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)

  Comment: Your comment is misleading because it is a lot more than personal attacks. Please see this diff for the concerns. On April 1, 2014 User:Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede[63] that failed V.[64] He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research[65] and did not summarise the body. Jayaguru-Shishya removed part of a wikilink in my previous comment. Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now."[66] Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at CAM articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#New Lede Proposal and Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 37#Comments. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine[67] where there was no consensus in the first place.[68][69][70] Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text.[71] See Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Deletion of text without discussion. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule.[72] Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive841#User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not moving on and he is continuing his battleground behaviour. Jayaguru-Shishya is well aware of the sanctions. Jayaguru-Shishya, do you agree your behaviour has not changed since your unblock? Jayaguru-Shishya, do you think you may have misused this administrative noticeboard.[73][74] User:Kww warned you "The next sign of abusing administrative noticeboards to further pseudoscientific POVs will result in an indefinite block". QuackGuru (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

* Comment: This has nothing to do with this ANI. This whole process has become a clown show. Neuraxis (talk) 01:56, 15 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 [75] and continuing to mis-represent me or any 'agenda' [76] Misrepresentation that I am trying to white-wash. I am not as I stated here [77] and have decided to disengage [78] as there are more pressing issues elsewhere. I have blocked him from my talk page after asking repeatedly that he cease to make contact [79]. He has been poisoning the well against me in other pages that I have nothing to do with [80]. I asked him to de-escalate and he continues to follow me around [81]. 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 [82]. I would expect you to know your material. Another baseless allegation of trying to white-wash, and another failure to read my bio [83]. 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)
• Oppose: The hands of those vilifying Neuraxis aren't exactly clean if they're doing things like (from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Neuraxis, "User:BullRangifer has twice deleted my comment for a clarifiation request and is now alleging I am edit warring over it!". This looks like a classic case of trying to gain leverage in a content dispute by trying to get the other user blocked or banned. K7L (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• K7L, I'm surprised you are still around creating disruption, especially after my 12 point summary of all you've done wrong. At least you didn't send your sockpuppet. You should have been blocked by now for sockpuppetry.
  You really need to do your homework before jumping in here: Start by looking at the actual diffs of what happened, not at the claim made by Neuraxis. Here are the diffs: [84], [85]. Read the edit summaries carefully. Note these words: "Please place in your own area and sign properly." There was no attempt to prevent the inclusion of that content, only to make sure Neuraxis followed protocol. We are not allowed to place comments in the wrong areas in a Clarification request. What I did was considered the "100% correct" thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 16 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)

• Was posted to my page, no context was provided, had spammed my wall before, removed it. You're using a crystal ball again suggesting I'm understanding a template that is posted with no explanation, diffs. Neuraxis (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Neuraxis, you are once again apparently attempting to engage in distraction. If you are not competent enough to understand the nature of such a warning, that is your problem, and your problem alone. It is not anyone's obligation to have to take you step by step through every procedure an experienced editor of roughly 2-1/2 years experience should have some basic understanding of. And it is very hard to believe that someone who boasted on my user talk page "Reading and reviewing research is part of my real-life job" would be so clearly and pronouncedly incompetent to not understand the meaning of the template. This seems to me to be a rather patently absurd case of someone attempting to wikilawyer based on their own assertion of their own incompetence to understand simple messages, which itself can not unreasonably be seen to be contrary to Wikipedia:Competence is required. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

John, step back. If you analyzed by edit Hx, you would see that I have spent 4-5 months editing, the rest filled with inactivity gaps. So you ASSuming that 'I should know' bc of being here for 2.5 years does not take this into account. Considering that QG has a long-standing issue with tagging, I ignored it bc it seemed like an intimidation/bullying move. Thanks again for assuming no good faith and calling me incompetent. However, it did make an error. That was assuming you had expertise and competence in scientific matters. I figured that an arbitrator at pseudoscience had the ability to discern scientific literature. I read your bio and your expertise seems to be more about theology. No wonder why you were so 'overwhelmed' by the scientific papers, but that's your own shortcomings. You've made it clear of your intentions [86] and how you have your biases and it's to debunk. I would figure that your intent, as an arbiter, would be to analyze, interpret the evidence before having preconceived notions on the topic, or recuse yourself if you very little about the subject matter, especially in a professional capacity. So, if you have any constructive criticism, that's helpful. Your repeated attempts to smear me with your specious allegations, that are diff-less, reveal more about you than me. IOW, shit or get off the pot. Neuraxis (talk) 23:01, 16 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.[87] 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[88] 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)

This is his second sockpuppet, and he has used an IP sock as well, those sock contributions ought to be nuked and Russavia community banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Who else besides This cowboy's running from himself (talk · contribs) has he used? Doc talk 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the SPI, Russavia has edited with at least 2 sockpuppets

• during the appeal of his indefinite block - 195 edits, and
• Immediately after the appeal was closed against him - 304 edits. Also
• Another and
• Still another have been blocked as suspected sockpuppets of Russavia, though I haven't seen anything on the SPI yet.

I would guess that part of Russavia's sockpuppeting is due in part to anger management issues, and in part due to his wish to just express his contempt of the community. In any case, that is a lot of anger and a lot of contempt. I'll propose that his access to his talk page here be cut off, but that he make a brief statement on his Commons talk page, which we can link to here.

Note under WP:CBAN is the paragraph

• In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

This says that he is already community banned, but I should check here to see if I'm reading this correctly. If he is not already community banned, I propose that we do it now, for all the above reasons, and for the reasons expressed in the unblock request. Finally, I'll suggest that Russavia will abide by the ban, as he will understand that there are methods (e.g. action by the community at Commons, or WMF foundation action) that the ban can be extended to Commons. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Smallbones That's straying dangerous close to a personal attack, accusing a user of having anger management issues. Please redact the relevant sections of your comment. Nick (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is breaching personal attack territory. The intent didn't come across as an "attack" for starters, it was offering a possible explanation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I second NIck's perception, Dennis. I have refrained from participating in any russavia fiestas on Wiki, but the "I would guess..." sentence in Smallbones' say is a paragon of lack of good faith, if I ever saw one before. It's good enough to include in a Wikipedia help page on the subject. ;) And I have been editing as mareklug since July 2005, and for years before that as an IP. Russavia's edits, if I may intercede here to balance the scales, strike me as motivated by a burning desire to contribute excellent quality missing content to Wikimedia projects, English Wikipedia, Commons, or wherever. I have never seen him contribute idiotic drivel, or useless, random vandalizing content. Granted, some of what he has contributed is beyond the pale in the eyes of many reasonable observers; I do not deny that. But when Russavia provides rare aviation photographs to have them added to articles, or starts an article on an airline, well, hit me with a rhythm stick ($1 to Ian Drury), but why are those edits to be removed, and where do you see, Smallbones, anger management issues in those? Jesus Christ, please open your eyes, Dear WikiCommunity: People are complicated, and we have a proverb in Illinois: don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cordially, --Mareklug ^talk 13:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support formal Site Ban for socking. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

About the same time as this discussion was going on, there was another discussion below enforcing the sox blox. I think that's all that needs to be done now. The paragraph from WP:CBAN that I quoted above stands, and it has become very clear that Russavia has given himself a community ban, well beyond our poor power to do so. And then he has underlined the ban by his expressions of contempt for the community by his quadruple socking. I would appreciate it if an admin blocks his access to his talkpage here, and places Russavia on the list of indefinitely banned users. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reblocked with talk page access removed. Removing unlock requests, discussions of disruption, and the SPI investigation announcement, with the edit summary "if it doesn't relate to creation or curation of content, it doesn't belong here"[89] indicates that he doesn't seem to realise what a talk page of an indef blocked user is supposed to be used for, or what is expected to even consider unblocking sometime in the future. Fram (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support formal site ban. Block him, clean off his talk page, lock it to administrators only and let him use the email system if he really thinks he can convince people to waste more time on him. It'll be easier to ignore him if he's emailing everyone than if he's being disruptive with his talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There is precedent for the community ban of prolific editors of content. No matter how many contributions and high quality those contributions are, there is only so much that can be tolerated before they're asked to move along. Many may remember user:Mbz1 who produced and contributed significant numbers of high quality images for the encyclopedia, but was c-banned for continued and sustained harassment of another editor amongst other things. Blackmane (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There is also precedent for the site ban of prolific content editors by the ArbCom. An example is Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who was banned for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 16 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) (see below)

Okay, I need to clarify my point. I misread the history here and mistakenly assumed that this was a totally voluntary "self-ban", in the sense of, say, walking away from a problem in order to keep it from escalating. While I still support my opinion above in the factual scenario I wrongly believed existed, Mythdon's case is significantly different enough to require some more consideration.
Mythdon was subject to an indefinite block following a ban of six months, and requested an unblock. Part of the bargain in securing that unblock was an agreement to stay off the toku project's turf. Furthermore, the unblock was attained not by a passing admin giving Mythdon another chance based on those assurances, but following a consensus developed at the AN discussion (though admittedly, it was a fairly short discussion). I would not call this a "voluntary" or "self-imposed" ban any more than I would call the prison sentence imposed following a plea bargain "voluntary confinement". It would be more appropriate to look at this as a condition of the unblock.
Under normal circumstances—that is, where a single lurking admin saw an unblock request promising a condition, and the admin conditioned his unblock on that promise—I would say it falls to the unblocking admin to decide whether the condition is still necessary. Here, on the other hand, we have the AN consensus. That complicates things a little. As such, I think a reframing and reproposing of this discussion might be in order, asking instead whether the conditions of the unblock were still binding, and if so, whether they could be lifted. As to that question: whether Mythdon's unblock conditions should be lifted... I will say that Mythdon was unblocked in Nov. 2012 and has not been blocked since, which is a good sign. On the other hand, Mythdon has had fewer than 500 edits since then (out of a total of nearly 9000 including deleted contribs). While I am perfectly glad to assume good faith and argue that reblocks are cheap should Mythdon's behavior in tokusatsu articles become problematic... the fact that this has already had to be arbitrated once is enough to give me pause. The paucity of edits since the unblock in particular weighs on my mind. As such, I cannot support a lifting of the unblock conditions at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv:You are right that pleading and then going back on unblock assurances is something that is to be decided by more extensive discussion, which is why this thread was put forth in the first place, my previous commment below (the striked one) was merely based off the assumption that because of yours and Atlan's consensus that when bot closed the ban would be defacto lifted. You are also right that the "voluntary restriction" goes more along the lines of "condition of the unblock" which I'm more comfortable with that summary as I come to think of it I should have used that summary in the first place. As to a reforming of this discussion, maybe better to just call this matter closed for me (for now) and call the ban in still place and continue to go about my non-Tokusatsu business which in a later discussion can be put forth toward good behavior in Tokustatu which is why I set forth that ban on myself in the first place—to relearn the ropes of the project while not immediately outright diving in headfirst to the root of all my old problematic behaviors so as to further improve myself following the realizations set forth in my unblock, I'd liken it to self therapy–on that same note, the self topic ban was always meant to be temporary (which again is the crux of this discussion). The lacking in number of edits since November 2012 can be chalked to the fact that I no longer go around trying to fit everything exactly within my perceptions of policy (that is my 9000 edit count would be cut down to close to nothing if you took away the policing edits, the rollback warnings and all). But I've been more actively actually trying to contribute and focus more on the encyclopedia (especially since May 25, 2014 when I started editing regularly again). And while the community would have undoubtedly acted on my request topic ban or no topic ban, it does help to topic ban yourself to further assure there will be no allowance for a return to "old habits" so nothing went wrong not making myself clear at the time I meant it as temporary. But I will continue to follow the ban pending any future discussion (actually for real discussing an appeal, as this discussion has become more a precedent than an actual appeal discussion). Therefore, any block for a violation of that topic ban is preventative in the sense of enforcing those assurances rather than punitive in the sense of enforcing those original intentions just for the sake of enforcing them. If only I can make my above statements clearer for this once, I'll use that as a precedent toward a future "unblock conditions appeal" discussion. So as community time wasting as the first discussion may seem, they can use it as a lowdown of events that led to the original topic ban and then the "unblock conditions appeal" discussion can be more focused on my comments regarding my improvements since the unblock and since this discussion. —Mythdon 08:26, 15 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)

Not sure where this discussion is going, going by a consensus of two editors. As one is simply not against it and the other supporting on the notion that a future involuntary topic ban can be put in effect (however no discussion is taking place). Maybe the community doesn't want to discuss it or maybe people don't have the time to go over the links or maybe this isn't an ANI matter and should have been put on AN or maybe its just voluntary restrictions of my sort aren't enforceable afterall.Seeing as only three editors have commented and there has been no discussion in more than 36 hours, if at this state of the discussion it still stands as is once bot archived, I'm going to assume this is de facto closed with consensus to lift the voluntary sanction. Then to all who have read and commented and the fellow participants at the WikiProject can expect to see me back on its pages shortly. I guess we can call this resolved in the dead horse sense of the resolution. —Mythdon 05:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave this to a later discussion; Mendaliv is right. —Mythdon 07:25, 15 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)

• IG89, you need to read WP:CHUNK and understand to keep your statements short. There are angry and furious admins out there who might just block you for all your blabbering. They would unblock you maybe in short time, but a block log is bad. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have tried to keep my statements brief, while also addressing all the issues that were raised. A balance has to be kept between the two. My presentation (as a separate point / paragraph for each issue, rather than all mixed-up together) is to facilitate easier reading and understanding. You need not read it at all, if you consider it to be "blabbering". No one is forcing you to read it. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:40, 16 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 [90] 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 [91] 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",[92] 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 [93] 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 [94], 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 [95], 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[96][97][98] and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May [99][100][101], and again on 30/31 May [102][103][104][105], always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June [106], 10 June [107] and 12 June [108]. 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 [109][110][111].

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 [112][113], after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here [114]. 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 [115].

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, ([116]) 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.[117][118][119] 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)
  • That's a pretty good analysis of the problem, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 16 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)

• I would suggest that it might be a good idea for Future Perfect at Sunrise and Kwamikagami to agree on an admin or fellow editor whom they trust to get to the bottom of this dispute. You might find out who in fact the bad faith interlocutor is real fast if one is rejecting any and all interventions. In my limited (though highly traumatic) experience with AN/I, I was impressed with Mendaliv's judiciousness and impartiality.

But... Kwami is not here and clearly there are a fair number of editors who've been very upset by his actions. It's extremely demoralizing when admins seem passive in the face of multiple editors voicing their distress. I would say temporary block, and if he does decide to speak up for himself investigate, ask questions and be thorough.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Good advise, but unfortunately in this case it's not just a dispute between Kwami and Future Perfect. Just at Gaulish language Kwami has been in dispute with at least three editors knowledgeable about the general topic who disagree with him, and there are even more at the various related discussions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fully agree with analysis of Fut.Perf. as seen in dozens of previous incidents with the same pattern in the archives. By all means wait for Kwami to make a response, but if it's the same response as all the previous incidents then maybe some change encouraging remedy, such as a 3-month 1RR on all language articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, Kwami hasn't made any edits since June 12. I take this at least partially as a conscious effort to disengage and an acknowledgement that the preceding behavior was causing a problem, which would be a good sign. However, if the behavior resumes, this matter is simply going to require some kind of action, whether blocks or edit restrictions, as this disruption has simply gone on too long.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 16 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:

• [120] incivility
• [121] [122] etc.: major edit without consensus, leading to edit war shown below
• [123] edit war
• [124] edit war; wikilawyering in summary
• [125] edit war
• [126] incivility
• [127] incivility
• [128] incivility
• [129] straw man arguments, mocking, general incivility and accusatory tone
• [130] mocking
• [131] mocking
• [132] wikilawyering
• [133] blatant disregard for consensus in the name of personal perception of fact
• [134] mocking
• [135] incivility
• [136] [137] second edit war; edit summary incivility (“I don’t think you would intentionally commit fraud”)
• [138] [139] [140] personal attack; mocking
• [141] referring to constructive edit as “gross misrepresentation of verifiable facts”
• [142] incivility
• [143] more incivility
• [144] straying completely from the content
• [145] referring to constructive edits as “misrepresenting facts”
• [146] incivility
• [147] incivility
• [148] abuse of {{vague}}
• [149] [150] edit warring
• [151] [152] abuse of {{or}}
• [153] mocking; incivility
• [154] edit warring over tag abuse
• [155] wikilawyering
• [156] personal attack
• [157] evasion of explanation
• [158] personal attack / incivility
• [159] incivility (“your renewed attack in apology’s clothing”)

• creation of POV fork
• [160] maintenance of ownership of POV fork
• [161] [162] [163] reverting POV removal
• [164] [165] 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)

I think even if it was intended to mean "bullshit bullshit bullshit", it's more chuckleworthy than offensive or disruptive. I would tend to agree with 64' above; as the explanation on the user talk page states, BsBsBs has used his initials in a somewhat punny fashion prior to editing here. I don't have a problem with it. Anyway, BsBsBs just posted a new unblock request that sounds pretty sincere, and agrees to a topic ban as a condition of the unblock. My "(Non-administrator comment)" would be that the unblock should be granted, with the topic ban as a condition thereof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Now unblocked by JamesBWatson. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:29, 15 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. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]

Diffs of talkpage reversions:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]
5. [174]
6. [175]

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)

Thank you all for your help in this matter. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 03:02, 15 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.[176] 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: [177]. 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[178], 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.[179] 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.[180]. 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.[181] On a procedural front, BDB editors are complaining about me on the talk pages of an admin[182], 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 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also explicitly described their conduct as "illegal." 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)

I agree. There were two BDB editors when last I looked in on the page a week ago. One was blocked as a sock and yet, voila! one promptly takes his place. Something fishy there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Ban BDB editors from the talk page per WP:PAY, or (second choice) restrict BDB to one account, with the second account deactivated or blocked. (See subsequent post; site ban is now warranted.) WP:PAY says: "Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit 'billable hours' to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them." A total topic ban is justified by the history of disruption that has been caused by BDB accounts, both official and company-affiliated socks. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros and User talk:Okteriel#Block notice.) As JzG observes above, BDB editors are disrupting the talk page by making meritless arguments. I believe they are not acting in good faith, are aware that their arguments are without merit, and are seeking to grind down good-faith editors by their wall-o-text rants, repetitive arguments, "ground rules" and other disruptive tactics. The "ground rules" post by the new BDBIsrael account shows an intimate familiarities with Wikipedia rules, and that it is almost certainly a sockpuppet. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the second choice is really viable given role accounts of this nature are prohibited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Then it should not be a role account. But clearly, the more desirable alternative is to remove the company from all talk pages. Apart from the links that I provided above, the new BDBIsrael account hastargeted a good-faith editor with specious arguments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK. the "new" account BDBIsrael has just placed two three walls-o-text on the talk page stating in excruciating detail (over 14K 16K characters) every single period and comma it wants changed in the article, in two three successive talk page posts.[183][184][185] Fine. Noted. The volunteer, unpaid, unconflicted editors can now consider these suggestions in conformity with each editor's time schedule and list of Wikipedia priorities, without further disruption, wikipoliticking and interference from Banc de Binary. The endless argumentation and wall-o-text needs to stop. Time to ban the company from Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support any of a block, a topic ban, or a site ban, because these editors are not here to build an NPOV encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Agree the sheer intensity of the COI editing is disruptive as such, independently of the possible justification of any one edit they make. I, for one, am willing to block the lot here, and will do so soonish unless I hear some very good reason to the contrary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic or site ban because it's frustrating to have to deal with this day after day when we could be improving the encyclopedia. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I am seeking to comply with Wikipedia policy. Please review the information below, as we would be interested in knowing the correct route to address our concerns that complies with policy.

Regards, Wikipedians. BDBJack requested 67 days ago that the correct legal identity of Banc De Binary, Ltd., be reflected in the lede of the article, which has still not been accomplished. Upon consultation with OTRS and with the informal mediator, and after shorter paths to resolving our concerns were rejected, I have posted a full list of edit requests as concisely as possible in one section (in addition to grammar and style corrections). Posting them in small batches over the past two months has not worked. I have asked for administrative review as to whether my post, in accord with OTRS and the informal mediator, was disruptive or noncompliant. If the editors on this thread can provide a better method for correcting our company name and what we regard as definite or possible policy violations, including biography violations, we are interested in hearing such a method. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As indicated above, if it is on the list that you provided, it will be addressed when the unpaid, unconflicted volunteers get around to it, based on our judgment and based upon the time available to us. It will be addressed without interference and harassment from BDB-affiliated accounts. You and other accounts associated with BDB have wantonly wasted our time, have socked, and I believe that you are one of those socks because you are a new account that does not behave like one. I also believe that the socking and disruption is not about to end, and that a site ban is amply warranted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Figureofnine. You raise an important point in relation to trust-building. I will answer it on my user talkpage. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but a carefully crafted and extremely vague statement about past violation of Wikipedia policies is insufficient, especially when it comes from an obvious sock. If you truly are done with disruption, then you are done with Wikipedia, since Team BDB has demonstrated that your only interest is in skewing the article about you and making false/misleading statements of fact about your company and Wikipedia editors. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support some kind of block/ban. The disruption has gotten out of hand. Atama tried to mediate, and made a list of five issues to be discussed. Those were dealt with. Then the BDB team added a list of 12 issues they were concerned about. Those were dealt with, with a long discussion of whether BdB's activites in the US were illegal, with the consensus that they were. That conclusion was even accepted by BDBjack (who asked for favorable spin, writing "Would it be possible to change mentions of "illegal operation" to "illegal operation under the current regulation of the SEC and CFTC"?") For a moment, it looked like we were done. Then the BDB team added a list of 56 issues they were concerned about, claiming that even where the item was factually correct and sourced, items "harmful" to BdB should be removed. That was, properly, treated as tendentious editing. From the comments above, just about everyone involved is fed up with the BdB team. (All the problems are from the BdB team, which includes their socks and paid editors. BdB has no significant support from experienced editors. This article isn't controversial on Wikipedia.) Given the BDB team's track record of admitted paid editing, sockpuppets, and forum-shopping, it may be difficult to shut them down completely, but it's time to try. I suggest banning/blocking all BdB affiliated accounts, interpreted broadly, for 30 days. (Maybe 90 days?) That's appropriate for disruption. This should include any new accounts which somehow just happen to be drawn to BdB issues. A short-term broad ban is more helpful than editor-specific long term bans and blocks, because of the extensive sock history. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Nagle. You raise several concerns, some of which have been previously addressed, and I am uncertain how to proceed to clarify the record as one of the concerns is that our attempts to make basic corrections relates to creation of "walls of text". Would you be willing to discuss these on my user talkpage? I have already appealed the essence of your concerns to administrative and internal review, as it is not our intent to be perceived as behaviorally noncompliant when we have already entered into mediation for the purpose of removing content noncompliance. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the place for administrative review. Please stop forum-shopping. John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I respect the pent-up Wikipedian concerns about Banc De Binary that have been revealed by this thread. In my position I have made myself something of a lightning rod for these long-standing concerns and I believe they can be addressed at the same time as our concerns about content violations can be addressed. It does not seem that block or ban would be helpful to Wikipedia to resolve either the editors' concerns or our own, either technically or practically, in the current situation where mediation is ongoing. I can respond in more detail but would like to know I have the right to respond as freely as anyone else. In response to your last, if you believe I was mistaken to ask for immediate administrative review, we can certainly see what is resolved on this page. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Block or ban would not be helpful? You're wasting time we could be improving the encyclopedia to turn your page into an advertisement. A block or ban would free up the unpaid volunteers with lives. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's in their interests too, but they can't be made to see that and they are just a hopeless waste of time See "Negotiation Break" section below: "Banc De Binary is prepared to continue its record of compliance with Wikipedia policy." Compliance???Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Figureofnine, you're starting to come off as an editor hostile toward COI editors. Your behavior is not going to fix the problem, it's going to drive it underground. BDB is participating in good faith and this is an opportunity for us to show that declaring a COI works. You're not helping.--v/r - TP 20:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

BDB is participating in good faith? When did that begin? Are you familiar with the background of this situation, especially the socking? For you to say that my attitude or any editor's "attitude" is going to affect these editors one way or the other or "drive it underground" is so divorced from reality as to be bizarre. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This company has employed both declared (non-underground) and undeclared (sock) accounts for a lengthy period of time, a period of many months according to the block history. It has shifted its tactics periodically, but has not wavered from its aim to whitewash the article, and the consensus of all editors commenting upon this except you is that this behavior is tendentious in the extreme and not in good faith. Most recently the BDB editor has argued strenuously to make the falacious point that no allegation of illegality was made against it by U.S. regulators. Pushing that point further, it maintained on your talk page that User:Nagle was worthy of a "warning" because he correctly stated that[186]. I don't think you appear to understand the gravity of what has been going on. What I do know is that your support of the BDB editors is very much a minority viewpoint. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that topic bans require editors "uninvolved" in the dispute to voice their opinion?--v/r - TP 21:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some uninvolved users. I don't believe I was involved for long, although I could be wrong. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Origamite. I apologize for anything that may have caused your frustration. The discussion list posted to mediation is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia and was posted at the advice of an administrator OTRS volunteer and of the administrator informal mediator. I trust that the present thread will not contravene these administrators' attempts to help us improve the encyclopedia, such as getting our legal identity correct after now 68 days of patient requests. You may contribute on that article talkpage thread as well, and you may express any concerns about Banc De Binary at my user talkpage. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I had to look that one up. You mean WP:CBAN? Yes, and they are. But users both involved and uninvolved can comment. My involvement is limited to the talk page, as I have never edited this article. So I am "involved," if you can call it that, about as much as you are. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic. We were discussing blocks and bans. Specific proposal: 30-day blocks on BDBJack (talk · contribs) and BDBIsrael (talk · contribs) for disruption. 30-day ban on any sock, affiliate, or anyone acting in concert with BdB from editing Banc de Binary or Talk:Banc de Binary. Based on previous behavior patterns, any new accounts with strong interests in these articles to be viewed with suspicion for the next 30 days. Revisit the issue after 30 days if necessary. John Nagle (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussing what the policy says in reference to this proposal is on topic. Perhaps we should also discuss a proposal about your behavior while you are here.--v/r - TP 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Complete site ban. Nothing that these "editors" have done has been useful to improve the encyclopedic nature of the subject. Apologizing in one sentence only to immediately turn around in the next sentence and completely negate the apology is time wasting and pointless. I am reminded of other subject areas where a small and very vocal externally organized collection of "editors" refused to accept the consensus at large of the community. It took many steps including 400k bytes in a RFC/U, explicit demonstrations of external puppet army mobilization, and a community being fed up with the subject area to require the enactment of Community Sanctions. While I don't think the disruption is outside the BDB article, I agree that my patience has been used up and I am tired of reading about it every single time the representatives of the subject come up with a new way to justify letting them have free reign over the article. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Hasteur. We have no intent to negate ourselves and I am uncertain to what you refer; and we have no intent to have free rein over the article, only to have a mediated discussion such as afforded any other article subject, even those who also seek to resolve the record on prior noncompliance. I keep referring to the issue of our legal identity because it is a simple verifiability issue and it is unclear why it should have been stalled so long; and our other concerns are similarly grounded in policy compliance. If you have specific concerns, please take them to my user talkpage so that we can answer them. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Negotiation break

Banc De Binary is prepared to continue its record of compliance with Wikipedia policy, on the understanding that other editors are also prepared to comply with content policies (such as getting our legal identity correct in the first sentence of our article, as we requested actually 67 days ago). To forestall drama, we request administrative assistance as to what method we should use to demonstrate our commitment to policy and to resolve both the other editors' concerns with behavior from BDB accounts and our content concerns. I convinced our Board that a proper disclosure of past noncompliance would suffice to establish our right to join the dialogue to make these corrections; I hope I was not wrong; but I have the authority to provide additional assurances on BDB's behalf. Like Nagle, I too believed that mediation was the proper forum and that I had been invited (both by the mediator and by an OTRS volunteer) to list all our content concerns concisely. Although it is not my place to correct other editors' characterizations of events, it seems that the administrator team should be able to assist with this question without further input from me here. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sincd the BDB team is very concerned that their legal identity be expressed correctly, I have found a reliable source for it. See Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Banc_De_Binary.27s_corporate_structure.. Because BdB's web site did not detail their various corporations in Cyprus, Israel, and the Seychelles, previous editors may not have gotten the corporate structure quite right. However, through the investigative efforts of the CFTC and the SEC, supported by summonses from the Federal District Court for Nevada, their corporate structure and ownership has been discovered, put on the record, and reported in an order from a Federal judge. This should permanently dispose of that issue. John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Editors reviewing this matter might wish to examine the court order at p. 4: "Further complicating matters, Banc de Binary and Mr. Laurent [the CEO] refuse to appear for depositions anywhere in the United States. . . In addition to the expense involved with traveling to the United States, Mr. Laurent is concerned that Judge Jones’ August 7, 2013 order noted that Defendants may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute." This clearly indicates the stakes involved in this article, and in this particular legal dispute, for the company and its CEO. It also indicates why the company is so sensitive to people referring to its principals adversely. According to the court order, they are or were in potentially serious legal jeopardy, such that its CEO declined to travel to the U.S. for a deposition for fear of criminal prosecution. Thus, addressing TParis above, this is not an ordinary "COI situation" by any stretch of the imagination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Noting the above, one last comment. Here's why this really matters. Read this story of a retired couple who lost their life savings in a few days with Banc de Binary.[187] (Yes, that's not a reliable source, so we can't use it in article space. It's not an isolated incident. A search for "bank de binary scam" will turn up many similar stories.) Wikipedia is a top search result for Banc de Binary. Right now, if someone searches for Banc de Binary, they'll see information on Wikipedia that may make them, rightfully, cautious about sending them money. That's a good thing. That's why we're here - to provide neutral, verifiable information, not PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• What's a "content policy" that BDBIsrael wants us to follow? It's clearly not ours. Why are we engaging in this? We wouldn't allow any other individual to dictate articles, let them go out and provide sources rather than repeating saying "it's wrong and you have to fix it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And I find it amusing that a company that's trying to avoid any hint of US jurisdiction to keep from being deposed is putting so much time and effort to influence a company cleared based in the US. I just hope someone isn't opening the door to a personal jurisdictional argument about their minimal contacts with this country. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In response to Nagle (talk · contribs)'s comment: "Right now, if someone searches for Banc de Binary, they'll see information on Wikipedia that may make them, rightfully, cautious about sending them money.": Is that what Wikipedia is about? I was under the impression that it is meant to be an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. The fact that a company (ANY company) has regulatory issues with a particular regulator does not mean that this is the ONLY information worthy of an encyclopedic entry on it. It may be significant, however it should not (in my opinion) be the sole purpose of the article, and "seeing information that makes them cautious" makes it sound like you're making a press / opinion / activism piece instead of an encyclopedic information piece. BDBJack (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Ricky81682. I refer to neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research, biography protection. Not to sound repetitive, but BDBJack asked 68 days ago that our legal identity be corrected, using an unimpeached primary source, and this basic request for compliance with content policy has not yet been addressed as we have waited patiently and politely. I notice that User:JzG has posted a useful help link for corporate issues such as this, and I trust it will not be forum-shopping to contact him about the offer implied by this link, in order to accomplish this policy compliance. Also, we are not trying to influence the Wikimedia Foundation, but I will pass on your concern to our legal department. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If you will permit, I don't believe it appropriate for me to ignore the plight described at Forex Peace Army and linked by Nagle. Binary options are not for everyone. Assuming the anecdote is completely true and not padded, we regret the frustration described. The company counsels generally in its terms and conditions and specifically through its agents that trading should be limited to disposable funds, and trading and acceptance of bonuses should not be conducted in ignorance. However, Banc De Binary's customer service has recognized that extraordinary exceptions occur and has in fact waived its terms and performed refunds in similar cases. I am not in this department, but if it would help matters on Wikipedia, I can commit to send the link to customer service for research and potential outreach; but I understand Wikipedia's purpose is not about getting involved in people's investment decisions. BDBIsrael (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Back on topic. This is AN/I. We were discussing blocks and bans. See previous section. This endless argument by BDB is a diversion from that. John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to hear the answer to BDBJack's question. Are you intending this article to be an activism piece?--v/r - TP 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If a company is generally a front for high pressure sales tactics that cause consumers to lose money, people reading our article should leave thinking that a company is a front for high pressure sales tactics that cause consumers to lose money. This isn't activism, it's information transfer. I do not know anything about this company, but I believe it's quite clear that that is one possibility here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Hipocrite. I am generally in agreement. I am unaware of edits that relate to or suggest high pressure sales in this article; I am aware of one or two edit suggestions relating to losing money, where validity of the sources is in discussion. If reliable, independent secondary sources were adduced that give such a clear judgment as your scenario identifies, and were consistent with biography policy and properly balanced, I would not resist including them. Yet TParis and BDBJack have a valid question, as the idea that it's good for Wikipedia to make people cautious about a company sounds like reverse activism; as you say, Wikipedia should instead advise people of reliably sourced third-party cautions, in balance with other views. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Effective Proposal

Counter to the proposal above, I'd like to make a proposal that achieves the community's needs without driving COI editing underground and making it more difficult to identify it thus causing the community more time and effort to deal with it. Proposal

• All BDB employees, contractors, and those with a conflict of interest with BDB are banned from editing the article indefinitely
• Those banned may continue to edit the talk page
  • Talk page edits by BDB employees are limited to 2 per day - that restriction is placed on the company and not individual employees - 2 per day period from BDB
  • Comments are limited to 300 characters.
  • All comments will identify a specific edit requested to be made
  • All edit requests will include a specific secondary source
  • Declined edit requests may not be suggested again without a new source
• Editors in the topic area will not use personal attacks and ad hominem remarks to discredit BDB employees. "Focus on the edits, not the editors." Edit requests will be declined based on the merit of the edit request and not the source.

How does this proposal sound?--v/r - TP 18:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sounds like something to consider after the editors are blocked as proposed above this one, after unblocking, if there is unblocking. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So we can punish them? Because the only reason to consider blocking first before a lesser sanction is because we want to punish. This goes completely against what I think is a WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.--v/r - TP 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I am distressed at your refusal to recognize the depth of disruption caused by this company, which warrants a block by any objective measure. Our first obligation is to the volunteers, not to the companies that want to shape articles as they see fit. To be frank, you seem angry - but not angry at BDB, but at the editors who have been trying to prevent it from rolling over Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, you want to wield someone else's block button. Your trigger happy finger has earned your future RfA attempt a place on my watchlist.--v/r - TP 20:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • ???? That makes no sense whatsoever. Neither sentence. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • What distresses me even further is that you disregard that they in fact have been blocked, multiple times, the last time just a few days ago, for socking. Their latest sock was extremely disruptive, and in fact I see that his unblock was refused on the grounds that he warranted blocking even if he wasn't a sock. You call what they did "mistakes." Mistakes?????Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced "not driving COI editing underground" is really a pressing concern in the present instance. COI editors on this topic, be they declared or undeclared, will always be easy enough to spot, and now that we know that tactics that the company has resorted to in the past, all future accounts displaying the same pattern will easily and quickly be detected and can be disposed of. I'm also not convinced there will be any legitimate need for the company to make its edit wishes be known. It has had more than enough time and opportunity to do so; it's time for them to leave the community alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)c
  • I agree that the "drive underground" argument makes no sense. TParis has used this same phrase before, and I pointed out to him that this company has used both declared and undeclared editors for a significant period of time. This proposal is constructive, unlike the sniping I have seen come from this same editor directed solely at editors who have tried to counter BDB tactics, but I feel that it is simply not necessary and shows undue solicitude for BDB. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You might want to choose another word rather than solicitude. I consider that a personal attack. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Yes, it appears that the company has made mistakes. But right now it seems they are trying to cooperate. Even if they are a thorn at the moment, and in this specific case, the overall COI issue is my concern. How we treat BDB right now is going to reflect on our overall treatment of COI editors. Jimmy recently changed his tune against all COI edits toward being against only undisclosed COI editors or COI editors on article space. We had a big change in our treatment of COI editors earlier this year and we need to be careful not to fall back into old habits. This is for our benefit, by encouraging COI editors to be open, than for anyone else.--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's a comment on the proposal. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the history of disruption by the company, just kind of shrugs it off, treats it like "no big deal." As for Wales' view of COI editing, I'll go to his page and ask him. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not right. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • TParis: According to Jimbo Wales, you're not right.[188] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I care little about any signal we are sending out to other COI parties through the way we deal with this one. Other COI parties will still do well to adhere to our rules from the start. This one didn't; they utterly screwed up by what they did at first, and if the community has now lost patience with them, that's the price for them to pay. True, they may be trying now to "cooperate" – but we have no need of that cooperation at this point. We don't need their help in writing this article, so we lose nothing by telling them to get lost at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "I care little" clearly.--v/r - TP 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, TParis. I'm not certain how your proposal recognizes the ongoing informal mediation, nor how it resolves the fact that I hope you will pardon me for restating, that we requested our legal identity be corrected 68 days ago, that editors are in agreement that the article is in error, and that it has still not been corrected. I have been asked by the mediator to list all concerns, I have done so and am done listing immediate concerns, and it was my understanding that quiet informal mediation was properly recommended and implemented; and your proposal seems to hamper the mediation process. It is possible that if mediation were moved to a separate page, your proposal could pass, if there is not a character restriction that requires us to summarize complex edits briefly, or if it is understood that we could link long discussions from the proposed mediation page. Further, edit requests for the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material are hampered by the requirement of a secondary source.

Although your proposal appears a significant and rather arbitrary burden, it might be improved by stating that mediation is moved to a new page, by removing the arbitrary character or by permitting linking to alternate pages, by requiring secondary sources only when the edit refers to an existing secondary source, and by extending it to accounts that are essentially single-purpose, as it should apply to them as well as to us. However, if our rights to informal mediation are recognized, it seems that the proposal is not necessary because there is no content difference between mediation on the talk page and on another page. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards again, Future Perfect at Sunrise. It would seem unusual for us to be banned, now that we have admitted past noncompliances and are in present amicable mediation, when we were not banned at the time the noncompliances were ongoing. I have understood Wikipedia to be in favor of fresh starts and negotiation rather than retributive punishment not related to current behavior. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At this point, BDBIsreal, no one cares about your request 68 days ago. Your editing has become tendentious and right now my proposal is the only thing that is going to keep you editing on this project. Your response doesn't help in the slightest and is only going to embolden the proposal to have you entirely blocked from this website. What your company needs & wants, and the goals of this project are entirely separate. This isn't your company's article, it is an article about your company. No different than if it were in print or news media. At some point you're going to have to accept that it isn't for you to dictate to us and learn to cooperate instead.--v/r - TP 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Figureofnine above. After a full block for a month or so, then we can consider this. Bear in mind that, until a week ago, the BdB team was still running multiple sockpuppets. (Ref: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel.) When that was forcibly stopped, they tried buying paid edits on eLance for $10,000.[189] When that backfired, they created a new account, and tried wikilawyering and endless rehashing of the same arguments. Only when all else had failed did they try acting "legitimate". That phase has only been in progress for less than 48 hours. As for the "fresh start" claim, see Wikipedia:Clean start, esp. "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes..." That clearly does not apply to BDBJack (talk · contribs) or BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). We routinely block editors for a month or so for disruption. That's appropriate here. This is a gentle sanction for the documented bad behavior. Per WP:SOCK, all BDB accounts could be blocked by any admin as being connected to known sockpuppets. John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nagle. I will review these concerns and reply on my user talkpage promptly. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you won't. This isn't a discussion between Wikipedia and BDB. This is a Wikipedia discussion about you. It's final, there is nothing for you to 'review'. We are reviewing, you can contribute to the review. @Nagle: So you want to punish them to teach them a lesson about Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TParis. I will try to reconcile your statement with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and getting the facts right. I was informed by OTRS and the mediator that mediation and presenting a full list of concerns without being demanding would be the proper way to proceed. If you disagree with these administrators as to the effectiveness of dialogue and mediation, I respect your judgment and can inform our Board if necessary that the Community favors extreme editing restrictions rather than mediation. As a compliance officer, I hope you realize that what our company needs and wants is factual, neutral coverage, and that our list of concerns, including that about our legal identity, is related to the goals of the project. I am not conscious of dictating any outcome at any point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BDBIsrael (talk • contribs)

The policy is verifiability. "Getting the facts right" is not a policy, it is a product of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If we follow those two, the facts should be evident. Right now, your argument fails on the WP:V aspect. You don't have third-party sources that say what you want to say. Instead, you're arguing that the sources we are using that clearly say what we are saying - in fact - don't. That doesn't reconcile with what we see right in front of us. You need to provide counter sources. Essentially, the source say the sky is blue and you're telling us that the source says it's a shade of blue closer to red and you don't have another source to back that up.--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Screw it I don't mind taking a minority position and I don't mind defending editors who have screwed up. It's a core tenant of the American justice system that an accused deserves someone versed in the law to defend them and I'm proud of that heritage. However, I can't help someone who is actively working against me. BDBIsreal doesn't get it and their statements make my help impossible. I give up.--v/r - TP 20:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I regret your frustration, TParis. I don't know to what you refer by rephrasing our argument, nor why you decline me the right to reply to Nagle on my user talkpage. On the identity point, in April we provided a source that correctly described our identity, then we dealt with the fact that the source in the article was incorrect by providing another source in which the incorrect source had self-corrected, then other editors accepted that we had correctly described the sources. On other points, many other editors have recognized poor source quality, and that many uses of poor sources are against policies such as undue weight, regardless of whether additional sources are adduced. Also, in some cases Wikipedia's statements were not supported by the sources given. Atama requested, as the preferred mediation process, only that the points in dispute first be identified, not that they be supported with secondary sources until they are being discussed sequentially, and we complied with that mediation request. If you can indicate what you mean by your description, I can make amendments. I continue to believe that mediation was begun properly and is an appropriate forum for addressing our policy-based concerns, especially if taken to a separate page. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - The mediation I tried to organize on the discussion page of the article is informal, fully voluntary, and if it needs to be disrupted by blocks/bans or anything else then so be it. It was (and can still be) just an effort to get the dispute into a focus to make it easier to resolve. And nothing in that mediation is enforceable (by use of administrator powers, or any kind of official authority), I'm just using the same methods I used before I was an admin. So if someone has a remedy of some kind that may subvert those efforts, but may help reduce disruption, please don't hesitate to propose or even implement it. -- Atama頭 21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Adama made a good start on mediation, listing five items in controversy. Rather than addressing those, the BDB team added their own list of 12 items. Those were answered. Then the BDB team added their own list of 50+ items. That was collapsed as clear disruption. That's what happened to mediation. Adama gave it a good try, but BDB refused to cooperate and tried to take over the process. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Nagle, thank you for repeating your view of what happened. My view is that I answered the 5 items and stated there were many more and that we would compile a full list, and I gave 12 items as an interim illustration. Atama asked that we identify all the issues in dispute and we replied that it would take time and we did so; she was not "answering" in the sense of resolving issues but only in the sense of compiling the ongoing list. Atama has not replied as to whether my list was compliant with the instructions given. Anyone can review the record to determine if our list was in compliance for themselves. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: BDBIsrael is a clear violation of the user name policy and has been reported as such.--ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Ukexpat. This was discussed with User:Mr. Stradivarius on my user talkpage, where he concurred that the name was valid because my first name is Israel. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not a role account or deceptive. Per WP:USERNAME, "Usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person". This is a side issue. Let's get back on topic. Do we block these guys, or not? John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaaaaah!

A few observations as a cynical old bastard.

1. Can we please not block them for violating the username policy until we've articulated in a way that can be understood by someone without a PhD in semantics, just exactly what we want them to use as a user name when they are writing on behalf of the firm.
2. They should not edit the article directly (other than to correct uncontentious errors of fact or fix obvious vandalism). This is not an invitation to explore the creative ways of defining errors of fact or vandalism, BDB users: if in doubt ask for help at one of the noticeboards.
3. If they do edit the article, then a I suggest escalating blocks are appropriate.
4. Long experience indicates that in this kind of situation the response to "no" is to keep asking until you get the answer you want. That is disruptive. We are, I think, getting perilously close to the point where the BDB users need to be told to drop the stick or be blocked. This will impede somewhat their attempts to influence the content, but I think that (as with biography subjects) we should not remove user talk page access unless there is compelling evidence of harassment, legal threats or other gross violations of policy.

This has been going on for way too long, there are good editors looking at the articles and I really don't think there is much more debate required, because this is the kind of thing we handle every day. The issue is straightforward: this is a small operation with limited coverage that is either uncritical or highly critical. When it comes to weighing the competing merits of a judge and a financial journalist, we don't need to think for too long before deciding where WP:NPOV lies. For the BDB users, this is a BIG HUGE PROBLEM, because their business is materially damaged by the fact that it is reliably described as dodgy. That's not our problem to fix, and the BDB users need to be made well aware that we are not going to fix it for them. They let the genie out of the bottle when they created the article, we are not going to help them put it back in. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, JzG. We are in agreement with your four points. I do not believe we are using the tactic of continuing to ask until we get the desired answer. In re of our legal identity, that is a very basic point, and everyone has agreed on the facts now, and have recognized that the CFTC made an error last year that they have self-corrected, and we are awaiting the recognition of the consensus on the talkpage to this effect. Most of the other issues have not been discussed for long enough for "dropping the stick" to be relevant; I could say perhaps enough has been said about the word "bet". We simply request the right to continue informal mediation, or to edit under restrictions even if extreme, so that the issues can actually be discussed rather than talked past. I can also say that the list presented in mediation is a complete list of the issues on our end, and we will not try to expand this into new issues with the linked draft. This is not about setting the journalist against the judge, or about us having a problem with negative coverage; we simply ask that neutrality, balance, verifiability, and the rest be honored, just as we have chosen to honor Wikipedia policy by taking internal steps to end noncompliances on our end. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ducking Out

Since it's very obvious to me that the community at large does not want our presence in the Banc De Binary article, I am going to duck out of it for a while and try to focus on something else. I'm starting some work on some stubs that I found interesting and that I think I can contribute to (see User:BDBJack#Articles_in_Progress). I may feel the desire to throw in a reference here or there, (and I would still love an answer to the question that I posed to Nagle (talk · contribs) ), but there's no point in trying to fight with everyone. So, please forgive me for the irritation and "waste of time" that I've caused to the community. Hopefully you'll let me edit (correctly) in peace. (FYI if anyone has a suggestion for articles which I might be able to contribute to, please let me know on my Talk Page) BDBJack (talk) 22:25, 16 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 [[190]]).

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 [[191]])

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.

New header for ease of editing

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: [192]. 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: [[193]]). 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 [[194]]. 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 [[195]]. 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)

It is utterly unbelievable to me you feel you can continue to use this type of incendiary language such as "you were so nasty to me" without providing a single diff demonstrating my supposed "nastiness" (obviously because there is no such evidence of "nastiness" by me to you). Your malicious spreading of false accusations about me with impunity must stop (this is the third demonstrably false accusation you've floated in this thread that I've called out). It is utterly inconceivable to me that this type of swagger would be permissible in any civil forum. As for your thousands of edits, what I observed in my original message - and what is verifiably true - is that there has been a measurable increase in your appearance in threads in which I've participated since our disagreement in the AfD for Live Wire Radio. And that is absolutely correct. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 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. ([196],[197])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" [[198]] 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)

I'm done with this thread, done for now with BlueSalix, having said my piece. I am taking the Brat page off of my watchlist. I hope for a good outcome from this discussion, while I remain alert for other results. Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Binksternet, this is not acceptable. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to occasionally fly into random threads like this ANI and declare to other editors that I'm "poisonous" and "distasteful" before flying out again but these kind of adjectives make me feel like pure shit, especially when there's no evidence they'll stop and that you intend to subject me to this kind of treatment for my life on WP. There's no reason I should be expected to grin and take it. You have lied (this, itself, is a very WP:CIVIL-line word, however, I think I've proven its objective accuracy) about me throughout this thread and you continue to do it with impunity. Your declaration about my AfD zealousness was rebutted by pointing out I had filed 2.5 AfDs per year; you then moved on to declaring I had edit warred about Woody Allen and I demonstrated that was another wind-up. You decided to log-off of this thread with a final bomb throwing by saying "some of the instances in which you have been found guilty of incivility ..." when, in fact, in four years, I have had a single 48-hour block (for which I apologize). I don't know what next steps are at this point, but this is simply not a situation that can remain without resolution. I know I risk being perceived as a Drama Queen by pursuing this matter, however, I'm also a human-being and it's understandable if it rattles my cage (to borrow a phrase from earlier in the thread) to know I'm going to be dive-bombed with this kind of hatred ("poisonous" "distasteful" "you have been found guilty") at random points forever. I don't think I'm being totally unreasonable to try to seek some help to get this bullying to stop. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 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).

Bishonen - my apology. Obviously I was looking at the wrong block log. You're correct, I was on a break when you applied the block and, frankly, I don't read all my Talk messages faithfully sometimes if a lot of RfCs come through; your template probably got overlooked in a group of them. Thank you for the clarification and my apologies for encumbering you with this extra bookkeeping. BlueSalix (talk) 10:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to belabour the point, BlueSalix, but you speak strangely. Here's how your talkpage looked when you started editing again on 15 April. Here's where you removed my block template later. Conventionally on Wikipedia, removal of a post is taken as evidence that the user has read it. Anyway, it's more important for your credibility that you address the matter of the supposed abusive e-mails to you from Cwobeel, which you've been ignoring despite requests above and pings on User talk:Cwobeel. You made a serious accusation against a user, here, you need to prove it or retract it. See Dennis Brown's suggestion here: all you have to do is forward one of these e-mails with full headers to an admin you trust, or straight to arbcom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you like, because it's likely to end up there anyway if you continue to ignore requests for clarification. Your foot-shuffling on the issue[199] [200], is quite unimpressive. Bishonen | talk 12:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - if I count correctly, I removed 8 posts to my Talk page within a space of 6 minutes on that date and it does, indeed, appear yours was one of several removed, and maybe the only non-Bot post deleted. I apologize for not being more diligent in reading posts before cleaning up my Talk page. This was my first experience with a block, and it's clear I have a lot to learn about the process. As for the email, I let it go in the spirit of deescalation, however, I'm happy to provide any information to anyone else who feels it needs to be pursued in the overriding spirit of cooperation. The originating email address was "honeypot21@XXXXXX.com" (I have obfuscated the extension to avoid a privacy violation but will be happy to provide it on request) and the email contained the sig "This email was sent by user "Mosfetfaser" on the English Wikipedia to user "BlueSalix". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." Please let me know what specific additional information you would like and where I should direct it and I will certainly be happy to provide anything at all. I want you to understand that it is absolutely not my intention to foot-shuffle and if anything I did created that appearance, I absolutely apologize. I will follow all instructions given to me in reference to the emails in questions henceforth; I accept full responsibility if I misinterpreted User:Dennis_Brown' instructions as suggestions. Please confirm to whom I should forward this to and I will do it forthwith. BlueSalix (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"This email was sent by user "Mosfetfaser"?? Excuse my French, but what the fuck does that have to with Cwobeel, BlueSalix ?? Take it up with User:Mosfetfaser. You read that sentence about who the e-mail was from, you copied it, you pasted it in here, and all this time you've been blethering about e-mails from Cwobeel? I guess I'm no longer surprised that you managed to miss my big, bold, yellow, shouty block template. Well, are you going to apologize to Cwobeel? Properly? Just asking. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - this would be best dealt with via email. Please let me know the best way you would like me to contact you. I directed my initial comment to Cwobeel due to the content of the message. I cannot elaborate beyond that in a public forum without making an accusation that is specifically prohibited by a Wikipedia policy. I don't have a wide breath of experience filing complaints against other editors so I'll ask you to please give me a little patience in pursuing this one. I apologize, in advance, if this is a non-satisfactory answer. Please understand I am committed to working with you but I have limtied wikisavvy in this section of WP. Thank you for your understanding. BlueSalix (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding? I don't think so. And I don't feel like publishing my e-mail address on wiki. Why don't you just fucking simply re-enable your e-mail (temporarily, if you like) and then you can e-mail me through the normal channels. I won't pretend I'm looking forward to it, so much of my time as you have already wasted, but if you send me an e-mail I'll take it into consideration without prejudice and in confidence. Of course you could also contact someone more patient, such as Dennis Brown. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen - I am happy to do that via wikimail. I am escalating this matter at your request, however, it is still my desire to cause as little disruption or inconvenience as possible, so if you would prefer I contact someone else, that is fine as well. If you could please let me clearly know to whom you would most prefer I forward this (you or Dennis) I am committed to following your directions exactly. I am also happy to forward it to Arbcom as you have also indicated you might prefer I do that. Thank you, and I again apologize for inconvenience this has caused. BlueSalix (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable, you can email me the email including full headers (all the wordy from/to/routing info). I've run mail servers, so used to them. If you prefer to email Arb directly, you may also do that, or any other active admin you trust. At this point, I do agree that you need to take the initiative, as you have made some strong claims here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, just send it to me, making sure everything's included ("full headers" and everything else) and preferably with a cogent explanation of your actions so far, and I'll see if it's something ArbCom needs to see. Bishonen | talk 14:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

If this was a case of mistaken identity by BlueSalix, I will accept a simple apology from him/her so that we can move on, and avoid further drama. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and this is becoming a time waster and quite upsetting. . Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 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)

I don't entirely agree with you, NE Ent. BlueSalix can either follow Dennis' advice, which I have just conveniently linked him to in the thread above, or make a full retraction of the accusations about abusive e-mails, because all the foot-shuffling is taking a toll on my AGF. I don't see that Cwobeel should be expected to sit down under character assassination, or that he should be dependent on whether "BlueSalix wants them investigated" or not. Bishonen | talk 12:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

I agree, Bishonen. I had two simultaneous issues I was trying to juggle and I chose to deal with one over the other as I had a concern about being perceived as a serial complainer; in retrospect, this was selfish of me and, if I was not prepared to pursue both issues to the very end I should not have brought them up. I have addressed your concerns above and will follow all specific instructions from either you or NE Ent in how to dispose of this and will continue to pursue it until a final conclusion has been achieved. BlueSalix (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And we will pursue an apology/retraction/explanation for these false accusations. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@BlueSalix: I'm not here to gloat, but you should have taken my advice when I said to drop it early on. I had your best interests in mind. When disputes can be solved amicably early on, and apologies are made, it is always a bad idea to start a new dispute immediately afterwards.--v/r - TP 18:57, 16 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: [201]; same editor proof: "stop reverting for no reason you discourteous piece of shit", "don't revert for no reason")

Prior ANI: [202]. Promise to return on a new IP: [203]. - 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)

There's no particular reason that "best known for" can't be a consensus decision debated on the article talk page. Yes, it's technically OR, but if a wide variety of editors agree with it, I don't see much harm in it. I do, myself, have a tendency to replace "best known for" and "famous for" with the somewhat more neutral "noted for", which at least doesn't posit a hierarchy of what the subject's fame is founded on. BMK (talk) 03:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In regard to the article content, I agree that it should be discussed on the article talk pages. Otherwise, I've blocked the IPs have now been blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why there would need to be a lot of discussion about a practice that violates both WP:OR and WP:BLP. Those are both very specific reasons that it cannot be a consensus decision debated on an individual article's talk page.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but we're done here. The IPs are blocked, and this board isn't for article content discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh jeez, not this again : This has been going for at least 18 months, and possibly longer. It culminated in Cleo Rocos getting an entry in WP:LAME (including edit-warring on WP:LAME itself! - [204]) and a whole load of hot air being blown about exactly the same content dispute. I said it would happen again, and I'm not wrong. I firmly predict we will be having another ANI thread on the same conduct in a different article in the next six months. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 16 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)

You will probably want to change your passwords in general as well. Especially if there are contribs you know you didn't make. And as a point of order, I think this is something that belongs at ANI... if Titusfox's account had been compromised, a block would be the remedy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If the password was indeed changed as part of being compromised, going to preferences to change the password won't work, even if the user is logged in, as they will need to know the old password as part of the process of getting a new one (assuming they can't use any forgotten password feature). - Purplewowies (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And you can't change (or I guess add) an email without knowing the password so unless whoever compromised the account didn't change the email address, there's probably not much you can do just because you're logged in. Note that if the email isn't changed, you may want to check it carefully and see if there's any sign of it being compromised, it may be how the account was. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As a brief aside, situations like this are probably a good reminder to seriously consider doing WP:COMMIT, so should your account be compromised you have a means of proving you are who you say you are. I know this has me seriously thinking about finally taking the time to do it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But I Have tried changing my password on IE and it says my password is incorrect. Even though it is very complex and stored on a notepad document because even I can't remember it off by heart. It's Horribly misspelled and with letters, numbers and symbols. A Block may be necessary if I start acting up. TitusFox^'Tribs 19:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, Now Able to change it. Maybe it was just a bug, I have all my passwords in a document. Maybe I Should make them more secure... TitusFox^'Tribs 19:40, 16 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, [205] 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)

Yeah, I agree. Bad redaction. Honestly, these remarks are all over Talk:Fox News and no one removes them. Give it a rest.--v/r - TP 04:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have three issues with this. Firstly, one of the comments attacked me personally. Secondly, if removal of article talk comments attacking other editors isn't desirable, why does the {{RPA}} template exist? I have no problem with disagreement in article talk, but not personal attacks. The policy is quite clear on this matter. Thirdly, why were these attacks restored? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with you removing the NPA - NPA totally allows for this to happen:

"On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose. "

FreeRangeFrog was in error, as is made clear by NPA Kosh Vorlon    11:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Scjessey had no justification to remove those comments. They are involved in the discussion and more importantly the comments are neither a clear personal attack nor any better or worse than the rest of what is in that talk page. They might was well blank the whole thing, including their own past comments. It seemed that Scjessey is trying to do a petty version of WP:LASTWORD by removing them. And by the way, I wasn't notified of this thread until this morning. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for failing to notify you in a timely fashion. Normally I do the usual ANI notify template, but I clean forgot about it. On the issue at hand, my point was that this random editor came in and resurrected an 11-month stale discussion to basically stir up shit and make specific accusations about me. Certainly the comments added nothing to the improvement of the article, so what else could possibly be the reason? I've never had any problem with the removal of such comments before, on a range of articles, so I was surprised by your opinion and shocked that you actually restored the comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Surprised on 2 counts: 1) someone sees that as a personal attack (because it doesn't look like one), and 2) that someone doesn't know that you CAN refactor or remove someone else's comments in some situations. the panda ɛˢˡ” 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 81.144.225.196 vandalism

IP blocked by Dennis Brown. De728631 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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)

---

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

User:Earl King Jr.

More problems at our troubled article on The Zeitgeist Movement - but this time from a SPA 'owner' of the article clearly determined to include as much barely-relevant negative material as possible. To be specific, User:Earl King Jr. is simultaneously arguing that it is undue to include comments made by Peter Joseph, who's movies led to the foundation of the movement, on the basis that "Since the movement has no leaders according to Peter Joseph, why emphasize Mr. Joseph as an authority on it anyway", [206] while at the same time filling the article with as much negative material on Joseph's movies as can be cobbled together. These antics are bad enough, but Earl's latest effort involved a blatant copy-paste of the source cited, with only minimal editing (compare [207] with [208]). Needless to say I reverted this copyright violation, with an edit summary making the problem clear. [209] Earl's response was yet another personal attack, with no pretence at civility, no acknowledgement of the copyright problem, and no effort to conceal his blatant POV-pushing: "An editor is editing with zeitgeist supporters and removing cited information and wikilinks, revertUndid revision 612955979 by AndyTheGrump (talk))". [210] This latest episode comes on the heels of Earl arguing that the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan would constitute valid sources on TZM, [211] and after a long run of soapboxing on the article talk page that led to a long discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [212] - note admin Darkwind's closing comments.

Given the difficulties that we have had with TZM supporters trying to skew the article their way, it is anything but helpful to have Earl pulling it in the other direction - and since he is self-evidently incapable of contributing in a neutral manner, or of avoiding casting aspersions at all and sundry when he doesn't get his way, I have to suggest that it would be in the best interests of Wikipedia for him to be topic-banned from all articles relating to Peter Joseph, his movies, and The Zeitgeist Movement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy is a difficult person and his block record shows that. The article is designated controversial. I have done my best to edit the article neutrally. That sometimes includes adding sources such as the Michelle Goldberg piece that he is objecting to which cites the John Birch Society and other things in the edit he is discussing above. It is sourced and cited information in regard to the historic origin of the Zeitgeist movement because the movie uses information from that source. If Andy construes that I somehow insulted him or was rude to him I apologize for that. I go out of my way to not do that but possibly he misconstrued me pointing out that he was editing with the Zeitgeist supporters, which he has been recently against consensus from the talk page, he might feel that way. I am not a single topic editor. I edit at that page mostly because the article was so terribly bad a year ago. I rewrote almost all of the article but I do not feel possessive about it and do not feel that I have contributed negatively to it. My edits also have support on the talk page and on the article page. I re-edited the material that Andy complained was copy-vio immediately whether it was or not is another question. I am not pro or con Zeitgeist. Andy and some others on the talk page of the article are extremely aggressive in their view and very quick to draw attention to other editors instead of content and going where the sources take us. There is no doubt that now a lot of Zeitgeist supporters will show up and say some things about this. I hope perspective is kept on that account. Many Zeitgeist supporters watch the articles like a hawk and no doubt there will now be a litany of complaints, since Andy has announced this on the talk page of the Zeitgeist the movie article [[213]]. I would add that generally my edits have been discussed and in general accepted for the article by talk page discussion consensus. I also find Andy temperamental and contentious often with his approach of calling other editors out by characterizing other editors contributions as bullshit a term he used last time here to describe my editing. I would add that there may or may not have been a copy vio. I changed it so it was not a copy paste as said. It is also true that Andy very seldom edits the article but often reverts things. It would have been simple for him to re-edit the information. The information itself from this source is good [214] and its the information that counts and its neutral presentation. 02:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The above comment was posted in three edits by User:Earl King Jr. BMK (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A little cognitive dissonance here, I suspect - Earl claims to be 'neutral', but had no difficulty in accusing me of "editing with the Zeitgeist supporters", rather than actually dealing with the copyvio. But don't take my word for it, take a look at Earl's posts on the talk page, his edit summaries (where being a TZM supporter, or editing like a TZM supporter is sufficient grounds for revert...) and his editing history on the Peter Joseph/TZM-related articles. It should be self-evident that there is nothing remotely 'neutral' involved - Earl has systematically cherry-picked sources for negative comment, used talk pages as a soapbox , and generally made it his task to portray this rather insignificant 'movement' in as negative manner as possible. His claims to be "not pro or con Zeitgeist" are simply untenable, given the copious evidence - he has accused TZM/Peter Joseph of engaging in "brainwashing", [215] "meme control" (whatever that is), and "neuro linguistic programming" [216] on the talk page. He has used the talk page as a soapbox for his pet theory that Joseph concocted the entire TZM thing to make money [217]. His default reaction to any edit he doesn't like is to label it 'pro-Zeitgeist', as if that was all the justification needed to rule it out. This is not 'neutrality', it is demonstrably partisan editing, and it needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion that I have cognitive dissonance but this is probably not a good way to present me. I think you often use Wikipedia like an angry personal blog and insult people a lot with your way of editing. Your block record reflects that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, was it me, or was it you that decided that an article talk page was the appropriate place to accuse someone of "brainwashing", "meme control", and "neuro linguistic programming"? Was it me, or was it you that decided that speculation about Peter Joseph founding a political movement for personal profit was appropriate on the talk page? Just who is using Wikipedia as a blog here? And as for my block record, since you have failed to provide the slightest evidence that I've done anything wrong (other than failing to be appropriately anti-Zeitgeist according to your dubious 'neutrality'), I fail to see the relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You already said that. I discussed some issues on the talk page mentioning that further research could be done in that regard. So what? I did provide some evidence that you called my edits 'bullshit' in the past and like I said you have proven to be a tendentious editor that is highly insulting in your style which your block record shows. Facts are this. My edits have passed muster on the page by consensus maybe not always but that is what is striven for by me. They are there because they are agreed on. Fact is you could have edited out a copy vio if there was one. Lets not resort to cherry picking a couple of comments on the talk page of the article as being so super inappropriate and make a federal case of that. So, sorry, you can bait, call names, and misrepresent or mis-characterize all you want. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Earl King Jr.: If you have to refer to someone's block log to counter their argument, then you've already lost. AndyTheGrump may be a jerk sometimes, but he is rarely wrong. You'd be wise to actually address the issues he has raised instead of making a counter attack on him.--v/r - TP 04:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I will keep that in mind, and add that it is not fun having someone be a jerk if you are the object of their jerk-hood, if that is a word. I hope I have answered his arguments above. As to him being seldom wrong, I find that doubtful. He is a human. His edits like everyone else sometimes pass consensus and sometimes not. Often not on this particular page, so lets not glamorize him. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure. I've been the target of Andy's jerkiness once or two and I'm sure I dished it right back at him. I get that. But let's be honest here, is everyone you've ever met in your life super-happy 24/7? Andy is Andy. He's not overly attackish, he's to the point and doesn't have a lot of tact. But that's not unreasonable. You're going to have to get used to dealing with certain personalities. But, besides that, attacking someone's tone or traits about them like their block log are not valid arguments on Paul Graham's hierarchy of argument. You're at a DH1 and DH2 level. Actual valid argument starts at DH3 (Contradiction) and good argument is DH4 (Counter argument) and above. You need to stick to DH3 and above arguments on Wikipedia. As for being seldom wrong, Andy has been here a very long time and he's very - and I mean very - familiar with policy. He doesn't just know policy, he knows the reason we have the policy. Especially BLP policy. Andy is one of our most experienced editors and he knows the nuances of policy better than some people, and I include myself here, could ever hope to be. People like Andy can teach new editors a lot of things, but you can't get bent up over his personality. Anyway, could you please address Andy's concern that you are overly focused on adding negative material into the article?--v/r - TP 04:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Go to the article talk page and see for yourself about the quality of arguments Zeitgeist Movement. The article previously was a sing song of FAQ's material and snippets of interviews from iffy sources by Peter Joseph mostly stating what he believed. Now it is more neutral presenting a more rounded history of this group. Andy apparently objects to using the history of the basis of the Alex Jones stuff and the John Birch Society as being written about as the source of much of the first movie. It is cited information. the link citation has been used for a long time in the article. It comes from a respected journalist and paper Michelle Goldberg. Saying my edit summary attacked him is untrue. I just pointed out that he was recently editing with the movement members that arrive there in droves. I started the thread on the talk page discussing sources recently. I modified the so called copy paste just to appease him whether it was accurate or not because I did change the presentation the first time around. I rewrote the material, so what is he complaining about actually? Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose any one-sided topic bans. There are POV editors but neither Andy or Earl are one of them. The problem with articles like these is that there is a lot of passion for advocacy yet not so much for neutral or negative. Therefore any that engages the passionate advocates looks "negative." Reviewing the talk page, I found other editors to be more oriented to advocacy than either Earl or Andy. I don't think that Earl's opposition to that advocacy is grounds for a topic ban. The recent issue of using a blog source that has no professional oversight is a legitimate dispute and should be removed especially when the blogger is referencing a living person. I am not qualified to determine whether being associated with Zeitgeist Movement is negative or not so without a very reliable source, references about living people should be avoided. The movement and movie are different phenomena and to the extant that editors tie persons with the the movie to the movement better have a firm, reliable source. Blogs are insufficient and removing thodse references to living people is well grounded in policy. Certainly not a dispute that results in a topic ban. --DHeyward (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban...The edit warring by all parties needs to stop however. I support 1rr in 72 hours....one non-vandalism revert every three days, for all active person in that scope of articles.--MONGO 15:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TheREALCableGuy

A few days ago I reverted a suspected sock contrib of comm-banned TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs) on The Amazing World of Gumball (season 3), and as is usual per their MO when I warned the user that their edit was reverted per the banning policy their response via IP was to tell me I was harassing a group of innocent IP addresses, using the suspicious 'us' wording. Somehow out of nowhere, TRCG commented on their own talk page with a 'I didn't do it, leave the poor IP alone' response despite their lengthy roll of socking. Can I get a talk page lock on TRCG and some more eyes on this? I filed a new SPI report on their latest IP's a week ago without success, and had a RFP on the Gumball page declined after due to the backlog. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a talk page lock here but as a first measure I've blocked 82.113.27.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for this obvious evasion. De728631 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

115.164.222.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just blanked this section. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

180.234.244.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did it too. We're building a whole farm here! Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

All three of these IP addresses come from across the world, suggesting an open proxy investigation is needed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

IP 66.87.152.222 showed up suddenly at my talk page after I dropped @Mrschimpf: a note about some reverting he was doing at Gumball. (I didn't want to revert Mrschimpf because it looked like he was doing some WP:RBI stuff.) Was this the same user, Nate? Can we get WMF to call the kid's parents? I think I know his name. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Same editor; they seem to go in circles depending on how many pages have been semi'ed because of their vandalizing; they jumped right on One Magnificent Morning because of an irrational hate of anything with E/I content. We know they're in the Charlotte area, but other than that they've mostly been providing a good way to knock down proxies with their post-commban edits. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation of quasi governmental entity - Block request

I believe there is potential impersonation of the State Bar of Texas going on and thus request a block for the impersonating editor. I'm not technically savvy enough to understand how the user could resume editing under Statebaroftexas after his user name was changed. Lulaq (talk) 05:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it's very possible, if not probable, these are legitimate edits by legitimately a State Bar employee. However, this has to be verified properly I believe pursuant to current protocol. Lulaq (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As User:Jsherzik was clearly warned that the account User:Statebaroftexas was in violation of username policy, it is my feeling that an immediate block of the State bar account is warranted and some discussion as to blocking Jsherzik should occur. Just my 2 cents. John from Idegon (talk) 05:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Jsherzik claims to be Joanna Herzik. Lulaq (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I still support a block for Statebaroftexas, but I'll defer on Jsherik for now. Jsherik can email an administrator from her work email address to undo the block. I think such a move would be the least disruptive. Lulaq (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Statebaroftexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) merits a username block. Also, note to readers, please be wary of clicking the Linkedin URLs above since, if you're logged in there, it may reveal to that person that you viewed her profile. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the User:LardoBalsamico

My original request got archivied. The case was not solved, that's why I am copying it from the arcihives. Hopefully, this time it will be solved.

---

I need help with this user and this article about an issue that has been going on for a long time. Here's the situation; It all started on February, I read this article, 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and after reading it found out that it lacks a neutral point of view. So I started to edit it and after doing it, wrote every reason for my edits on the main editor's talk page, who is Lardo Balsamico.

You can see them here: Special:PermanentLink/595294983#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

As you can see LardoBalsamico replied with only one sentence and didn't answer my second question. Then, I made my case to the NPOV board:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 45#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

It didn't get ant reply so it got "backlogged." Then I made my case to the dispute resolution board:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 87#2011 Turkish sports corruption

Firstly, it was denied because my case was already on the NPOV board but then;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 89#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal

The case was closed because user LardoBalsamico didn't join in the discussion. Then I made my case to request for a comment section, it stayed there for 22 days (got no reply) then as suggested by wikipedia help line I moved my case to the NPOV board now which is there for 2 months.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article (you can also read my case about the article lacking neutral point of view here)

As you can see, I went through all the dispute resolving solutions but the user LardoBalsamico didn't join in. Now, please, take a look at these links.

1)Talk:2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal#Recent edits

2)Talk:List of Turkish football champions

As you can see, every time I try to reach a consensus with LardoBalsamico, he doesn't write back, and if he does he's just stating a rule and not leaving any room to discuss his edits as you can see from this link;

User talk:Rivaner

Another issue with this user is while his edits are always perfect, the edits that doesn't fit wih his ways is either "vandalism" or "misleading info" Just look at the history of this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Turkish_sports_corruption_scandal&offset=&limit=500&action=history

If you look at a more recent edit, which done by him on 18:37 6 June 2014, he deletes a referenced part from the article by saying that it is misleading info even though it is from one of the Turkey's best selling newspaper! Another interesting thing about this user is, if you look at my contributions page:

Special:Contributions/Rivaner

You will see that on May 25,2014 I wrote a reason for my edit stating that the user has no reason to write about this article everywhere but after just 1 day he wrote it again to two different articles. What's more interesting about this user is; through my research, I found out that exactly the same thing happened to another user. As you can see from this link;

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 31#Turkish soccer (sports) match fixing (corruption) scandal LardoBalsamico did the same things to another user.

So, it is really clear that he lacks a neutral point of view about this issue and also it is very clear that he is "gaming the system". I need your help with this user because, as you can see, I have ran out of options to deal with him. Thanks for taking the time to read my request, and if you have any questions about this, I am always ready to answer. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC) I have notified the user about this but he blanked his talk page, here you can see my notification:

Special:PermanentLink/612602385Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Today, user LardoBalsamico escalated the issue to personal attacks by calling me a "fanboy" and also suggesting me to "get a life". You can see this from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milli_Küme_Şampiyonası&action=history

As you can see the more civil I try to be, he is doing the exact opposite. Also he posted some warnings on my talk page as well:

User talk:Rivaner

I read the warnings and it is very clear that these warnings can also be posted on his talk page as well. To stop edit warring, I made a decision not to revert any of his edits untill this case is closed here. Again, thanks for taking the time to read my request and if you have any questions, I am always ready to answer.Rivaner (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thanks for taking your time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Russavia socking

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

---

Havig just had two socks blocked Russavia appears to have just created another, would someone be so kind as to block. And all of his socks edits need to be nuked. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Endless bureaucracy on the encyclopedia anyone can edit being more important than actually creating free content. Nick (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. Indeed. Endless bureaucracy. :/ --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. His fake German moustache was rather annoying too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

... And only minutes after I blocked that one, another Flugzeigbilder (talk · contribs) turns up... Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I know all about denying blocked editors and why we do it, and if the community says Russavia isn't allowed to edit then that's the way it has to be. But at the same time, it seems to me there's something very wrong with our processes when they lead us to spend time fighting to prevent people making our encyclopedia better. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• +1. Hell, +1000. We don't have the manpower to deal with Russ, Kumioko and to contribute content. I'd unblock both of them, but I realise certain sections of the community come here to fight and block anybody they can, rather than contribute content, I realise those people would be upset if they didn't have content contributors like Russavia and Kumioko to run around blocking for the next decade. Nick (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Russavia isn't banned right now but having just had his unblock request turned down by the community its fairly obvious that he has decided that he no longer wishes to play nicely. I think this has be the final straw of very close to it. I realise that some users do believe that producing content excuses any kind of unacceptable behaviour but this is clearly not the community consensus for how we should deal with this user. I'll do some digging into the socking and then think about putting something up for discussion at AN. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  "Hard-working content contributor disobeys order to stop improving our encyclopedia!" - yes, it's quite disgraceful, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  (And yes, I know we have no real alternative but to enforce the community's desire to stop Russavia's good work on our articles - at least, not under the current governance system. I'm just sad that we so often get these cases where intransigence on both sides leads to the loss of a good editor - nobody wins in such cases, and we're all the poorer for such an outcome -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

  It is unrealistic to expect us to be the only side that bends and if by Hard-working content contributor disobeys order to stop improving our encyclopedia!" you mean "Editor who was blocked for using wikipedia to perpetuate harrassment of another member asking for the 23rd time to be unblocked without anu guarantees that this time they really mean it" then I guess we are in agreement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  No, I don't mean that - I mean what I wrote (which is why I wrote it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  And as I say, I accept that we have to keep Russavia out - because that's what the community wants. I'm not arguing against it, I'm just expressing sadness that "crowd rule" so often ends in this kind of uncompromising confrontation, which skilled managers often have the ability to avoid. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is your problem with Russavia, Spartaz. Nick (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

  You mean when did I stop beating my wife? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by Tintor2

Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A couple of weeks ago, I noted a poorly written addition by Tintor2 (talk · contribs) to Saint Seiya: Legend of Sanctuary regarding a promotion at a restaurant. At the time, I thought it was generally just an inaccurate description, but did note similar wording at the source he cited. I paid no attention to it at the time until another editor noted Tintor2 had done the same on Attack on Titan [218] which he repeated when he made a separate character article. I fear that this may go deeper as is evident with [219] and [220]. Tintor2 is a prolific editor of these kinds of articles so we may have large portions of Wikipedia not normally ventured into full of copyright violations.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Have you brought up concerns about his writing style to him before coming here? Sergecross73 msg me 11:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I had addressed issues regarding the edit to the Saint Seiya page but at the time I had just assumed he should not have been using the source as closely without recognizing that he actually copied the sentence verbatim. The level of possible copyright problems I think is more important than inquiring why he has been writing as he has. He may be doing it unintentionally or with the right intentions in mind, but it's still a problem.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I just asked because I didn't see anything on either of your talk pages, and in my experience, he's not a difficult editor to deal with... Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

For some reason they undid the character article Eren Yeager despite it had material cited. When I copy material, I later rewrite it. I apologize for it. It's a shame because Ryulong undid an entire article that was in the middle of being improved. 14:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)Tintor2 (talk)

All I did was turn it into a redirect when your last edit to the page was 12 hours prior. That's not "undoing an entire article that was int he middle of being improved".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

12 hours prior. Of course I needed to sleep. You removed an entire article. I reverted it being bold and kept working on it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't impeded you. And we still need to discuss the identical copying and pasting you have been doing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, just don't remove articles again.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that should prevent me from that. I really don't think Eren needs his own page TBH.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tintor2, you wrote "when I copy material, I later rewrite it." I'm sorry but you're not allowed to copy and paste from non-free sources at all. That's already an act of copyright infringement even if you change the original text later on. Please try to write using your own words from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I already said I noted it. From now on, I'll be careful.Tintor2 (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

a concern regarding the use of [IMO] false accusations to belittle

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

---

PREFACE: I have an issue with an editor posting malicious and demonstrably false accusations against me, and declaring he intends to continue to do so for my life on WP, that I feel can only be resolved through ANI. I am reticent to bring a two-party WP:CIVIL / WP:WIKIHOUND issue to ANI; I do so only because I feel this issue concerns potential ongoing disruption in WP edit discussions due to the other editor's statements regarding future activities of this type. I come into this ANI will full awareness that I may be perceived as a purveyor of WP:DRAMA for raising a WP:CIVIL issue related to myself. Finally, I welcome a WP:BOOMERANG review of my edit history and, in fact, it is incumbent to understanding this issue.

ISSUE: In a completely unrelated ANI pertaining to the wording of a RfC [[221]], Binksternet appeared and began making the following declarations about my WP history as evidence my opinion in the ANI should be dismissed (this was preceded by an announcement, by him, that my history on WP had been one of "poisonous" editing and he found me "distasteful"):

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.

I pointed out that, in four years on WP I have initiated just 10 AfDs (2.5 per year), and 8 have been upheld and deleted. Of those, 75% were PR-generated advertisements that certainly do not rise to the level of “good faith work.” (see:[[222]]) Bink did not respond to my explanation, nor attempt to retract his accusation of AfD "gloating," but moved on to declare …

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.

I pointed out that, far from “edit warring” I had inserted "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 diff: [[223]]) that this edit was discussed and ultimately dismissed by community consensus in a relatively routine manner. I feel this dramatized characterization of a fairly routine edit series was extremely aggrandized and was a highly inappropriate attempt to make other editors believe I was a mere wikivandal, in an effort to have my opinion at ANI ignored. Again, he did not respond or refactor, but moved on to make a new accusation about me -

you were so nasty to me and anybody who agreed with me in relation to a year-old AfD

I asked for diffs of my “nastiness” (the full text of the AfD is here, I very much welcome everyone to review it for nastiness; you will see I responded to a sarcastic comment he made on Feb 7 with a flippant comment of my own; I don't think anyone would perceive that as rising to the level of a one-sided pattern of "nastiness" - an extremely strong accusation). He did not reply, instead, declaring he was quitting the ANI thread, while throwing one last accusation on his way out:

I am merely hoping you will acknowledge some of the instances in which you have been guilty of incivility

I, at this point, observed that I had received one 48-hour block for a 3RR (for which I take responsibility and apologize) in 4 years. That I had had not been “found guilty” of numerous instances of incivility and that I believed falsely declaring that I had been "found guilty" numerous times was a highly inappropriate attempt to undermine my reputation among editors with whom I had not previously interacted.

Binks finally said he would continue to levy these, and other, charges against me in the presence of other editors in the future; to make sure, apparently, everyone knew how “distasteful” I was and did not consider my opinion in edit discussions. This is the reason I feel I need to bring this to the attention of ANI. I know this may not seem like a big deal to a third party but I, quite honestly, feel like total shit right now after getting this mud-dragging but, more than that, I think there will be wider scale disruption on WP if this editor carries through on his plan to periodically drive-by threads to shotgun these accusations out about me.

CONCLUSION: I am not here to lobby for any kind of sanction, only administrator investigation into these accusations and - if warranted - exoneration and affirmation that they are, in fact, misleading (or, alternatively, that I am a poisonous and disgusting person [hopefully not]), so that future threads are not sidelined by personal tête–à–têtes. Thanks and my apologies, again and in advance, for presenting a two-party conduct issue to ANI. Please take this ANI in the spirit in which it was intended. I am very sorry if anyone feels this ANI, itself, is disruptive. I think my history will demonstrate I am not quick-to-ANI. Best regards, BlueSalix (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG is right. 207.38.156.219 (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering no administrator action is really requested, I think this should be archived. If someone wants to open a RfC/U on BlueSalix they should feel free. ANI isn't the place to try and clear oneself by demanding a public investigation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Misuse of rollback by Nick

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

---

@Nick: Has misused rollback here I asked him to explain how my revert of another Russavia sock was vandalism, he did not respond but has instead accused me of editwarring and threatened me with a block. Si I now have Russavia thanking me for edits, adding stuff to articles I have created and then being enabled by an admin. He is no doubt having a great laugh. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And Nick has now accused me of being a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

When reporting me, can you please not transclude my entire user page onto ANI. The content, even if it was added by a blocked/banned user circumventing their block/ban is valuable and improves the project, I see no reason to destroy the project in the pursuit of one blocked user. I will happily take responsibility for the edit from now on in. And could you please allow me to respond before adding yet more text to ANI. Nick (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick, fair enough if you want to 'take responsibility' for a sock edit by restoring that content, but mis-using rollback is simply not on. GiantSnowman 15:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been confirmed the editor is actually a sock, as far as I can tell. The edit stands as vandalism until otherwise confirmed (and was reverted on that basis). Nick (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is a sock, he admits it here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as WP:RBK#When to use rollback indicates, you shouldn't use Rollback in a situation when a useful edit summary would be expected. This is pretty clearly one of those cases. But... the solution? "Nick, please use an edit summary next time instead of rolling back." More concerning to me is Nick's description of the removal of a banned editor's edit as vandalism. Darkness Shines's removal, while probably incorrect (insofar as the content added is an improvement), is at least arguable: even though Russavia isn't formally banned as far as I know, the situation (even without the socking) rises to the level of a de facto ban. I think that adds a very strong presumption that Darkness Shines's revert was in good faith. As such, describing it as vandalism is probably inappropriate... or at least unhelpful. As to the threat of a block for edit warring (after two reverts in 24 hours)... I'm not crazy about that... but I don't see it as actionable without more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those sad cases where two people who are both committed to improving our encyclopedia are acting antagonistically towards each other rather than as the cooperative colleagues we should be. My suggestions? Nick, don't revert without an edit summary - a summary saying, eg, "It's good - I'll take responsibility now" would probably have avoided this. And DS, don't go running to ANI over trivia like this - a friendly word with Nick could have headed off any need for confrontation, don't you think? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I did ask him, and he called me a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

DS, I like you and I like the work you do at Wikipedia - but you do have a history of getting into needless fights. Instead of continuing with the "I'm right and he's wrong" line, perhaps try to see this as a poor outcome over a trivial disagreement in which you both acted sub-optimally? Maybe take an hour off and enjoy the sun/rain/darkness (whatever it is where you are ;-), and then just move on and forget this? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Why did you not tell me, on my talk page, what you posted here ? It would have resolved the issue before it even started. I'll of course redact the suggestion you were vandalising. Nick (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nicolas Sarkozy

TBBT Chase and I have been disagreeing about whether a meme should be included in Nicolas Sarkozy. I don't think it should be included, and the discussion has hit his talk page, [224] my user page, and the article talk page. It finally came to this [225] edit summary--The death threat wasn't serious, but I'd like another opinion on this so I can move on. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: WMF Is aware of the threat, no need for further reports. Please feel free to discuss the policy implications and such, but there's no need for further admin reports to us. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Philippe, I have hidden the edit summary with RevDel. As for the meme, the edit says, "On the 13th of July 2014, a meme was created", and the image was just deleted from Commons as a copyright violation. Since the creation appears to be something that hasn't happened yet, and since it isn't something notable that should be included in the article, I have also reverted the edit. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Origamite, you've pasted the same diff twice. (Which happens to us all, diffs are stupid like that.) It seems it's the one you particularly want comments on, with a threat in it (?) that's missing, so please fix. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

It was this one: [226], but DoRD revdeled it. Thank you again. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am assuming the "threat" (which I can no longer see) was just a puerile stupidity from a schoolboy, so I'll leave it to the WMF people to deal with that, but fooling around with hoaxes on high-profile BLPs is not on, so I have blocked TBBT Chase for 48 hours. (If anybody thinks they should be blocked longer, feel free.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much. I can't out him from what was in the email he sent me, but suffice to say you're spot on. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 19:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support a longer block. Since the edit summary was redacted rather than suppressed, an admin can view it with admin tools. The edit summary was completely inappropriate even if only a bad joke, and the description of a future event in the past tense is a form of vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My perspective is that TBBT made a meme, uploaded it, and tried to give it a semblance of belonging with pretty references to google.com and a fake quote from Sarkozy. When I reverted it, the troll treated as he would one of his friends making a joke--see "narc" being used here [227]. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 20:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A review of the editor's editing history shows that he was a constructive editor in 2013 but has been a vandal in 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about that; the talk page was done in 2013 and so was this [228] diff. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 22:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TBBT just emailed me this:

Get me blocked for longer. I DARE YOU! Can you acc get me deactivated bc its pointlesss having an account if you can't edit. Are you that sad, you'd call me a troll. I know everything I did was wrong, but reporting me and accusing me of a death threat. COME ON! Scratch my last message, I will message you every day until you get my account deactivated. Screenshot this for evidence. I TBBT Chase sincerely want my account deactivated because I am being harassed by Origamite and FutureProof

Do we grant it? Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing...

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

---

I'm unsure of how many administrators here are aware of the {{Orphan}} deletion discussion that is going on, but I'd like to advise you all that Andrew Davidson‎‎ has been CANVASSING two specific editors who are more likely to be supportive of his position than not. This was brought to my attention based on this post by PBS. I have warned the user and am requesting administrators monitor the situation. Thank you for your time. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My communication was limited and neutral at a time when there seemed to be considerable confusion about the current state of the template. I sought to engage editors who had been active on the template's talk page, who could help clarify what was going on. Once we sorted that out, I subsequently added the TfD to the centralised discussion list as this seemed to be of significance to the community in general - there have been repeated discussions at the Village Pump. We should further note that User:Magioladitis has advertised the discussion at WikiProject Orphanage. The matter is of widespread interest and so such postings are to be expected. So long as they are limited and neutral, this seems within the guidance of WP:CANVASSING. Andrew (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• User:Technical 13 now tells me that he has reverted my addition to WP:CENT. Why should the wider community not be engaged in this matter? There are plenty of other discussions listed there about flags, tags and notices. Andrew (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • They should, but a seven day WP:TfD is not the appropriate place to do so (as has been mentioned by multiple editors in the TfD]]. If you want a wider discussion, have a proper WP:RfC to address the reasons why you think the template is inappropriate. Quite frankly, it, as consensus and the overwhelming number of keep, speedy keep, and snow keep !votes show, is just not going to end up deleted. So, the options are to start a discussion as to what you think is wrong with the template and ask for advice on how to fix those issues, join WP:ORPHANAGE and start working on adding links to those orphans and in doing so removing the tags from pages and help cure the root of the problem, or using the directions in the documentation, make it so you never have to see that tag again. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Andrew and Magioladitis have only notified those people/board who have been involved with the tag or they are actually interested. It is fully supported and encouraged by the guidelines of wikipedia. There was no breach of canvassing, not even a bit. Andrew is not incorrect if he wants more people to have their view. We've seen opposition towards this tag, and finally there is some consensus that tag should be kept. Nothing wrong if more people wanted to participate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• OccultZone, targeting two specific editors that would support him without posting on the talk pages of any user that would oppose him is the very definition of canvassing... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Blue Army (Poland) edit warring

User Faustian continues to add a disputed statement, which is currently being discussed on the article Talk Page, the editor has been notified in the past that per WP guidelines if a statement has been removed due to objections from another editor, a debate needs to take place first before the statement can be re-added. Unfortunately, Faustian continues to re-add the text despite the fact that the discussion about the statement has not been settled. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The user above has a pattern of removing information he doesn't like. The statement is referenced, and there is no consensus to remove it. That being said, any other eyes looking at this situation would be appreciated. I've filed an RfC too.Faustian (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Georgism problems

Recently that article had discussions which appear not to support substantial additions to the definition of that belief. An IP has suddenly appeared whose only contribution is to seek to maintain the non-consensus additions which are from a single editor. Eyes on that page and talk page are welcomed. Collect (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I dropped a note on his talk page, linking WP:BRD, explaining how it works and how to properly seek a consensus. We will see if it works. If not, we will know he had every chance. I left him a note that there was a discussion here about him since you didn't. I'm guessing it was just an oversight so I won't labor it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • His addition is currently "in" as I hesitate to make another revert. There has been no discussion supporting his addition, so I presume anyone other than me is free to remove it pending discussion. Collect (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Historically, the idea of "notifying" editors was that they would be prompted that something was on their talk page, which is great for registered editors. In the past, IPs were not always so notified in my experience because they many times are dynamically assigned, and my goal here was to get eyes on the article and not on the dynamically assigned IP to be sure. Collect (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • My thinking is it removes the opportunity for a drive by drama comment from someone bored. The notice above doesn't really differentiate, so I'm just saying it is probably a good CYA move, regardless. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Nightscream

Nightscream (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) has been previously blocked for ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. He tends to fly off the handle and call users liars. When he was blocked in 2011,[229] he called a user who disagreed with him a " persistent liar".[230] In what appears to be a return to this bad behavior, Nightscream referred to me as "an abject child and a pathological liar".[231] I have already asked Nightscream to avoid interacting with me several times previous to this latest attack to no effect.[232][233][234] Per WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:TPG could an admin please remove these latest attacks from the talk page of Talk:Molly Crabapple? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MosesM1017

MosesM1017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has added unsourced content to Wikipedia - again. There are multiple warnings on his talk page, including a final one. Nothing changed. The user does not react to his messages. Either he didn't see the messages or he ignored them. Either way, a block is needed.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would like others to take a look, but viewing stuff like this [235] and other similar edits, I see a clinical lack of clue here. I don't see anything malicious and not all the edits are bad...but I'm not sure how to phrase the problem. Maybe he's really young, or just not the type to pay attention to others around him. I can see how this is disruptive, and think that something does need to be done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiya Dennis Brown Although there do seem to be glaring WP:COMPETENCE issues, I've spotted some edits that look like intentional disruption to me. For example: here he inexplicably changes the subject's active date from 1988 (which appears in the article prose) to 1990, and changes the word "present" to "Presented". And how is Justin Bieber an associated act? The main intersection I could find between them on Google, had to do with gossip rags reporting that DJ Paul was telling Bieber to lay off the sizzurp. Here the user removed the sourced birth date and age data for some reason, then munged the OWOW reference by deleting the closing carat. Here they add confusing information that corrupts article formatting. Here the user inexplicably changed the Oakland Raiders season from 2014 to 2015. Here the user changed the George Lopez series end date to 2009, even though the List of... article says 2007. In this edit, we learn that Juicy J has released 10,000 EPs. In this edit the user added himself (Mo$e$) to the associated acts. (Remember the deleted article Mo$e$?) How is AC/DC an associated act of rapper Lil Wyte? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some more, some of that might be auto correct as he edits via mobile, but not all of it. I had forgotten about Mo$e$ (deleted by me last week, admin eyes only) but that adds a lot of clarity as to who we are dealing with. If another admin thinks a block is appropriate, I would support. I still would like at least one other admin to review the deleted article and give an opinion, as I generally would on any borderline CIR case. From my experience, mentoring isn't usually successful in cases like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Has User:Eddypc07 gotten hacked?

Has Eddypc07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) been hacked? This user made productive edits up until May 21, 2013. Then this user goes silent until April 3, 2014. All subsequent edits are edits that replace URLs with URL shortener URLs that show ads and require the user to click a button that appears to get the user to the real website. (I have not analyzed one of the sites to determine if the button really works or sends victims to more ads or possibly malware.) I then ran across this user at WP:AIV and then investigated. I then added a final warning. I therefore suspect the user's account has been hacked. Could someone help me figure out if this user should be blocked as a compromised account or leave it alone unless the user does more spamming? Jesse Viviano (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I checked a couple of the links, look like simple redirectors but that isn't my field of expertise. I'm not sure if it is an affiliate thing (doubtful) or he just came back after a long break thinking he was helping, when in fact it isn't. Regardless, he has had enough warnings and I would block on the next instance until he explained why he is doing this. Using redirectors like this is a huge no-no on Wikipedia. At the very least, if they go down, all those links go down. Worse, it can be used to inject spyware, viruses and other fun tidbits. As for the account being compromised, I don't see evidence to support that yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• A big note that while the links do work (I checked one he added to Babymetal, and it goes to their legit website after the ads), they are specifically routed through a service that pays the user who generates them, which definitely makes it a big no-no in my eyes (not even including the fact that I often run into malware myself if I must use Adfly, which also is a no-no). - Purplewowies (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, thank you. I forgot I have a bunch of ad block stuff on Chrome, so I went into IE private browsing, and his intent is 100% crystal clear now. Profit. That is incompatible with our goals and intolerable from any editor. As such, I've indef blocked him until he can explain and convince another admin this won't continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• I've nominated the URLs for global blacklisting. MER-C 01:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  and has been  Done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please advise of the correct place to propose blacklisting? I have made a proposal at the only place I could find (here). However this place seems dead because there is nearly a year's backlog that has not even been looked at. This blacklisting seems to have been actioned quickly and is suspiciously absent from talk:Spam blacklist. I have already moved the discussion from one dead location. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the only place I know. Its been a while, but last time I filed it took about one day. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For global blacklists m:Talk:Spam blacklist is more serviceable. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is strictly for blocking URLs on en.wp only. URL shorteners should be (cross-)posted at the meta blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Swisstruth

Swisstruth and his IP sockpuppets (sockpuppeting noticed on the relevant notice board) are consistently engaging in personal attacks against me and administrators on asmallworld talk page. The page has been protected twice after section blanking by this user/IP address. And is currently protected because of their attempted blanking. here are the personal attack diffs - (please note the edit summary) [236] and attacking me and two administrators that protected the page [237]. You can see the IP blanking and our entire conversation on the page/talk page. Thanks for looking into this (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

Also here is my reply to the personal attack with a polite warning [238]. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

IP 115.112.41.166 Long Term Persistent Vandalsm

Persistent vandalism going back at least two years. IP has received numerous warnings and has been blocked at least once. A glance at his/her contrib log causes me to suspect even more vandalism may have gone undetected. I am going to have go through it carefully since some of it won't be fixable with a quick revert given the likelihood of intervening good edits. Respectfully request extended block. Enough is enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Most recent vandalism

(Non-administrator comment) 115.112.41.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), first and last blocked a little over a year ago for one month. The Geolocation tool says this IP corresponds to a dial-up ISP in Mumbai. Last warning resulted from blanking part of Deor's RfA (linked above). This was also the most recent edit. While normally I'd suggest going through the normal AIV channels, this IP's vandalism is spaced out enough that I could see the most recent final warning being considered too stale to issue a block of any significant length. As such, I think a block of 3-6 months is appropriate, same block settings as last time since this is a dial-up ISP. Problem of course is that the ISP being a dial-up one is likely to just assign IPs out of its pool dynamically at connection... but with a /13 address block, a rangeblock is probably not feasible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting IP range block

Howdy, the article Ilion Animation Studios has been semi-protected a few times now because of a persistent Mexico-based user/bot/whatever, who keeps making the same disruptive edits to this article, and United Plankton Pictures and a few more. The disruptions have been going on since about late December 2013. The IP user hasn't participated in any discussions, doesn't use edit summaries, has ignored warnings and blocks, and there really doesn't seem to be any way to get the disruptions to end. In some articles, they change normal article section headers to non-standard, incorrect or even nonsensical ones, for example here where they change Filmography to Studios, Television to TV Shows Television, and Film to Feature Films. At Ilion Animation Studios, they have for months kept removing the perfectly legitimate and useful format=dmy flag from the {{dts}} template. I have no idea why they are doing this, and can't even speculate. Anyhow, it's disruptive and locking articles has proved helpful in the short term, but the user resumes after the page comes out of protection.

IPs used (listed numerically) (source: whatismyipaddress.com)

• 189.159.224.77 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-224-77-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.228.129 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-228-129-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.231.124 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-231-124-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.243.124 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-243-124-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.251.227 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-251-227-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.251.234 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-251-234-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.159.252.162 - Dynamic IP - hostname: dsl-189-159-252-162-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.109.201 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-109-201-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.186.87 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-186-87-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.186.234 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-186-234-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Reynosa, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.
• 189.237.215.110 - Static IP - hostname: dsl-189-237-215-110-dyn.prod-infinitum.com.mx - Río Bravo, Tamaulipas, Mexico - Uninet S.A. de C.V.

Any help curtailing this disruption in the long term would be greatly appreciated. I'm not sure what the best way is to report this sort of thing, but I'm hoping I got close. Thanks! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock isn't necessarily appropriate if there is only one article being attacked; instead, I have semi-protected the article for six months. Don't take the static IP stuff too seriously, a lot of them are dynamic as well. Oh, and did you mean to post this on WP:AN instead of WT:AN? Risker (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Risker -- Jesus I'm an idiot. Long day. I meant ANI. (NOTE: I moved this discussion from WT:AN to WP:ANI) Also it's not just one article. It's about 5-8 articles. Since the Editor Interaction Analyzer doesn't work the way it used to, I can't enter ten IPs and compare their intersections. I see Ilion Animation Studios, United Plankton Pictures, Teen Beach Movie, DNA Productions, Kennedy Miller Mitchell, HandMade Films, Den Brother, and probably a few more I haven't picked up on yet. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Admin undeleted an anticle

Admin AntonioMartin silently undeleted Pop culture in Puerto Rico after @Slakr: delete it following an AFD. --damiens.rf 04:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

He was aware about the deletion discussion, but choose to ignore it and revert the final decision. --damiens.rf 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blatant misuse of admin tools (and apparent misunderstanding of consensus) - I fully support the warning given by Fut.Perf. The article should be re-deleted, and AntonioMartin should follow the appropriate procedure if he wishes to contest the deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Mmm. While I agree that the AfD probably should have been relisted, I don't think AntonioMartin was correct in unilaterally overturning the delete outcome on the grounds that there was no consensus. I see no evidence he took it up with the AfD closer (slakr) before restoring the article. This is all the more concerning because AntonioMartin created the article in question (way back in 2003). I feel pretty confident the outcome of this will be to relist the AfD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Oh dear, a breach of WP:INVOLVED too. That makes it worse - it's a clear example of a bad-old-days admin misusing their powers to enforce their own preferred content. Whatever the merits of the case, an appeal to WP:DRV to request a relisting of the AfD is the way to dispute a deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• That's a rather outrageous misuse of admin tools. Maybe AntonioMartin, who apparently has been an admin since 2003 but has been making very infrequent use of the tools, is no longer quite up to speed when it comes to the expectations we have of the admin role, but he certainly should have known that he can't unilaterally override the outcome of a deletion process like this, least of all on an article to which he had himself contributed earlier, and certainly not in a case where he has a significant history of prior personal conflict with the nominator. He also should have known what the proper procedures are: go to WP:DRV, or request userfication and re-work the article until it meets the concerns raised at the AfD, before moving it back to mainspace. I would like to give Antonio a chance to rectify this himself when he comes online again; otherwise this action will certainly have to be reverted by one of us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Given User:AntonioMartin's infrequent use of the tools, I am going to assume good faith and presume that he wasn't aware that DRV now exists to challenge AFD closures if you're unhappy with them. I do agree though that he needs to reverse the restoration, otherwise the article is eligible for CSD G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC).

• • I agree that we should wait, but I also think that we aren't benefiting from him having the tools and that he should resign. He's never been an active Administrator and has been virtually inactive for years. DRV or not he should have know this was incorrect and asked what he should do. I very much doubt that he has the understanding to do the job now or that he would pass an RfA. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's probable AntonioMartin didn't know about DRV;(see my comment below: he knew or should have known about DRV no later than 2009) his comment in the restoration log refers to the "VfD" whereby the article was deleted. AfD hasn't been called VfD since late 2005. Antonio really doesn't seem to be using the tools for much of anything, and his adminship seems a relic of a bygone era. I concur with Dougweller that it may be time for Antonio to hand in his mop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  I ain't handing in my mop or anything else. One thing I learned as an amateur boxer is never quit. Those who ask for my resignation, why don't you resignate instead? Antonio El Miles Maravilla Martin (Aqui) 13:19, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have deleted the article under G4. (Antonio apparently cannot do math either - nom plus 2 delete !votes = 3-1). the panda ₯’ 09:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  And the 1 against should be discounted anyway, because accusations of racism don't count as policy-compliant argument -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to say that...but I figured some smart person would say it instead the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Among his infrequent uses of the tools, this also comes up: [239]. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be wary of judging old deletions and undeletions by modern standards - what happened there might have been fine by the standards of 2007-9. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeesh. So there's a pattern of silently undeleting articles he's created. I'm not sure, though, because it seems like the Milivi Adams article was deleted out of process (or at least without a particularly good log summary). There's no sign that Antonio contacted the admin who deleted the page prior to undeleting it (though he did wait a couple years). Oh, and thanks to this link to Milivi Adams, we now know that Antonio was on notice that DRV existed no later than 2009. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd just like to suggest a little patience, folks - Antonio doesn't appear to have been online since this report was made -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

3-1 is a majority IN VOTE, but should not be enough to be considered "consensus". Damiens deleted it instead of re listing it, as should have been done. Which is worse then, having deleted it without reaching consensus, or bringing it back where now it can be voted on again?Antonio Juice Baby Juice Martin (Aqui) 13:25, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate. This reply displays total cluelessness both about the situation of the article in question, and about the issues of admin policy we are discussing here. Definitely not competent to remain an administrator. Recommend Arbcom if he doesn't wisen up quickly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Antonio, why didn't you just use DRV if you felt there was no consensus to delete at AfD? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The first step would be to ask the editor who closed the AFD. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I'd be interested in Antonio's answer to why he didn't try to contact the deleting admin either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• A valid consensus is one that is consistent and repeatable, and a ratio of 3:1 may be but 3-1 is not enough - with one more editor (AntonioMartin) it can become 3-2 and no consensus. In this case maybe it was seen as 3-0 as the only AFD participant who supporting keeping the article was probably a sockpuppet and only there to to harass the nominator. If (as appears to be the case) this was undeleted without consulting the deleting admin and not relisted or renominated it would be out of process. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am always leery of these sorts of 'it might have gone another way with one more vote'-type arguments. We expect closing admins to approach an AfD discussion with some judgement, and to weigh the quality of arguments made instead of simply to count votes. In this case, we had three votes to delete from experienced editors who offered concise, reasonable arguments; and one vote to keep from a new editor of dubious provenance whose argument came down to declaring that the nominator is a racist.

Further to that, an admin reviewing an AfD discussion isn't ever compelled to close the discussion. If they read through a discussion and feel that an important point has been omitted, or not given sufficient hearing from the discussion's participants, that admin isn't obliged to close the AfD. They can relist, sure, or they can add to the discussion. If straight-up vote counting (particularly in a discussion with few participants) would force a result that an admin finds unconscionable, that admin always has the opportunity to present his or her own arguments and wait for another admin to make the closing call instead. In cases where the vote count is close, we permit admins to use their own judgement to make a determination; I would presume in such circumstances that the admin in such a case is adding their own tacit single vote in support of whichever close they opt for.

Finally, AntonioMartin – as the article's creator – was notified of the AfD on his talk page, on 21 May. The AfD wasn't closed until 6 June, during which time it was relisted once (on 28 May) for additional community input. During that eighteen-day window, AntonioMartin made more than a dozen other Wikipedia edits, spread across at least four separate sessions. He had plenty of opportunity to step up and be that 'one more vote'—or better, to improve the article (if possible). He failed to take advantage of either opportunity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, the question isn't about your determination that it should be relisted, it is about your methods. Quietly and unilaterally reverting another admin acting in good faith is very problematic. And your "You can have my mop when you drag it out of my cold, dead hands" approach above is a bit disturbing, to be honest. It makes it look like you are more concerned about the hat than your own actions. This is why the community needs the ability to have a "confidence" vote with each admin every few years. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, a reconfirmation RFA or a community-led recall process - either would probably do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:AntonioMartin has refused to resign, saying that those (like me) who have suggested it should resign instead. This is a bit perplexing as he only uses his tools rarely while I'd say the rest of us do. My question to him is why he needs the tools and what does he plan to do with them? The last thing we need is administrators with tools who don't use them except when using the tools is to their benefit. I don't agree with "confidence votes" though as I think they won't be a benefit are are likely to lose us good administrators. There should be other ays of getting rid of poor ones (and are). Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And Antonio has unequivocally stated on his user talk that there are no circumstances under which he would voluntarily give up the mop. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would I resign? I do one thing and you are saying I should resign. Never mind the other things I have done here for 11 years. I am very proud of my administratorship here and will act upon called to action. However, I prefer to just contribute. Does that mean I should "return my badge"? Antonio vLADIMIRRR! Martin (Aqui) 14:17, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

The admin bit has nothing to do with editing. If you can't use the admin bit wisely and within policy, if you can't admit a mistake or even recognize it, then yes, it would be better if you resigned the bit and just continued as a non-admin contributor. What you are doing now just makes life more stressful for active admin, and every day users, as it reinforces the negative stereotypes that admin endure as well as tells non-admin that you don't care about anything but the bit itself. That is not consistent with the goals here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, let me suggest what you should have done. Firstly, consensus is not a vote. Now, I agree that 3-1 is not ideal and more opinions would have been better. But it had been relisted once and had been running for two weeks - and an admin is entitled to close it as a delete if they think the !votes were based on good policy-based arguments. Of course, you are entitled to contest the closure and deletion if you wish - but not by unilaterally reverting the deletion! Your first move should have been to ask the deleting admin if they would reconsider their decision and relist the AfD. And if the answer was no, you should then have started a WP:DRV review to ask the community to overturn the decision and relist (and I think you would have had a good chance of getting it relisted). But you absolutely do not have the authority to unilaterally overturn an AfD outcome that you personally disagree with! Now, as a community we don't have the power to force you to a recall of your admin rights (which is a wrong, but that's the way it is), but if you cannot see what you did wrong and continue to insist you were right, this is likely to end up at ArbCom - and ArbCom is becoming less and less tolerant of admins who abuse their powers and refuse to listen to feedback from the community. How it goes now is largely up to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• As a nonadminstrator who sometimes monitors this page, I'm not shocked at all by what happened. Administrators have lifetime appointments, and lifetime appointments mean that the good get tenure and so do the bad. It happens with federal judges and it happens here. This confirms the impression many people have that administrators are not regular users with a "mop" but a class of super-users who are accountable to nobody. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have filed a formal request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/AntonioMartin. Hipocrite (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The RFC isn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Related to this, would an admin take a look at Red Burman and see if there are any attribution issues with the deleted version and the version that was created about 15 minutes later? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The only difference was adding a header for References.[240] It is a copyright violation. If it is notable, this can be corrected by undeleting the old material, but that doesn't change the fact that it was a copyright violation for a number of years. 3.5 to be exact. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, so do we do a G12 or just undelete the old page history? I'm thinking the latter, at least until we figure out what to do with the article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • For the short term, nothing, but an undelete would be the normal course once all the dust from this settles. Then the history would just show him adding the subtitle line instead of creating the article, which is the correct interpretation of events. I'm curious what AntonioMartin has to say about this copyright infringement when it is the admin's job to enforce copyright policy, not blatantly violate it for their own benefit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Let's not exaggerate. The deleted edits in the history of Red Burman are by User:Marine 69-71, aka Tony the Marine. Antonio said he deleted them "by request", implying a valid CSD#G7. Tony and Antonio are father and son. I have no idea why Tony would have wanted to have his own edits hidden, but I have no difficulties assuming that it was all done by mutual consensus between them, and if Tony has no problem with his son taking the credit for a few of his edits, neither need we. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Calling it "exaggerating" is itself exaggerating as that is not remotely obvious from the logs. There was no way (that I have found) to tell the relationship unless you go to his page and read the one barnstars. It is still infringing, although obviously much less a concern as we can imply familial consent. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
            • I actually noticed the connection as it had been mentioned at a past ANI thread involving both editors. At any rate, I still think it's a bit odd... I don't particularly care that editor A wants to give the credit for his edits to editor B (presuming that's what happened here: there's no real explanation). I mean, we can argue that it was effectively a valid G7 delete, but on the same note it's effectively a REVDEL (actually it's SELDEL, but I argue the effect is essentially the same). Even if not actionable, it's damn weird behavior. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that AntonioMartin has kept a slow burning edit war on The Beatles alive by continually adding them to Category:English boy bands. ([241], [242], [243], [244], [245]) Edit warring on a featured article without using talk or good edit summaries is plain old disruptive, whoever does it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree that he messed up. You just do not go undeleting an article that was deleted regardless if it was justified or not. There are proper procedures to follow and I told him so. However, I do not think that his admin. powers should be stripped for his mistake. I told him to face and accept his mistakes and that if he wants to have the articles deletion revised then to re-list it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

  Those are wise words Tony, and I'm sure they'll be better accepted coming from you than from some strangers on the internet - I expect Antonio is feeling a bit down after being criticised right now, but having you there should help. He just made a mistake, and I also don't think he should lose his admin rights over it as long as he accepts it was a mistake and he won't do something similar again. Things have changed a lot since the old days, and I think it would be well worth it if he can update himself on the modern way of doing admin things - having a good read of our latest deletion policies, for example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I committed a mistake. It won't happen again. Antonio SureFire Martin (here) 23:35, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

"A" mistake? You apparently undeleted 2 things improperly, giving all admins a bad name ... and your attitude when it was brought to your attention was appalling, once again giving all admins a bad name ... and your piss-poor tit-for-tat ANI filing below was pathetically childish ... so, how many mistakes? the panda ₯’ 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that if Antonio will please make an effort to get up to speed on current accepted use of the tools. We need more active admin, particularly bilingual admin, but up to date admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New user removing AFD template

Here, quite a few times. I have posted to their talk page and the article talk page to no avail, I have reported him to ANEW for violation of 3RR but would like an admin to restore the AFD notice. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I restored it. Henichi has received a final warning for removing the AfD template (though it issued after Henichi had removed the template again). AIV would be another place to take this if Henichi did it again. Honestly, I think it would've been a better idea to just wait for someone at AN3 to handle your pending report. You didn't need to come to ANI over this, though I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with an admin blocking Henichi given the disruption of the AfD process on that page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked the account for disruptive editing. He could appeal, of course...  —SMALLJIM  13:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Article deleted after it had been voted to Keep!

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquín Santiago-check it out...Antonio Dukaika dukaika Martin (Aqui) 14:16, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

If you believe there was consensus to keep/no consensus to delete, you would be better served by asking FPAS to reverse, and should he disagree, going to DRV. This is decidedly the wrong place to make this complaint. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Antonio, you are drama-mongering. Stop it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Odd editing at Vivint

Several brand new editors have started editing Vivint. Some of the edit summary wording is very similar. As none of the accounts are blocked, it has the appearances of meatpuppetry. I recommend an admin review the editing patterns by User:The Voice of Reason 9999, User:Honestabe7777, and User:Joearnest. A couple of them want to keep a summary of legal issues out of the lead section. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. As it turns out, those three accounts are  Confirmed matches to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)