risen to the level that administrator intervention is necessary. As Future Perfect at Sunrise says, in addition to the issues at Gaulish language, it's affected numerous other articles. For instance we had an extensive central discussion about Kwami's proposed changes to the Celtic language infoboxes here, and the result was that literally no other editor supported any of his suggested changes. However, he continues to revert war them back into the articles.[101][102][103] These changes aren't even consistent with each other. His behavior shows he's not willing to work constructively to build consensus, or accept any consensus that disagrees with him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Fut perf, I have also interacted with Kwamikagami, he rejects the archaeological sources, and he also rejects the academic sources. He rejects the reliable sources just because he didn't liked the title of the book. If source is unavailable to him, he will call it snippet, but we can say that source is actually available to him, cause he still need some excuse. If you make better argument, he will say I will look into it later, he don't reply to the posts even if he is trying to own articles. Many of the articles where he has edit warred should be checked, you can find bunch of reliable sources and information to have been removed by Kwamikagami. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I hate to add on here, since Kwami is one of the most productive and knowledgeable Writing Systems editors - an area of special concern to me - but this seems to be a pervasive, ongoing problem with Kwami's editing style. Part of it stems from the fact that Kwami is so often actually correct in many of these situations that when (s)he is wrong about something, it ends up being a huge problem, because Kwami ends up treating good-faith editors with a better understanding of the material as if they were POV pushers. It's becoming more and more obvious that Kwami needs to seriously undertake a process of developing collegiality in his/her dealings with other editors or needs to take a wikibreak. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I also had firsthand experience with Kwamikagami's arrogance and intransigence. I created the article Jinhui dialect (aka Dondac) based on a research paper published in the academic journal Science, and Kwami soon began attacking the journal as an unreliable source. He later added a Chinese source which he claimed to refute the Science article, but it instead corroborated the data used by the Science article. This was when I realized Kwami had no idea what he was talking about, and likely did not even understand the Chinese source. When I pointed it out to him, he began attacking the credibility of the source he provided himself. He insisted, without any evidence, that the 20 vowels of Jinhui included allophones, even though his own source explicitly said they were all phonemes. He repeatedly reverted my edits, removing the Science source, and replaced the list of vowels from the source with a completely different set, with no explanation where they came from. When he couldn't convince me, he canvassed Taivo for help. Taivo had been blocked for disruptive editing and was just recently unblocked by Kwami himself, who was still an admin at the time. Taivo obliged as expected, parroting Kwami's claim that Science is not a reliable source and reverting my edits, without adding any content or source. Out of disgust, I quit editing the article I started. See Talk:Jinhui dialect for details. I used to respect Kwami as one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia, but after this episode, I began to wonder how much of his "contribution" was fraudulent. Separately, I also stumbled upon another article on Chinese linguistics, where Kanguole, one of the most knowledgeable editors in the field, quit editing the article after a similar experience with Kwami. -Zanhe (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaqeli ignoring active topic ban notice and removing it from his talk page

• Jaqeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Georgian alphabet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Georgian scripts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Jaqeli (talk · contribs) was topic banned on January 5th[104] from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet. He removed the ban notice a couple of weeks later[105] after he had been blocked for a week for violating the ban, and when I replaced it twice today he reverted me both times. Our guidelines make it clear that active sanctions cannot be removed from talk pages - WP:BLANKING. Whether or not he is now violating the ban itself I'm not sure, although he certainly was in March with edits such as [106] and [107] which were about the history of the Georgian alphabet, now renamed Georgian scripts. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can edit the Georgian scripts everywhere but the only section where I am topic banned there is the origins sections. So, no, I haven't violated anything for sure If you're concerned about it. Jaqeli (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Where do you get that interpretation? As far as I can see, you indeed are banned from any edits whatsoever in the topic, except for reverting basic vandalism (e.g. someone replaces the Georgian alphabet article with obscenities) and from discussions about the ban itself, such as here. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's trying to convince us that he can edit to do with origins so long as he doesn't edit the origins section. The 2 diffs above are about origins/history of the Georgian alphabet/script. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, do you even know what my TBAN actually is? Jaqeli (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me: "You are topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet" (emphasis mine). Not: "You are topic-banned, as described in WP:TBAN, from [editing only] the history of the Georgian alphabet" (interpretation... not mine). Yunshui ^雲_水 12:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Actually, fair enough - Sandstein's wording is easily misinterpreted. You are topic banned from areas which relate to Georgia and Armenia together, not "areas which relate to Georgia" and "areas which relate to Armenia". I would still say that Georgian scripts as a whole meets that criterion, and topic bans are usually supposed to be broadly construed, but I see where you're coming from. However, this thread was started with relation to the blanking of a message regarding an active sanction, and that definitely isn't allowed under the current wording of WP:REMOVED. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I admit I originally hadn't caught that myself, and only brought him here after he twice reverted my addition of his topic ban to this talk page, despite my edit summaries saying it should not be removed and a subheading to that effect. He has been editing material to do with the history of the Georgian language and he is specifically banned from that. If you look at earlier version of his talk page you will see him arguing about that it includes and he seems to have been trying to exclude as much as he can. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be worth having @Sandstein:, @Callanecc: or @EdJohnston: make a comment here to properly delineate what the topic ban encompasses. As it stands, it could be read as a topic ban from all Armenia and all Georgia related articles or a topic ban only from articles which involve Armenia and Georgia together, but exempts articles that are solely about Georgia or Armenia. Blackmane (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I can confirm (as a follower of both Sandstein and Jaqeli's talkpages) that the topic ban is ONLY related to topics where Georgia AND Armenia intersect. the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Based on the discussion that took place at the time, I think Sandstein intended the latter - but yes, it should be clarified. It should also be visible on the talkpage... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And that includes the history of the Georgian alphabet - that was added specifically. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#CMT, I have restored the AE notice. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

As did User:Avpop, but he removed both yours and Avpop's. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored it too, but he promptly reverted me: [108]. Mdann52 has now warned him for edit warring. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And of course he is not allowed to remove it at all. He's removed it 6 times now. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How often is that really enforced though? Technically, shouldn't everyone with an active sanction on WP:RESTRICT have their sanction notice on their talk page? Ravensfire (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably. Topic ban notices are important and trying to hide them tendentious. It's been suggested that ban notices should be archivable (although he is actually deleting) but that's gained no traction at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked?. Any editor who looks at another editor's talk page should be able to see the ban notice - how else are they supposed to know that an editor is breaking a ban? Sure, experienced editors know where to look, but would most of us even do that? Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree. Ravensfire (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• He has now removed it again, stating that it's in his archive (it is). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And they are not a 3RR exception: "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

reported to WP:AN3. I have better things to do than deal with this... --Mdann52talk to me! 16:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's reverted again: [109]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week for edit-warring - he's clearly past 3RR and not following user page guidelines. He's been told someone might unblock him if he adds a link to the topic ban on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that the ban covers only topics related to both Armenia and Georgia, which is ... well, exactly what it says. I have no opinion about the ban notice removal issue, except that from an AE perspective, removing ban notices should not be a problem, as AE sanctions are centrally logged. Generally, topic ban violations should be reported at WP:AE, not here.  Sandstein  17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And the main reason for reporting him here was not a topic ban violation but removing the topic ban. The average editor should not be expected to even know about central logging of AE sanctions, which is in part why the guideline is important to enforce. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• You know, I started playing around with a concept that maybe I should continue with, regarding restrictions and sanctions:

1. an editor who has formal restrictions (AE, unblock conditions, etc) would have a subpage created (such as User:DangerousPanda/Restrictions) that formally lists the restrictions and expiry dates, plus link to FORMAL place where it was enacted and/or listed in the case of WP:RESTRICT, AE, etc.
2. that page would also categorize the person as "editor under restrictions"
3. a centralized list would exist based on that category that makes it easy to find by users/admins
4. the page would be full-protected to avoid someone screwing with it

Thus, we wouldn't care if the editor removed restrictions notices - it would be centrally-managed/listed the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Unconstructive comments by Horst-schlaemma

There has recently been a discussion in the Germany article over the inclusion of a picture for the Holocaust in the section for the Third Reich. Horst-schlaemma's contributions, have consistently included discouraging of any discussion on the matter and personal attacks to other editors. This behaviour is certainly not helpful and only creates problems to the discussion. Here are his contributions:

1

2

3

4

I suggest that he is immediately blocked. This is an ongoing discussion, that has recently gotten to RfC level, and its civil development must be safeguarded. Nxavar (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I need to get blocked immediately, not a single doubt left about that. It's clear we're talking with several sockpuppets of another user here, see identical writing style and discussion fallacy. The change of the photo was a purposeful provocation to the main editors of the Germany article including me. It didn't happen with any consent in such a sensible area, nor was it necessary. I'm not even opposing to including a related picture to the article, but it needs to serve the purpose of the former. The former pair of Hitler<>destroyed city (cause<>result, beginning<>end) was long established in the article and served its purpose very well. And I pointed this out. Volunteer Marek and his "fellows" again are just trolling. The current image selection wasn't put in question during the FA-process either. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like over-reaction. While I think User:Horst-schlaemma would be well-advised to tone down the rhetoric, I see zero warnings on their talk page, and you want to jump to a block?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable here. Without making any comment reagrding the RFC in question, none of Horst-schlaemma's comments rise to the level of a personal attack. They're hardly polite, and I'd caution H-s to remember that we're trying to create a collaboration here, but he has just as much right to contribute to the discussion as anyone else. Certainly there is absolutely no justification for a block. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for my sarcastic tone, but I'm seriously annoyed of this "bunch". It's pretty obvious it's one or at best two users heading at different nation-related articles to mess things up. I observed it several times now and am too annoyed to even consider argueing with "them", as it virtually never leads anywhere. There's several IPs that indeed could need a good block now. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Quoting:

"User Volunteer Marek is on a constant mission to butcher Germany-related articles. I wouldn't give a flying f* about what he has to say on the topic.(...)"

"Your knee-jerk reactions only tell me how I'm right about the monologue part."

If that is just "hardly polite" then I am desillusioned about the standards of civility in Wikipedia. In anycase, I suggested a block, you are free to choose a milder response. Nxavar (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And I've done so - I choose to respond by reminding H-s that he's editing in a collaborative environment, and that civility is one of our guiding policies. Beyond that, there's really nothing more to be done. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Since history of events is important, if you believe that Horst-Shlaemma acted innapropriately, you should place some warning or notice on his talk page. Nxavar (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

H-s just said this. Undoubtedly aggressive. Nxavar (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Horst-schlaemma comes out of nowhere, says he's one of the long time page editors and enters into the discussion when its in the final stages of being resolved. Then he reverts the photo on the page and starts throwing around accusations of sock puppets? He's clearly disrupting the decision and voting process. In fact, in the voting process there were 5 votes for the new photo and only two or three against, one of which was made by an IP address user whose sole edit had been to comment on the page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He also removed some of his comments, which constitutes vandalism. He may as well apologize and "take them back" them if he feels they are inaproppriate. Nxavar (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, that is not vandalism, according to WP:REDACTED. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Only to the extent that it doesn't make replies look out-of-context. This is why in my revert, I sticked to restoring removed comments, and I did not revert the small edits to aggresive expressions. Nxavar (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'll point out that in your revert you also removed one of your own comments, an action you previously identified as vandalism. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment was somewhat aggressive and no replies were made to it. Nxavar (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Continued unconstructive edits by Horst-schlaemma

In a recent thread I mentioned Horst-schlaemma's unconstructive contributions in the discussion The Buchenwald concentation camp photograph: really necessary on an overview page for Germany?. No administrative action was taken.

In this recent edit he once again resorts to personal attacks. I think this time a warning is appropriate. Nxavar (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you are an adult person, but you should already be able to distinguish "personal attacks" from the reasonable ground for suspecting. Now stop this farcical raid on me, please. Thank you. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly accusing others of sock-puppeting constitutes personal attack. If you think there is such a problem, notify the administrators. They are the ones with the access to evidence and the authority to make such conclusions. Nxavar (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have combined this thread with the previous one, Unconstructive comments by Horst-schlaemma, since they are obviously on the same topic. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind advice. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if Horst (and his friends) quit trying to insinuate that I am sock puppeting or somehow connected to some other users. I have no idea who the users commenting above are. Nxavar or G S Palmer or whoever else. I'd also appreciate it if he just refrained from making ridiculous accusations directed at me in general.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wait - has he implied that I'm a sockpuppet of yours? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:BsBsBs -- POV, incivility, wikilawyering

In 2010, BsBsBs very aggressively advanced his purist definition of "city proper" in Talk:List of cities proper by population. While I understand and respect his point of view, he was frequently very uncivil during the discussion, engaging in extensive wikilawyering, mocking other users, and even suggesting that I not edit Wikipedia.

The end result of the discussion was that he created a separate article, World's largest municipalities by population. Although this was suggested (and I agree with the suggestion), the article was (and still is) quite opinionated, with a long explanation preceding the list that makes an extensive use of the term "city proper" and backing of his definition of it, in direct conflict with List of cities proper by population. (He also rewrote City proper to advance his point of view.)

The article he created was nominated for deletion a long time ago, with the result “merge or redirect.” BsBsBs obstructed any further decision making on the talk page, reverted any edits to the page targeted either at implementing the decision or removing the POV sections, and is continuing to prevent any major changes to the page. He often referred to such constructive edits as “vandalism.” He is the only major contributor to the page, and seems to be acting as if he owns the article.

Here is a list of some edits he made that illustrate my points:

• [110] incivility
• [111] [112] etc.: major edit without consensus, leading to edit war shown below
• [113] edit war
• [114] edit war; wikilawyering in summary
• [115] edit war
• [116] incivility
• [117] incivility
• [118] incivility
• [119] straw man arguments, mocking, general incivility and accusatory tone
• [120] mocking
• [121] mocking
• [122] wikilawyering
• [123] blatant disregard for consensus in the name of personal perception of fact
• [124] mocking
• [125] incivility
• [126] [127] second edit war; edit summary incivility (“I don’t think you would intentionally commit fraud”)
• [128] [129] [130] personal attack; mocking
• [131] referring to constructive edit as “gross misrepresentation of verifiable facts”
• [132] incivility
• [133] more incivility
• [134] straying completely from the content
• [135] referring to constructive edits as “misrepresenting facts”
• [136] incivility
• [137] incivility
• [138] abuse of {{vague}}
• [139] [140] edit warring
• [141] [142] abuse of {{or}}
• [143] mocking; incivility
• [144] edit warring over tag abuse
• [145] wikilawyering
• [146] personal attack
• [147] evasion of explanation
• [148] personal attack / incivility
• [149] incivility (“your renewed attack in apology’s clothing”)

• creation of POV fork
• [150] maintenance of ownership of POV fork
• [151] [152] [153] reverting POV removal
• [154] [155] latest edit war

From his contributions, it appears that this topic is not the only one that he is passionate about, but that in all cases he makes edits of the kind displayed above; highly opinionated and sometimes uncivil.

I hope that you will help me resolve this situation. Someone the Person (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Someone the Person's assessment, and would like to add that BsBsBs is one of the most disruptive editors I've ever interacted with. He habitually floods talk pages with repetitive walls of text, making nonsensical arguments that virtually nobody agrees with. See example threads here, here, here, here, among many others. Below are a few quotes of what other users had to say about him during the discussions:

• "Note that BsBsBs seems to actually have no idea what he's talking about with regard to Chinese administrative divisions. [...] This article has been held hostage by BsBsBs's ignorant verbal diarrhea for way too long. Beyond the obvious content fork he's now in the process of creating [referring to World's largest municipalities by population), we ought to take a look at city proper, which he has created and filled with confirmation of his POV." - John K

• "You, my friend, are quite literally insane and shouldn't be editing much of anything. You're sitting up here making all kinds of dubious claims and conspiracies for no reason. I will request that this page be locked so that you can't keep abusing it." - Criticalthinker

• "BsBsBs, my entirely good faith advice to you is to leave this issue for a little while. [...] For your own mental and physical health, I suggest that you drop this for a little while and take a break." - PalaceGuard008

When he couldn't get his way on List of cities proper by population, he went ahead to create the content fork World's largest municipalities by population. After Jeppiz initiated an AfD for his new creation, BsBsBs heaped abuse on him, forcing Jeppiz to file a complaint on ANI titled Continued disruptive behavior and personal attacks by BsBsBs. Honestly, I've never seen anybody who so consistently rile people who have the misfortune of having to deal with him. -Zanhe (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now that we've also added false accusations of vandalism to the list, I've indef'd. It should be noted that "indefinite" is not equal to "infinite", especially in this case. The level of WP:BATTLE, incivility, personal attacks, and a whackload of other behaviours is just too numerous and too much to ignore, and the protection of the project and its editors is neccessary the panda ₯’ 10:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious - how is it that the name was found acceptable? It very much looks to me that the name itself is saying BullshitBullshitBullshit, which probably isn't acceptable John Carter (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If one assumes good faith, then a reasonable explanation is at User talk:BsBsBs#Username. If one does not AGF, then we've all been pwned for the past 4 years. Meh, my guess is somewhere in between. Rgrds. --64.85.215.17 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Germany

Hi I would like admins to take a closer look at the article on Germany. There is a user who consonantly deletes the image of victims of the Buchenwald concentration camp and replaces it with a picture of Berlin in ruins. In my opinion the user in question has a problem with showing the image of concentration camps per se. I and other editors have pointed out the this image is clearly related to the article. I guess its time now to have a admin look at the issue. [[156]] Please also look at the lengthy debate and survey taking place. [[157]] In the mean time I added the Buchenwald picture and kept the ruins picture in the article as well – just in order to end the constant replacing of one with the other.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and there is an RFC already on going. No need for admin action.--v/r - TP 23:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would note that Horst-schlaemma has used Twinkle in a content dispute, which I believe is something that admins can do something about. Also, in a more general sense, neo-Naziism and pro-Nazi historical revisionism has a very strong online presence, including here on Wikipedia. I don't think it's a good idea to wave off such problems as "content disputes", since there is a movement behind them, and we need to be on our guard against their influence. I would be much more comfortable with the notion that our admins were taking an activist stance against this pernicious philosophy, rather than the idea that they were dealing with it as "business as usual". BMK (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The only way to stop someone from using Twinkle these days is to block them. We can take away "rollback" if they have it, but we can no longer take away Twinkle the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to call editors to also delete the Berlin in ruins picture until the matter is settled!!!! It kind of disturbs me that revisionist tendencies do seem to get a hold here in Wikipedia. BOTH pictures are in use within Commons so the only reason NOT to include the Buchenwald picture which has CLEAR relevance to the respective section in the article can be of support of revisionist views.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've protected the Germany article for five days to stop the edit warring that was reported at WP:AN3#User:Horst-schlaemma reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Article protected). There is no obvious policy reason to exclude the picture of a pile of corpses at Buchenwald, so I guess there is no further need for admin action. Probably there are more or less tasteful holocaust pictures, but that's for editors to decide. We should wait for the RfC to reach a conclusion. I hope that the participants will manage to avoid personal attacks in the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, something needs to be done about this...

About a month ago, I reinstated the episode summaries at List of Code Lyoko episodes, and just this morning, an IP (24.47.68.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began reverting the summaries, stating that they were unnecessary. I replaced them, and he reverted again. An edit war ensued, and he began harassing me in the edit summaries. I put in a request at WP:RFPP, and the article was full-protected, but he began taking his shenanigans to the article talkpage. The protecting admin left an explanation on the talkpage, to which I responded, and when the IP responded to me, he did so by first removing my comment, calling it an "invalid argument". I replaced my comment and replied to him, and he has taken to removing both of my comments, calling them "invalid" and "useless". I tried to warn him on his talkpage about the original edit war, but he blanked my warning. Any attempts to reason with this IP have been fruitless on my part, and I've turned not only to WP:RFPP, but to WP:ANEW and to WP:HELP in an attempt to seek help on the situation. I have no idea where else I could turn, but I need help on this NOW. I know I'm part of the problem (having engaged in the meaningless edit war myself; I've been warned about such in the past, so block me if you wish), but something needs to be done about this NOW. Diffs of original reversions:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]

Diffs of talkpage reversions:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]
5. [166]
6. [167]

Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 21:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP editor for removing the talk page content and general disruption, aka trolling. Huon (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is now fully protected indefinitely under the version created by the blocked editor. I think it should be changed since I see no reason to reward this disruption. Also, is there any reason that full protection is being used here since it seems excessive?--69.157.253.74 (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I was part of the edit war. And I agree that it should be changed, but I'm hesitant, even though the article is full-protected, since I'm pretty sure the blocked IP would just revert it again once he's unblocked. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I unprotected the page since the IP was blocked. bibliomaniac15 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I readded the summaries since adding summaries are common for these types of articles and it seems that no one other than the IP in question has opposed the summaries.--69.157.253.74 (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruption by Rayayala17

Rayayala17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Earlier in the week, I was in a minor argument with Rayayala17 over the translation that Wikipedia had been using on the article Bakuryū Sentai Abaranger that I acquiesced on (it was part of an old thread on the talk page here. He decided that he was right and the translation was wrong proclaimed he was going to change it and threatened to edit war over the "biased interpretation of the word" as well as falsely claiming I was blocking his edits (I was simply using the text replace tool in Twinkle) again referring to the translation as a "opinionated interpretation" and then after I explained my position, he began a new thread that skirted on a personal attack that I removed from the page and simply acquiesced to his request because I had found evidence to suggest his position was right.

He made a similar set of edits to Seijuu Sentai Gingaman that I also reverted, as I had not seen any evidence to that matter. He began a thread on the talk page, pointing to an illegally hosted YouTube video of an (official) English rendition of the TV show's opening sequence, that I originally did not notice had an English narration as well. I pointed out my position from the other page that Wikipedia needs a reliable source that has the English text within a Japanese context, and he responded by saying he did not want my opinion as he did not ask for it and referring to consensus and implying a childish laugh which has become his new motif. I responded again, reiterating that he is not in charge of that talk page, he responded by repeating the narration, performing a borderline personal attack, and then proclaiming that he would change the text in the article and ignore my opinion on the matter. After I said that he has no right to ignore my opinion on the topic, he told me not to respond to him again and threatened that he would game me into edit warring with him over the translation. I informed him that he would not have consensus, and again he essentially told me to shut up. After informing him that if he does not want to abide by the rules and etiquette of the website he can leave, he removed everything he and I have said within the past hour or so (I've just reverted).

I can see a history of him acting without any prior discussion or consensus (all of these page moves and relatively little talk page discussion), and it is only because I have begun to challenge him that he is acting incredibly inappropriately, making childish retorts to me and threatening to edit war and ignore my opinion because he does not want my involvement.

I do not think that Rayayala17 has the maturity or competence to participate in this collaborative project if he takes to being challenged like this on talk pages with childish insults, threats to edit war, and threats to game another editor into edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to cause problems on this site. And I did not say I was going to "game" Ryulong into anything, nor did I tell him to shut up. Ryulong is clearly exaggerating to make my words seem harsher than it really is. Also, I have seen no consensus about calling Seijuu Star Beasts in the article's history. All I can say is I have as much right to contribute to Wikipedia as the next person.Rayayala17 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You do not have "the right" to edit here, none of us do. Wikipedia is a privately owned website, and we each edit by the consensus of our peers and by the grace of the Foundation. Saying things like "Unless I asked YOU specifically for your opinion please keep it to yourself..." as well as "By the way, Ryulong, that's up to the consensus to decide and not YOU. tee-hee~!" are not going to endear you to the community. It is required that you work with others and do so in a mature fashion as we are a collaborative project that seeks a collegiate environment. If you can't work with others in a mature fashion, then this isn't the hobby for you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Then for the sake of peace on Wikipedia I will collaborate with Ryulong and get consensus as well.Rayayala17 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Dennis' splash of Wiki-culture has opened Rayayala17's eyes. I think we should close this and see how things progress from here with no opposition to the same issue being brought up again later if this doesn't fix it.--v/r - TP 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  And I think Dennis might have coined a new catchphrase - "By the grace of the Foundation" ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

  I threw up just a little when I wrote that, to be honest. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Gsbahia

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

---

Back in March, User:Gsbahia created an article on Stark Security Services, an Indian security firm - by copy-pasting an existing article on the Garda (security company), and editing the name. No evidence whatsoever was provided that Stark had any connection With Garda, and nor can I find any such evidence through a websearch. Accordingly, I stubbed the article, and tagged it for proposed deletion as lacking evidence of notability. Meanwhile, Gsbahia has repeatedly created articles (under slightly different names) for Gurdeep singh bahia, a supposed Indian songwriter and poet - and supposed propriator of Stark Security Services. The latest incarnation of the Bahia article has for some days been marked for deletion as an unreferenced BLP - only for Gsbahia to finally add a 'reference'. [168] The supposed reference [169] however fails entirely to make any mention of Bahia, and accordingly, I removed it, and warned Gsbahia that any further falsification of references would result in me calling for a block. [170] Since Gsbahia immediately restored the bogus reference, [171] and since it seems self-evident that Gsbahia is only here to engage in self-promotion via bogus references, I have to suggest that an indefinite block is the only appropriate course of action here, as repeated dishonesty on this scale cannot be tolerated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I just A7'ed that company article. The autobio (because that's what it is) should be AFD'ed probably. I can find no sources for the claims in there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the autobio shouldn't be deleted as unreferenced - but my reason for posting here was to ask for action to be taken against Gsbahia, who has repeatedly posted misleading material, and is clearly a liability to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the autobio can probably be deleted as a copyright violation - much of the text is copy-pasted from our article on Debi Makhsoospuri. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for self-promotion, article creations nuked. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

WR227

WR227 (talk · contribs) has been updating dead-links (which is good), but insists on converting them from in-line citations to external links (which, in my eyes, is bad). As part of that process they also occasionally delete perfectly valid references completely from the article (which is definitely bad). I've tried talking to them at User talk:WR227#May 2014 (which includes relevant diffs) but they continue their behaviour (diff from last night) which I view as disruptive. Is this actionable or am I simply over-reacting? GiantSnowman 08:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if they continue despite having their errors pointed out then it would eventually become actionable. One must not confuse a lack of competency with intentional disruption, but if it did continue despite several messages then it might become more actionable. I'll try to add to your message to see if it makes a difference. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Protection at Talk:Gaulish language

Admin User:EdJohnston semiprotected Talk:Gaulish language yesterday, apparently in the mistaken belief it was being hit by a persistent pattern of vandal sock edits. In reality, only one IP edit had been that of a vandal sock; besides it there had been frequent activity by a legitimate anon contributor from various dynamic IPs (who unfortunately doesn't want to create an account). As there seems to be a current need for further discussion with that anon editor, and EdJohnston is unlikely to be back online for the next few hours, can we consider it uncontroversial for one of us to lift the protection? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Now unprotected as you requested. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal reversals being re-reversed

Hello, I am user BDBJack (talk · contribs). I have been posting to the talk page for Banc De Binary. However do to a recent ANI proposal which was approved, there have been some limitations placed on my account. I am still unsure of the full nature of the limitations, and I have posted some posts to the talk page which, after thought, I removed because I was not sure of what I am allowed and not allowed to do within the restrictions placed on me.

I would appreciate the following:

1. An explanation or links to documentation which I can review in order to better understand the restrictions levied against me.
2. To have this revision: [[172]] re-reverted as I am still unclear on the policies, and I would rather hear from a neutral user who can explain the situation clearly than a user which (from how I see it) is attacking me in the process of explaining things to me.

Thank You BDBJack (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not attacking you, just commenting on the lack of good faith shown in your response to my suggestion that you issue a press release responding to the SEC and CFTC lawsuits. I think that following the rules, and doing stuff like issuing a clear response as I suggested, would serve your company's interests a great deal more than wikipoliticking, serial sockpuppeting and offering five-figure bounties, as your company has recently engaged in. To be frank, since your company has not disavowed such actions nor indicated that you will not repeat them in the future, I think that it is extremely generous that you are permitted to contribute to the talk pages and are merely topic-banned from article space. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering your response to me on your talk page, and the fact that you reposted a comment on mine which I reverted due to personal reasons, I find it hard to assume good faith. However, I am willing to look past these if you are willing to change your tone with me. I do not mind a challenge on factual basis, in fact I welcome it. However I do find your tone to be hostile and offensive. I will (after sufficient research and validation) be posting materials which I would like to see contributed to the article. I would like to see the zeal that you apply when reviewing the current sources applied also to these sources as well. BDBJack (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify one point: I restored your comment because you weren't sure whether it was permissible, and it clearly was. I did want to respond to it because I will be away for a few days and I assumed it was going to be restored pretty soon. However, if you've decided that you don't like your comment and want to remove it, that's your right and you can remove it, and you can remove my response as well as it wouldn't make sense responding to a blank space.

However, I think that it would be more constructive if you instead would reflect a bit on your company's actions, the serial sockpuppetry by and/or on behalf of the company, the ridiculous five-figure bounty offer, and in particular the disruption caused by the recently blocked sockpuppet User:Okteriel. It would be nice, by no means required but nice, if you would at least acknowledge that there has been disruption, that it has been caused by the company and persons acting on its behalf, and pledge on behalf of Banc de Binary that you acknowledge that you have violated Wiki policies in the past, have wasted volunteers time, and will desist from such actions in the future. It would be awfully nice if we could see a shift in attitude away from the aggressive tactics that we've seen employed on behalf of your company toward an attitude that is respectful of Wikipedia policies and its unpaid volunteers' time. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, there was an edit conflict and I didn't see your remark at 15:07 when I posted three minutes later. Please read and reflect on my suggestion that you give some consideration to your company's actions. Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• By the way, the statement attributed to management here is helpful, but I am unclear as to whether we can use such statements in the article under WP:SELFPUB. If so, I see no reason why it can't be used in the article proper, once protection is lifted. Be that as it may, I think that your company should be restricted to one account to represent your interests. Creation of a new account (User:BDBIsrael) at this time is counterproductive if it is to be used in tandem with "BDBJack." Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I received an automatic notification of this thread. I will repeat my remarks posted to another thread. I believe it is Wikipedia policy that our company should be restricted to zero accounts. BDB employees and contractors edit Wikipedia individually and independently. In my position I am aware of undisclosed employees and contractors who edit Wikipedia who have no interest in editing articles related to binary options. Wikipedia does not restrict personal editing, but editing against its interests. Jack and I are not editing to represent BDB's independent interests, but only to represent its interest in Wikipedia compliance. I have already recounted our history, which the Board has considered in making its decisions, and I trust the Board's request for me to interact with Wikipedia editors personally is not ill-advised. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Coretheapple: I have experience with you, and your take on good faith editors who have a COI is militant and hostile and I have no doubt that BDBJack and BDBIsreal have good reason to be weary of you. My experience with you shows a willingness to interpret ambiguous rules as authoritarian. @BDBJack: Primary sources are not altogether banned from Wikipedia. There are several uses for primary sources. They are the only source for a person's identify, such as what nationality they choose, which religion they choose, what their sexuality and gender are. In addition, primary sources can be used for non-controversial facts such as "Our company was founded in 2014" ect. The other use for primary sources is what Coretheapple is asking for here. We can use primary sources to make source-attributed claims. So if the SEC says X and you company says "No, Y", and we have a press release of your company saying that, then we can say "The SEC said X, but in a follow up press release the Company asserted Y." BDBJack, I believe that Atama has sufficiently answered your question, but your restriction comes down to this: You cannot edit the BDB article at all. You can't touch it. You can talk about it on the talk page, you can talk about it anywhere in fact, you just can't edit the article. This is covered under WP:BAN and Wikipedia:BAN#Topic_ban.--v/r - TP 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: Thank you for the clarification. I believe that this will not differ much from the policies which I must abide to under WP:COI, but I will also review the additional material to ensure that I am in compliance with it.

• NOTE: I am an employee of Banc De Binary, and I have declared a conflict on interest in such a way that it be clear throughout any attempted contributions which I attempt to make. That being said, I have limited authority to make statements on behalf of the company. I am NOT the official Banc De Binary representative, I am simply an employee who (hopefully like most) enjoys and loves my work and my workplace.
• @Coretheapple: I realise that you may not get this due to your leave of absence, but I would like to address your comments since your last query was much more respectful. While I understand that as am employee of the company I am the most likely point of contact for the WP community as to complaints of poor behavior, I would like to reiterate the point that I made above. Due to my employment, I MUST make it clear that I am an employee, and thus have WP:COI, and yes, I have been (up to this point) the sole representative from my company who has been able and willing to accept responsibility. That being said, I can acknowledge actions taken by the company, but as I am NOT the company, nor am I the owner, nor the board of directors, nor senior manager, nor someone working in any capacity to make policy in the company at large, I doubt that it will really satisfy your request. Believe it or not, I too would like to contribute my knowledge and experience to Wikipedia, and in my free time I have often browsed through articles in the technology section which are stubbed and require more information. However I have yet to find a subject which I am both sufficiently experienced in and sufficiently interested in to contribute to. ( I must assume through good faith that HistorianOfRecentTimes is the same ). I will say for my own actions that, yes I personally made mistakes which were interpreted as an attempt to control the discussion on how the article should be re-written. While justifying those actions is a moot point, I will say that they were done out of anger and frustration with the complete lack of civility in the discussion, as well as seeing an "encyclopaedic work" which aimed to destroy my own livelihood. I do not fault you for your hesitation to rewrite the article, especially given the history of whitewash, sock-puppets, edit wars etc. However I do feel that you are also missing the other "human" side of the story. I am not the company, I am another human being. Please consider that as well. BDBJack (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a significant different between WP:COI and WP:BAN. Per WP:COI, you are strongly discouraged from editing the article. Per WP:BAN, you must not edit the article or you will face a block.--v/r - TP 20:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

i still view them as one and the same for me. I had been advised against making direct edits to the page due to the amount of conflict and the level of my Coi. The ban just makes the suggestions more... Official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDBJack (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

IP anti-science troll

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

---

217.208.57.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has admitted that he's not interested in contributing to articles. He's WP:NOTHERE to make an encyclopedia, but spam anti-science rants (even vandalizing templates to do so), at this point assumably to troll. Even if it's in earnest, it's not needed at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Science is open (uncensored) objective enquiry - Individuals such as yourself insist upon closed (censored) militant defence of the status quo.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

217's telling another editor to "go sod yourself", or calling the same editor a "sniveling bedwetter" does not suggest an intent to contribute positively. Same for the subsection below, which 217' seems hellbent on maintaining as having a level two heading (when to be honest, the heading should just be stripped off). This removal of a comment of Ian.thomson's here at ANI does not bode well either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And just in case it needed greater prominence, this diff alone ought to be enough to make out a prima facie case that 217' is WP:NOTHERE: "Wikipedia belongs to the world - It is not the private Despotarchy of Ian Thomson". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

He continues to delete my comments here. Troll, vandal, or WP:TEND, he doesn't belong here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And 217 is now eligible for AIV. I've reported him there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked, for 1 week. GiantSnowman 16:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Science Pro-Censorship Authoritarian

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

---

Ian.thomson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appointed himself WP administrator and censor. User has made repeated false accusations and ad hominem attacks. Attempts to erase and conceal statements contrary to his own position.217.208.57.69 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Provide diffs for your unevidenced claims. You're the one who tells users to go climb a rope, comparing everyone you disagree with with Mussolini and witchhunters, and vandalizing user posts and talk page templates. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

TekkenJinKazama socks and Ravensfire

I somehow stumbled into a seeminly long-running dispute between Ravensfire and socks of TekkenJinKazama. First, I will start by pointing out that an editor using IP address 42.104.3.81 has been making personal attacks and threats [173] towards Ravensfire and admits to block evasion and should probably be dealt with. That said, Ravensfire has been indiscriminately reverting every edit made from this IP address[174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184], which he admits[185][186] is designed to harass that editor into changing his behavior or leaving Wikipedia, and has stated that he intends to keep on doing so[187]. As a result, many constructive edits from the IP address are being reverted, which seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I understand that TekkenJinKazama has been a problem user here before, but this doesn't seem to me to be the correct way to deal with the issue. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ahecht:Ahecht, I wish you bothered to dig a bit deeper into this before running here. @Atama: who's been handling most of the SPI's for TJK and I have tried extensive discussions with this user to get them to change. Nothing works. Jin does not care about Wikipedia policies. Jin does not care about actually working with other people. They have been indeffed (twice, actually) for copyright infringement. They don't understand sourcing, often using no sources or unreliable sources. This is not the editor that Wikipedia needs. Jin uses very consistent IP ranges (42.104.0.0/22 is the primary) that are mostly their edits but are fairly broad so a range block really isn't viable. Honestly, I'd really prefer a month-long range block as that might finally get Jin to change his ways. But to your complaint, this is not harassment in any way. This is reverted a blocked user who is evading the block which is allowed. Ravensfire (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, contrary to what Ahecht boldly claims, I do not "indiscriminately" revert edits. If I'm not convinced the edit is from Jin, regardless of the IP range used, I do not revert it. If I am convinced it's Jin, I revert the edit. If a named account is used, I report it to SPI. If it's an IP, there's simply no reason for it. It's a mobile phone IP range so Jin can easily go through 4-5 IP addresses a day that might repeat every three months. Ravensfire (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, forgot - a link to the SPI is probably nice to see the scope of Jin's efforts. It's pretty impressive for a fairly short time period. Ravensfire (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of quite a bit of the history, which in ran into with the Assassination of Theo van Gogh article last month. While I agree that this is a problem user who, in many cases, has ignored Wikipedia policies, many of the edits you reverted were adding sources or properly sourced material (hence my indiscriminate claim). In addition, Wikipedia policies don't say that we should be indiscriminately reverting edits because of who made them (Ad hominem), except in a few cases where there has been an ArbCom or similar consensus. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahecht, what Ravensfire is doing is in compliance with WP:BMB. TJK at this point is de facto banned (where they are indefinitely blocked and no admin is willing to unblock). Therefore, per policy, "bans apply to all editing, good or bad" and any edit from one of TJK's socks can be reverted. As our banning policy states:

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

Also, per WP:BANREVERT, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Furthermore, "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert."

I have also reverted edits from TJK's socks, more-or-less indiscriminately. That's not to say that I'll revert any edit that he makes, but I'll only let an edit stand if I think it's too harmful to revert it. I've also left edits in-place if other editors in good standing have built on what the sock has added, and reverting the sock necessitates reverting the good faith edits from other people (in whole or in part).

Now, let's say, hypothetically, that Ravensfire, myself, or someone else reverts an edit from a sockpuppet of TJK but you feel that the edit was a good one and want it to stay. You can reinstate the edit, per WP:PROXYING, if you "are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive" and if you "have independent reasons for making such edits." So keep that in mind as well, your hands are not tied in this manner. We aren't absolutely required to revert all of TJK's sockpuppet edits. But any edits can be reverted, and enforcing policy in this matter is neither harassment nor disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. -- Atama頭 19:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

At what point does this become disruptive? When an editor is using API calls to monitor the IP range of the largest mobile network in India and is reverting constructive edits because they were made to India tv-related articles (which is entirely plausible for an Indian IP), it at some point becomes less a WP:BANREVERT and more a witch hunt. Edits like [188][189][190] and [191] are perfectly legitimate for an Indian IP user to be making. The block revert policy specifically stresses "Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity" and "Maximizing the number of editors who can edit Wikipedia", which preventing users of a large Indian ISP from editing India-related articles seems contrary to. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the ban policy states that "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons," which many of these reverts have done. I'm not going to debate this further, as this is the Admin Noticeboard and not the editor debate board, and I have done the due diligence in leaving notification that I feel Ravensfire has gone too far in enforcing WP:BANREVERT, but I'll leave it at that. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you are making sweeping generalizations without providing diffs, while Ravensfire and Atama have outlined exactly how policy is supposed to work. If a revert has introduced a BLP violation, then you should tell Ravensfire at that time, politely, on his talk page. Or just revert it back in. Politely, with a good summary. There are exceptions to all rules, but it seems like Ravensfire has done everything to work with the editor. "Good faith" isn't a suicide pact, and this sock has used up more good faith than he deserves. That said, if the edit actually improves the article, leaving it in is also perfectly fine. Reverting isn't mandatory. We shouldn't be vengeful or hateful in dealing with him, but reverting and blocking is pretty much what is expected. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary, Round 2

Sometimes, they come back.

Banc de Binary has a new, official SPA: BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). Their user page admits that they've used the PRWiki company and other socks to edit Wikipedia in the past. I then goes on to state "The Board has also asked me to take an active part in guiding discussion of the Banc De Binary article, the text of which is currently not in Wikipedia compliance." (They mean the Board of Banc de Binary, not the Wikimedia Foundation).

Currently, Banc de Binary is fully protected, and Talk:Banc de Binary is semi-protected. So BDBIsrael began their editing career by asking an admin to let them edit semi-protected pages. This was granted.[192] BDBIsrael then proceeded to set themselves up as the moderator of the BDB talk page, with this: Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Ground_rules. They ask all other editors to agree to conform to their rules. I made a comment on that.

In the last BdB discussion here, BDBJack (talk · contribs) had tried to act as if he had the authority to moderate the talk page. That user is now indef blocked. We now have a second attempt to do that, by another admitted BDB account. What they've done so far is not severe enough to justify blocking, but their attempt to move in and take over control needs some form of pushback. Atama (talk · contribs) is suggesting mediation, which is reasonable, although time-consuming. As before, dealing with full-time paid editors is a full-time job.

For a sense of the stakes here, and why BdB is pushing so hard, see this new litigation release from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission: [193]. BdB is in big legal trouble. The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to stop. Their US legal problems appeared to be over. The CFTC now says they didn't stop, and is going after them in court for big financial penalties, including triple damages on almost everything they did in the US, and is even going after their CEO personally. BdB's editors would prefer that information not appear in Wikipedia.

Now what? John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm giving it a try and blowing 4 inches of dust off my moderator hat. If it gets sabotaged by misconduct of one kind or another or becomes moot because one side has to be blocked, that won't be the first time I've had that happen. Granted, the mediation I'm proposing is voluntary, but I'm hoping that as a neutral party I can help keep the disruption minimized so that we can unprotect the article. I've already started the process on the article talk page. -- Atama頭 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Factual Error: I (BDBJack (talk · contribs) am not in fact blocked, but rather am abstaining from the discussion until I have:

1. A full and better understanding of the policies under which I am allowed to contribute
2. Information from reputable sources which I can contribute to the discussion on Banc De Binary
3. Time to contribute in an accurate and neutral capacity.

However, in response to the mention of BDB's legal situation, I believe that while your interpretation has some merits, there is also another way to interpret the situation. My interpretation is that this statement is meant to clarify factual errors and inaccuracies including the "separate entities" issues ( instead of dealing with each entity separately, they are dealing with them together as a single "common enterprise" ), adding Mr. Laurent as the representative of these entities and enterprises, and correcting his name. In fact, the statement does not talk about any criminal implications (thus rebuking the comment about the RICO liability) and explains that the result may not even result in a full ban, but "a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from engaging in certain commodity options activity with U.S. customers" (sic). (That last statement means to me that Banc De Binary may be allowed, under regulation, to continue to market to U.S. customers under restrictions placed by the CFTC).

BDBJack (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) Thank you, Atama. The reason I requested ground rules was exactly because of what Nagle has just done. I was assured by OTRS that "[A]ll of our editors involved ... should comment on the content and not the contributors. If such inappropriate behavior continues, I would encourage Jack to contact an uninvolved administrator, who can provide a final warning or a temporary block, depending on the severity .... I will try my best to keep any eye on such name calling and will seek the assistance of an uninvolved administrator if it becomes necessary .... You are welcome to participate in the discussion on the article talk page to help address any concerns that you feel are in violation of policy .... I will do my best to encourage a civil discussion and will continue to remind everyone of our civility policies."

It is against Wikipedia policy to say, "The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US", as that is not what the CFTC said, nor could it be. Judgments that someone is operating illegally (such as a corporate board member or another editor) take place in a court of law, not the executive branch of the U.S. If Nagle's view of the biography protection and no personal attacks policies is reflected by his comment above, as I said at the article talkpage, I trust other editors will take notice while weighing his views on content matters.

It is Wikipedia's rules I ask conformity with, and that is all BDB has asked for for many months, since we began our social networking compliance initiative. I yield to Atama for setting ground rules of mediation. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. First, thanks to TParis for closing off BDBIsrael's attempt to impose their own set of rules. Second, it appears the BDBJack is not blocked, so we now have two paid COI SPAs representing BdB. This is an unusual situation. We can deal with this, but it's going to be time-consuming. As for the interpretation above that the CFTC might somehow let BdB operate in the US, see page 30, section E, of the CFTC's court filing[194], which, informally, can be expressed as "No way." John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

While User:TParis has convinced me to withdraw my statement that Nagle's statement about illegal activity was against policy, Nagle's insistence on characterizing the situation with original research such as "no way" is part of a pattern of rumor against BDB that should be obvious from the record. Wikipedia's susceptibility to rumor is one of its weaknesses and we trust that in this discussion it will not remain susceptible. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The CFTC is asking for you to be banned from transacting in any kind of commodity option and/or future. This is far from a rumor, it is there in black and white. - MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, MrOllie, Yes, I understand that they asked something close to that, in the United States only. We continue our regulated operations in 28 other countries. Thank you for stating it more moderately. What we have been dealing with is the immoderate statements that have been made for a very long time now. But I think Nagle's original question has been answered. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This is not a "rumor". The SEC and the CFTC, which are U.S. Government regulatory agencies, told Banc de Binary to stop operating in the US.[195] That was a regulatory decision, not a request. The CFTC now alleges in court that BdB didn't stop, and is in court to enforce its decision.[196]. These are facts verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Spinning it as "rumor" is not even worth trying. The last time BdB tried that, in 2013, they issued a press release which contained blatantly false statements (including claiming to be a US company headquartered in New York) which they later retracted.[197] On a procedural front, BDB editors are complaining about me on the talk pages of an admin[198], my own talk pageUser_talk:Nagle#Banc_de_Binary, the article talk page, here, and activity on ORTS alluded to by BDBIsrael atTalk:Banc_De_Binary#Informal_Mediation. Could we centralize this, please? John Nagle (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take the weekend off. Please restrain the BDB team from doing too much damage before Monday. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary employees are arguing furiously here as well as on the article talk page not just that their conduct was not illegal, but was not charged as such by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That is just plain wrong. As I just pointed out on the talk page, in both its complaint and in the release accompanying it, the CFTC specifically and repeatedly referred to Banc de Binary as having engaged in "unlawful" conduct. The Wall Street Journal also used the term "illegal." Operating an unregistered commodities merchant is a very serious offense, and is being treated as such by regulators in this instance.

If this kind of unconstructive and WP:TENDENTIOUS talk page behavior continues, I believe that we may want to revisit the topic bans. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, they can get lost. They work for a firm that has been robustly criticised by regulators, and they seek to obscure that with special pleading. Our answer to that should be (and , it seems, has been): "No." Guy (Help!) 00:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes to RfC and General Behavior Pattern

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

---

I started a RfC. Another editor requested the RfC have the wording changed at midpoint on the grounds that I had worded it incorrectly. The following occurred:

1. I complied and added an explanatory note to the RfC (see diff [[199]]).

2. Cwobeel reverted my changes and replaced them with "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." (see diff [[200]])

3. I reluctantly accepted his position that the RfC should not have explanatory notes added midpoint and, in that spirit, further deleted his comment "Please don't :change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process" which, itself, was a change to the wording of the RfC.

4. Casprings reinserted this change to the original wording of the RfC "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." (current version), an edit Cwobeel appears insistent to maintain.

Two issues should be reviewed in action of this ANI:

1. I feel, in judicious fairness, either "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." should be deleted as it constitutes an amendment to the original wording of the RfC that could color other editors opinions, or, my original explanatory note be reinserted; but we can't have one or the other. This is a highly contentious RfC and the first editor in question has used a variety of unconventional methods of engaging other editors ("blinded by your own POV," "you can't or won't have a proper debate," you're "here to waste other editors' time?" among a wide range of other stylistically questionable comments and major, undiscussed structural changes); for this reason I feel this relatively simple administrative question can only be resolved by ANI; that alternate avenues of resolution are likely to produce protracted WP:DRAMA and further uncivil comments.

2. Given the editor's unconventional contribution pattern I feel a 30-day subject matter block would be within realm of consideration, but am not necessarily advocating for that. However, to avoid the appearance of POV kneecapping and mitigate the potential for DRAMA, I will accept a 30-day subject matter block on my own account without objection if determined useful. BlueSalix (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• This is silly beurocracy. So what if it's formatted badly? So what if Bluesalix changes a few words? So what if "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." gets deleted. We're building an encyclopedia, not running government. Let's focus on what's important and not be tedious.--v/r - TP 21:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a heated debate, clearly, and I take responsibility for making comments I should not have made. I have accepted BlueSalix's suggestions to cool the debate. Let the RFC run its course, while we continue improving that article and others. Cwobeel (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, T, I agree. My preference is to simply revert the RfC to the original form and move on, however, I was told if I even thought about touching the addition of the somewhat passive-aggressive line "Please don't change the framing of this RfC mid-way to the process." the matter would be brought to ANI (the implication being ANI is a punitive process). There is a very negative tone that has infected this RfC in which minor bureaucratic edits like this are being defended with no effort at compromise; an effort to "draw blood" from other contributors and then use it to engage in triumphal displays of aggressive comments like those I outlined above. I have never seen anything like this on Wikipedia; a RfC being turned into the Coliseum. Since it's clear this will eventually end up in ANI I'm hopeful bringing it here now will allow a fast and DRAMA-free resolution than the mess it will probably arrive here in 3 days hence. BlueSalix (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted that sentence (it was not passive-aggressive, it was a request), with the hope it helps cool the tempers. Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think, and I believe you and Cwobeel agree, that getting caught up in the wording of the RFC is a distraction to the core concern regarding the article. Great learning opportunity, but let's move on.--v/r - TP 21:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is where this conversation should have ended. The rest is a failure by BlueSalix to AGF on Cwobeel's sincerity in their apology and additional attacks. I'm rewinding to this point.--v/r - TP 00:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you, Cwobeel. T, I agree. With Cwobeel's decision to revert the RfC to its original, unedited form and apparent intent to better police his displays of triumphalism, I'm fine with this ANI being closed with no further action. I do, T, find it unfortunate that Cwobeel seems almost single-purpose on WP in his intent to try to get a rise out of other editors, as in his most recent comment to my Talk in which he demurely drops "sorry for rattling your cage," even while this ANI was active, but c'est la vie. This is just the way some people choose to conduct themselves. BlueSalix (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix, it's best to just drop this issue while everyone is coming out ahead. We're at the WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME point right now. Issue solved, no sanctions needed. If you really want me to look more into the issue, I'd have to start at WP:RFC which says that Cwobeel is technically correct about how RFCs are meant to be worded. I don't want to do that. I'd rather we all just walk away happy. Don't you agree that'd be awesome here since Cwobeel has already agreed to let WP:RFC policy slip this time in the interests of collaboration?---v/r - TP 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I certainly don't dispute that Cwobeel was correct with respect to the RfC, T. This is why I did not attempt to revert his deletion of my GF edit to the RfC and have not raised that original edit as an issue in this ANI. That said, is there a larger issue that is becoming increasingly apparent as relates to the highly aggressive way in which he chooses to interact with other editors and his overbearing use of sarcasm in article discussions? I think so. Do I want to see him sanctioned because of it? Certainly not. Do I think it would be to his future benefit - as well as that of other editors - if he received GF counsel from an uninvolved editor, before his pattern of behavior becomes hardened and uncorrectable, regarding a more engaging method of interpersonal interaction? I think it's worthy of consideration. The only request I would like to make is that Cwobeel receive a block from my talk page as he is either unwilling or unable to restrain himself, despite my request. BlueSalix (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I tried to apologize, but it seems that my style is not of BlueSalix's liking. For the record, my full comment was: Thank you for your patience, and apologies for apparently rattling your cage with that sentence in the RFC. It was never my intention. Cwobeel (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Sometimes it's better to say nothing at all than to issue a non-apology apology. Hopefully we're all here to collaborate in improving Wikipedia, not troll userspace and bait other editors. I appreciate that you think you're being clever by skirting the line with comments like "apparently rattling your cage with that sentence," and - believe me - you are doing a tremendous job. I realize you believe that, when you ape comments I've made in other discussions and then post them on my Talk page as a kind-of "gotcha!", you think it's a good way to earn a free ticket to disruptiveness because it's too nuanced for anyone other than myself to notice. And you're probably right. I get that you think you can blow-off my requests for you to stop posting provocative comments on my Talk page and just keep doing it anyway, like you just did. Your less finessed aggression, however, like "blinded by your own POV," "you can't or won't have a proper debate," is what I'm afraid you're having the most fun with and will ultimately get out of control. BlueSalix (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Again, I am sorry to have upset you. It was not my intent. My comments in your talk page User_talk:BlueSalix#What.27s_up.3F were an attempt to get clarification on your comments outside of article talk. I will not post any more on your talk page as requested. Cwobeel (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC) If I wasn't clear previously, I would much appreciate it if you could stop juveniliziing my concerns with stilted, tongue-in-cheek, comments like "sorry I upset you" and "sorry I rattled your cage." I'm not going to play games by describing to you why this phrasing is exceptionally incendiary and baiting, because I know you are perfectly aware of the words you're choosing, as you have been aware of your peculiarly passive-aggressive word choice throughout your recent contribution history. While I could personally care less, some of the other editors you are playing these not-so-subtle games with are, in fact, taking your bait and reacting in-kind and it is really causing a lot of disruption to what was a perfectly pleasant and vigorous RfC. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. How can I empower you to act in a more mature, collaborative manner moving forward? BlueSalix (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I think it would be better for me to disengage now, as I am totally failing to produce an apology that will be acceptable. Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC) In all honesty, it's difficult to take these paper-thin apologies too seriously after receiving your three emails in which even the one-centimeter veneer of tongue-in-cheek niceness you're serving up here is gone and replaced by a string of juvenile taunting and four-letter words I've never seen on WP (or adulthood, generally). I hope your decision to disengage also involves disengaging from the editor email function. Assuming it does, I thank you, kindly, in advance. Best regards - BlueSalix (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Email? I have not sent you any emails. (I don't have email enabled on my Wikipedia account, and without it I can't send emails to other editors) Maybe someone is impersonating me? That would explain a lot. Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Well I've certainly disabled it on mine after the string of vitriol I've received. Did you also disable yours? I don't know. Based on the above detailed pattern of grinning behind the keyboard comments you've made, my inclination is to assume they're from you, and I think this is a reasonable assumption within the context of your interaction pattern. Ultimately this doesn't matter as this is not about me being put-out or offended, it is about a pattern of disruptive baiting of other editors that is rapidly derailing a conversation. Don't bother with the cute sorry I emasculated you or sorry I rattled your cage non-apologies, just drop it, act maturely, and everything will be fine. BlueSalix (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC) I have never had my email enabled in WP. Still, I want to understand how can someone impersonate another editor? How this is possible? Cwobeel (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC) I'm not going to address this question because (a) it's not possible, (b) you know that and I've already said I'm not going to engage your thinly veiled sarcasm, baiting and games-playing on Wikipedia. But, whatever. The onus is mine to opt-out of email if I feel I'm receiving unwanted contact; there is not a remedy outlet through ANI. The only thing I can't control is your decision to continue to try to bait me on my Talk page after I've requested you not post further there. I hope your recent declaration that you'd cease doing that is genuine and not more games for the benefit of third party observers. BlueSalix (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Wait, it's been 32 years since Cat People? How'd that happen? In any event, staring an ANI thread to avoid drama is like, as David Bowie sang in the film's theme song, putting out fire with gasoline. Best for both parties to disengage and focus strictly on content, and don't sweat the small stuff NE Ent 23:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC) No, this is serious. How is it possible for someone to impersonate me and send emails from my Wikipedia account, when I don't have email enabled? Cwobeel (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC) It might be a user with a similar name spoofing you, I've looked a little and didn't see any, but there are a lot of possible permutations that I didn't try. They obviously can't "Hack" your email here since you don't have it active. BlueSalix could forward the email to a trusted admin, preferably the first email, including headers, to see if it needed further investigation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC) BlueSalix, can you do that please? Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC) Kindly refer to my previous comments regarding my decision to not empower games playing. Your verified edits (posting on Talk pages after being asked to stop, posting facetious apologies like "sorry I upset you" and "sorry I rattled you", using abusive language towards other editors, etc.) are sufficient for me. I want to get back to editing Wikipedia, not going off chasing down a wild conspiracy theory while you're laughing from behind your keyboard. BlueSalix (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC) You have made very serious accusations, and I think it is not much to ask to at least get an admin to investigate the spoofing. Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

So, TP, you're saying the conversation should have ended after you got the WP:LASTWORD? No, Cwobeel's "apologies" are difficult to take in good faith. "apparently rattling your cage" is not an apology, it's a snarky comment. "I'm sorry I was (description of own behavior)" is what a sincere apology looks like. NE Ent 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel's apologies are easy to take in good faith. BlueSalix's accusations about emails and then refusal to show evidence are personal attacks. Add on top of that the fact that, indeed, Cwobeel is actually correct that RFCs are supposed to use neutral language, then I see a whole lot of reason to sanction BlueSalix and not Cwobeel. It's better for BlueSalix that he never made his comment after we all agreed the original problem was solved. Apologizing for rattling someone's cage isn't an attack. WP:LASTWORD doesn't apply here. I'm not involved in the dispute and I'm not competing with these editors. I'm saving one editor from himself.--v/r - TP 01:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it quite ironic that BlueSalix would complain about someone else having "a larger issue that is becoming increasingly apparent as relates to the highly aggressive way in which he chooses to interact with other editors and his overbearing use of sarcasm in article discussions." There might certainly be an issue with Cwobeel, but the locus of the described problem is BlueSalix. In my very limited interactions with BlueSalix I have witnessed a toxic hauteur which rises above the issue of presenting the reader with a useful encyclopedia, above the issue of collegial editing, and continues into the realm of wishing to win plaudits within the system, against any opposition, to gain points. Note that BlueSalix keeps track on his user page of articles that he successfully nominated for deletion, as if this is a big game hunt. I think it's bad form to gloat over the deletion of someone else's good faith work. (Of course, deleting poor work is a constant job at Wikipedia, a task I myself embrace on a nearly daily basis. I approve of any action which removes poor work from Wikipedia.) When I first crossed paths with BlueSalix at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Wire Radio (after seeing a post on SarahStierch's talk page, where I lurk), the discussion quickly grew heated after I said I thought the article could be kept after some thorough improvement and new references. BlueSalix launched into me with a poisonous passion, as I was messing up his AfD score. The experience was so distasteful that I put the potential BlueSalix RfA page on my watchlist (as a redlink) so that I could be sure to register my negative opinion if ever BlueSalix chose to run for admin. (The only other person I've done that for is Toddst1, in case of his second application to adminship.) I have not been following BlueSalix around; instead I've stayed away as much as possible. The recent interaction at the Dave Brat talk page came after I registered my opinion at the RfC, which came to my attention because I saw Cwobeel post on several other editors' talk pages with a request for input, and I was aware of the recent news about Brat beating Cantor, so I felt I could help settle the RfC. It was only after I put down my thoughts that I read the general discussion, and saw BlueSalix doing the same sort of bullying through passive-aggression, belittling an editor (Cwobeel), and berating those who disagreed. When I came to Cwobeel's defense, BlueSalix told me to stand down, that he and Cwobeel had already worked it out. Apparently, BlueSalix has not worked it all out with Cwobeel or else this ANI discussion would not be taking place. Like NE Ent, I find it disingenuous of BlueSalix to come here with a complaint about too much drama. It looks to me as if BlueSalix fans the flames of drama by choosing words that hurt. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Passive-aggressive: [201]. I am taking a break from all this. Had enough aggravation already. Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael, the issue to which you're referring is a separate one that was amicably settled. I noticed - based on the editor interaction tool - there has been a measurable and substantial increase in your appearances in articles in which I'm participating since we disagreed with each other on Live Wire Radio and that you have, in 100% of those cases, taken the opposite side of me in the debate. TTBOMK, I have only filed two ANIs in my time on WP, as it's a tedious process. This is why I have not pursued this as a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. At the present time I don't feel I need to, either, as you have been mostly polite, even if determined to track me. However, if you choose to make actionable accusations about me like "BlueSalix launched into me with a poisonous passion" and "BlueSalix doing the same sort of bullying through passive-aggression, belittling" you need to provide diffs. I will absolutely not tolerate being lied about and I am certain a WP:BOOMERANG of your speech will validate my position. Thank you.

As to your statement that I am a SPA that "gloats" over deletion of the "good faith" contributions of others, I have made exactly 10 AfDs in 4 years, 8 of which were sustained and 6 of which were PR advertisements, which I'm proud to have helped remove. Given that context, the BOOMERANG question that should be asked is: why did you make the choice to characterize my AfD activities in the way you did? BlueSalix (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me Michael; you can call me Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.

If you wanted to portray an accurate picture of the very few interactions between you and I, why did you not include diffs or links yourself, especially after chiding me for that absence? One of the interactions was my comment about your BLP edit-warring, the comment posted at the edit-warring noticeboard which has been on my watchlist for years. 28 minutes after I said you appeared to be deflecting your own guilt upon others, requiring protection of the wiki from you, Bishonen blocked you for 48 hours. It's clear that Bishonen came to the same conclusion I did. (By the way, your userpage still says you have never been blocked.)

You and I both edited the Ronan Farrow biography, but we did not speak to or about each other at all. I changed some BLP-concerning text which was under discussion on the talk page and at ANI, the same "child molester" text you had been edit-warring to keep. Note that the settled state of the biography, following lots of discussion among many others, has none of your "child molester" wording.

I don't have any idea where you came up with me calling you an "SPA", which I didn't.

I imagine there will be some issue in the future where our paths cross again, and I'm perfectly willing to support you if I feel your stance has merit. Up till now, the very few times I did not support you (yes, 100%) was because I did not think your argument had merit. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's your smoking gun? There was no edit warring, I inserted the text "Ronan Farrow ... claimed [Allen] was a child molester" based on a RS that stated "Mia Farrow's son called the 'Blue Jasmine' director a child molester" (see: [[202]]). Someone objected, we debated it and decided not to keep it. Given that context, the BOOMERANG question that should now be asked is: why did you make the choice to characterize my edit the way you did in this ANI? (You still haven't addressed your decision to mischaracterize my AfD edits, as per my question above.) I hope someone reading these outrageous, drive-by accusations is wondering why you are choosing to mischaracterize and obfuscate the fairly mundane details of edits. What you are doing is so completely over-the-top in its violation of every norm of WP:CIVIL and WP:WIKIHOUNDING that I'm at a complete loss. I think you need to take a step back and do a thorough self-evaluation of why you're at Wikipedia and what you hope to accomplish here - providing constructive, useful edits, or doing all you can to try to kneecap someone who had the audacity to disagree with you in a year-old AfD. Right now I can't even conceive as to how you are avoiding sanction in light of the "child molester" and the "AfD big game hunt" lies you just dropped here. Combing through another editor's 4 year history on WP to dig up whatever mundane edits you can find, add a highly sensational and scandalous spin to, then drop them in an unrelated ANI is at absolute odds with the spirit of WP.

You said "requiring protection of the wiki from you," however, Vance McAllister was protected prior to my first edit on April 9 [[203]]. Again, the question needs to be asked, why are you continuing to lie about my edit history in this ANI? You do realize everything on WP is permanent record, right?

As for my 48-hour "block" you said I received - this is certainly the first I've heard of it (?) and I show a perfect disciplinary record in my Block History [[204]]. However, I am pinging Bishonen so s/he can apply this block now in case s/he forgot to activate it previously; I'm sure whatever it was for was merited and I will, of course, take ownership and issue a full apology in the relevant forum (which is probably not this ANI). BlueSalix (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I'm looking at with regard to you being blocked:

• "20:38, April 9, 2014 Bishonen (talk | contribs) blocked BlueSalix (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Aggravated edit warring on Vance McAllister)".
• "(You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Vance McAllister. (TW))" Revision as of 20:30, April 9, 2014
• "(→‎April 2014: personalising the template to warn the user against calling good-faith edits 'vandalism'.)" Revision as of 20:37, April 9, 2014

These indicate to me that you were blocked, despite the clean block log to which you refer.

You portray me as sifting through your 4-year career but that is not the case. I used the editor interaction tool to see the articles at which we have both been active. The first one was the Live Wire Radio AfD from six months ago (not a year ago). Yes, I most certainly got the impression that you were very pissed off about the March 2014 "keep" result, that you were counting on getting one more deletion to hang on your wall rather than trying to make sure Wikipedia was hosting an accurate and informative article. If you hold my characterization as wrong, please tell me why you were so nasty to me and anybody who agreed with me, up until you realized that a consensus was forming against your position, and you changed sides so as not to tarnish your AfD record.

The editor interaction tool demonstrates that your accusation of hounding is unfounded. In the thousands of edits I have made since we first interacted in January 2014, we have only crossed paths at the Live Wire AfD, the edit-warring noticeboard (where you and I did not exchange thoughts), the Ronan Farrow biography (where we again did not converse with each other), and then finally the Dave Brat talk page where I called you on your incivility to Cwobeel. That's two conversations we've had (aside from this current one) and two instances of me registering opposition to your editing. Which all adds up to about 00.01 percent of my editing contributions. Binksternet (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• @BlueSalix:, I should have been informed on my talk page this was going on. You mentioned me in your OP but never properly informed me. I understand you indicated you would file, but you never let me know you actually did.Casprings (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought I had pinged you but I can see it was a formatting error on my part; I intentionally did not notify you on your Talk page as you were not the subject of the ANI. Either way, however, I did mention you without notifying you - it was my fault and I apologize. By not notifying you I denied you an opportunity to provide input in this ANI. I will better police my future comments to ensure this does not happen again. Thanks, in advance, for your understanding. BlueSalix (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because you filed it after you wrote this and I responded with this. I would of assumed I was the subject of this WP:AN/I. You have a pattern of odd behavior. You make a big deal of others behaviors but you are very aggressive and disingenuous with your comments such as this exchange. ([205],[206])Casprings (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, really. The link you posted above as proof of my "odd behavior [and] very aggressive and disingenuous" comments is to me making the one-word post "uh huh." Was there a different link you had meant to put in? (Again, I apologize for not pinging you. There were other involved editors, like NazariyKaminski (who may have a separate issue with Cwobeel, as I notice Cwobeel edited NazariyKaminski's user page [not Talk, his actual user space] with the line "hope you learned your lesson" [[207]] after they had an edit disagreement), Lithistman, and others, whom I should also have notified and failed to do so in my rush.) BlueSalix (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm obviously involved as I'm participating in the RFC itself, but even if I weren't, I would say "Can we just drop this and move on to discussing the merits at the RFC itself?" It is contentious, but overwhelmingly focused on the merits and some real constructive discussion is going on. That is what a good RFC is about. THAT is what really matters. I don't have an opinion on the above discussion, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, sometimes we are just going to disagree and it is best to just accept that and get back to what really matters: The article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and, frankly, the trend in the RfC seems clear that there will be no consensus so it's a moot point anyway. I was fine with the outcome of this RfC, the only reason for my continued participation is I feel some need to defend myself in light of what Binksternet is saying about me (above). Since this is part of what is becoming apparent is a block-shopping effort, I have - I believe - genuine concern that my failure to provide diffs to his sensationalized, unsourced accusations will result in a sanction against me. This is, unfortunately, a defense I have to regularly mount. This is my life on WP now, I guess. BlueSalix (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a sanction against you. I am merely hoping you will acknowledge some of the instances in which you have been guilty of incivility, of adding to the drama level, of creating a negative tone, of displaying triumphalism, and of baiting others with provocative comments. Failing that, I want to tell other editors that I consider your current editing style to be disruptive, so that they can keep an eye out. Perhaps in the end you will change your style to be more friendly and sincere, and the encyclopedia can benefit more from your contributions. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, Dennis, but I really need to point out that I did block BlueSalix for edit warring on 9 April. Gosh, I'm relieved I didn't forget to place the block, as his note on my page made me think before I checked the log. (I'm sure such a slip has happened and will again, but not that time.) Here's your block log, BlueSalix, and here's my block template on your page. I thought it was quite conspicuous. Are you saying you didn't notice it when you returned to editing on 15 April? Bishonen | talk 00:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Impersonation

Someone with nefarious intent has impersonated me and sent BlueSalix nasty emails with the purpose of generating bad blood and poison the well. That editor should be properly dealt with for these actions. I don't and never had email enabled on my account. To admins: How do a file a request for this to be investigated? Cwobeel (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't. You didn't get the emails and you didn't send them. If BlueSalix wants them investigated he can follow Dennis Brown's advice (in the hat above) and forward them (including headers) to an admin. NE Ent 00:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Who do such a malicious thing? Cwobeel (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:189.124.217.111/User:200.120.158.78 Personal attacks after returning from a block for same

200.120.158.78 was blocked for 1 week on 4 June for edit warring and personal attacks. As promised on their talk page, they are back with a new IP, returning to the edit war and personal attacks on the same list of articles (New personal attack: [208]; same editor proof: "stop reverting for no reason you discourteous piece of shit", "don't revert for no reason")

Prior ANI: [209]. Promise to return on a new IP: [210]. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The above user has also carried on a series of tendentious edits in addition to his personal attacks. See Special:contributions/200.120.158.78 and Special:Contributions/189.124.217.111. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for the abusive comments. I do feel compelled to point out that despite his poor behaviour, he's absolutely right: all of these "best known for" comments are nothing but original research, and it would be best to remove them from every article in which they appear. Anyone really want to claim that they know for certain whether Ed O'Neill is best known for Al Bundy rather than Jay Pritchett? Who would possibly constitute a reliable source for such a statement? Can we really say that many of the inconsequential people we have articles about are actually known for anything?

In short, while the IP is behaving inexcusably, the people that reverted him shouldn't come away from this feeling guilt-free. Most of these cases are technically BLP violations: unsourced original research in the lead of a biography of a living person. The next time someone removes one of these things, avoid the struggle by following policy and leaving it out.—Kww(talk) 05:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Kww, we I see your point, but if this is true, then it is a tremendously widespread problem, so much so as to be nearly unfixable. I ran a small, unscientific experiment: Using WP:AWB, from the list of all male guitarists with articles on Wikipedia, how many of those contain the phrase "best known" in one of their introductory paragraphs? Out of a list of 1137, there were 323 that did. And that is just one type of performer; what about every other performer that ever lived? Clearly, the use of the phrase is fairly common and widespread on Wikipedia, so much so that it ventures into the WP:SKYISBLUE territory. My suggestion: Change the text to "perhaps best known" and remove the citation. I saw many articles that had done that. Prhartcom (talk) 11:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? the panda ₯’ 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose SummerPhD and I. What's your point? Prhartcom (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a simple question, and I find it odd that you speak on behalf of someone else. The question of "we" is common: shared or role accounts are not permitted, so when you say "we" - especially with a username that already appears to represent an organization - there is always the concern that you're a shared/role userid the panda ₯’ 14:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

All right, I should have said "I", and I have changed my statement above. Several of us have been in agreement at the article talk page. There is no concern with my username. Let's stay on topic. Prhartcom (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In my book, the problem (in addition to the obvious "I'm right, so fuck off" attitude) is that it is a widespread practice. In fact, it's big enough to constitute an indication of consensus. We cannot challenge that on one article and expect it to stick. We need a much broader discussion to resolve the question. Until then, there are questionable ones that can be resolved locally and obvious ones (I'm looking at Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson) that are pretty much unassailable demonstrations of the current consensus. Anyone care to take up the cause in a constructive manner? - SummerPhD (talk) 12:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at Talk:David Gilmour and there is a strong consensus for keeping the 'best known' wording.' The IP in question refuses to come to grips with that. He also refuses to discuss his similar edits to other pages. The IP's edits also extend beyond removing the best known wording as he also removed valid descriptions of Canadian broadcasting networks from their pages. Again, he refuses to discuss those edits before hand. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 15:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

"Best known" is a phrase that could be in the lead in a few scenarios; if it's supported by sourced assertion/material in the main part of the article, or if it has a cited source in the lead itself. I could see it being non-problematic in some of the hundreds of cases it crops up. If it's just a bald assertion, then it's already broadly discouraged by Unsupported attributions. People include great numbers of unsupported attributions, but that's not the same as consensus to include the phrase wholesale. I would suggest it's a commonly committed bit of weak writing that should be fixed when noticed, not unlike a common spelling mistake ("alot" could be considered common, but not with any definition of consensus). If the phrase is summarizing other material, I'd shorten "best known" to "known". If it wasn't supported at all it should be discouraged or edited like any other unsourced claim.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Spinster

Persistent warring, with a series of single purpose IPs pushing for a poorly written and poorly sourced lede. This ought to be resolved through talk page discussion, but that's not working. I've requested page protection, and would appreciate some assistance. Thanks, JNW (talk) 06:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@JNW: This is not yet up to ANI level (it appears)... try proceeding with the steps at WP:DR. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:33, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This user, JNW, continues to add bias to the entry on spinster and now wants protection from it. She/he claims the term spinster is a "controversial" term subject to debate. There has never been any controversy or debate about the meaning of this term which has only evolved over time. She/he has bumped down well-sourced information that does not support her point of view and introduced large amounts of content that supports her/his view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:8180:E85:8876:CC95:3BE3:5C99 (talk) 07:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, thanks, but it looks like a sock and ownership issue, with edit warring and a pointed intro. The IPs are not invested in resolution--if that were the case, they would have taken the time to read the article's talk page, rather than misrepresent my intent. Thoughtful intervention is necessary. JNW (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Jd344

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

---

Jd344 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As suggested by Ronhjones, I report this case here from WP:AIV. To better explain the case I'll copy quite all the text of my previous report:

• AIV March 2014 - Actions indicate a vandalism-only account. The user has a long list of speedy deletion and PROD tags about strange articles: Thechristianbros002 was deleted as test page, List Of Dates Of TheChristianBros002 Episodes was deleted per A1, TCB002 per A1, List of PlushUniverse Episodes per A3, List Of The Spies Episodes was deleted because Can find no evidence that this series exists. And now again List of The Spies Episodes, tagged for speedy deletion as hoax by me. Well, searching on Google, The Spies (note: it is not an article here) seems to be only a 1966 tv series, but the article talks about a 1st season started in 2013. Christian Bros 002 produces no "real" results. Plush universe seems at least related to anything else than a YouTube meme. Ah, btw, this is a vandalism. Finally warned, IMHO is a vandal-only account with an attitude to the inclusion of hoaxes. Note: into his sandbox it is wroten about "LODO Johnathan Episodes"... no results, neither as "Lodo Jonathan" or else...

After that notice, when it was decided to wait before a block, user was stale for 2 months. On 30 may he edited (creating it again) his sandbox with a "List of The Colorful Trucks Episodes". Searching on Google "The Colorful Trucks" they were no results about this series. Same thing searching for "The Colorful Trucks episodes". At this point, before to wait the creation of The Colorful Trucks article, and spend time to search, delete etc... I request the indef ban as evident vandalism/hoax-only account. I can remark that 6 articles created by JD344 were deleted, and one was deleted twice. IMHO the user was sufficiently warned (9 times in March). Thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: normally I would not think to report here a case of vandalism for some fantasy edits in a sandbox. Of course, this is due to the overall situation explained above. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I remember this editor having done something like this before (Christian Brothers sounds very familiar) last year, so they know much better; they just changed the title of their fantasy hoaxing and got a new username to throw others off track. Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

And I do remember now; the editor has their real name on their userpage, leading to this, a YouTube page where someone has 'Mario episodes' with their dolls. We have deleted stuff with their self-produced videos before, though I'd have to go deeply into my contribs to figure out when and where, but yes, I've known about them in the past. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Password Problem

I have not changed my password recently and I cant log in on chrome. I think my account may have been hacked but I'm still logged in on IE. Help! TitusFox^'Tribs 17:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You may get an answer here but this is not am admin problem. I would suggest that you move this post to the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're logged in on IE, go change your password. The, go to Chrome, clear your cache and trying loggin in using your new password the panda ₯’ 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Threat of violence

Hi please see below diff of a threat of violence - it appears to be aimed at someone (and it appears to be unacheivable) but am unable to figure out who,

Can it be looked into asap please, [211] Have reported it to emergency@ to be on the safe side,

Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Know your memes.- MrX 18:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Assumed was something as such, good to know. Amortias (T)(C) 18:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. Reporting to emergency@ is always the best thing if you aren't sure. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments removed per WP:NPA

I removed some trolling from TL36 (talk · contribs) that was made at Talk:Media Matters for America. Both comments were personal attacks against other editors (including myself) and one of the comments was in reply to a thread that was 11 months old. TL36 restored the comments, so I reverted them again with an appropriate explanation. FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs) restored the comments, stating I was not allowed to remove these personal attacks. I believe this action by FreeRangeFrog was in error, since I believe that the policy of WP:NPA and WP:NOTFORUM should take precedence over the guideline of WP:RTP. I would welcome comment by other administrators in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In general, you're free to remove trolling form your own user talk but on article talk pages it's better to wait for an uninvolved admin or WP:DR volunteer. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 81.144.225.196 vandalism

Multiple incidents. User has been warned several times by other editors: 81.144.225.196 talk page. Recently did another unconstructive edit on Saint Vincent (island) despite being being warned about previous edits to same page. Farolif (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)