Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rajsector3 (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 20 June 2014 (→Thanks). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    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

    Per consensus of the community of editors Neuraxis has been banned from editing any pages at the English Wikipedia including his user talk page. He may, however, file appeals by email to arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    NAC: User:Neuraxis indeffed below for legal threats and personal attacks - Closing all discussion except site ban Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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 diffs.

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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))[reply]

    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)[reply]
    There are currently problems at the chiropractor page. It does not seem like your are collaborating at the talk page. I don't like to have to repeat myself. Verification has not been provided for Chiropractors practice "chiropractic medicine". The part chiropractic medicine may be WP:OR. Have you ignored my repeated request for verification? QuackGuru (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed that unsourced OR wording per my comments on the talk page. Since this is getting too far off-topic, we need to get back on-topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    * 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support In this edit [84] he more or less called a user a sociopath by indicated that they are congruant with this webpage [85]. Neuroaxis edits in a very narrow topic area of alt med / chiropractors. As it appears that they have very little interest in other areas a site ban appears reasonable but a topic ban broadly construed may also work. Here they state that they have been editing for 4-5 months [86] and have managed to get blocked 4 times [87]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of their edits are questionable. As an example here they removed however the quality of the evidence is poor with the edit summary "rmv unsourced commentary" however the ref says "Both studies with high risk of bias had several key limitations. Heterogeneity of the studies prevented meta-analysis. There is low quality evidence that BoNT injections improved pain, function, or both better than saline injections and very low quality evidence that they were better than acupuncture or steroid injections." The texted was paraphrase which is required for copyright reasons.
    Adversarial comments today such as this "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." [88] make me doubt that a topic ban would be sufficient Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Doc James, it's fairly common to disagree regarding the verbiage of paraphrasing a source. So you're cherry picked source, which is 1 of 2000+ represents 0.0005% of my edits. Do you really think that is a representative sample that warrants your conclusions "a number of edits are questionable'. You are asking for a big restriction and that's going to require big evidence, not just an appeal to your authority. You again present quotes out of context, but that statement is pure calling a spade a spade. But him questioning my competence, integrity, basic honesty, suggesting I'm trying to game the system and use a soapbox, are not adversarial comments? Just because I challenge your expertise on chiropractic here [89] which you opined that is was a treatment and no a profession, which was soundly rebutted, doesn't give you the right to try and topic ban me. As you are the involved admin, and given that you are the one suggesting topic bans, given that you have perhaps undue influence given your status, you should have really recused yourself. Do recall, that your actions here are an extension of your professional work. You've been investigated by your college for the inkblots release, been named in a lawsuit. I've gotten some emails from other editors who are health professionals who are suggesting that you are crossing professional boundaries, bordering on misconduct. I ask of you to de-escalate the situation, by focusing on the purpose of the ANI, which was a personal attack, and recusing yourself from any vote as you are involved. Neuraxis (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • User Neuraxis I take this as boarding on legal threats "Do recall, that your actions here are an extension of your professional work. You've been investigated by your college for the inkblots release, been named in a lawsuit. I've gotten some emails from other editors who are health professionals who are suggesting that you are crossing professional boundaries, bordering on misconduct."
    • To clarify how Wikipedia works, yes I am an involved admin. That mean that I will take no admin action against you. I have not and am not going to do so in the future. As things appear to be getting overly heating we should probably ask an independent admin to close this. You by the way attribute to me way more authority than I actually have. I know very few of the admins who frequent the dispute mechanism areas of Wikipedia. Those who close this can very easily see that I am involved and thus will weigh my comments appropriately. When a discussion is closed it is not a "vote" and the closing admin will look at the evidence provided.
    • I struggle as to why you consider my raising concerns regarding your refering to QuackGuru as a sociopath/psychopath here as "professional misconduct". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support community-imposed indef block which essentially amounts to the same thing. This editor's entire history is WP:TE/WP:CPUSH mixed with WP:IDHT, and had been heading downhill of late with the personal comments. After the legal threats (see WP:ANI#Neuraxis_blocked_for_legal_threats), it's time to separate this individual from WP. Zad68 13:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neuraxis has been blocked for legal threats. See discussion below. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This attempt to intimidate one of our most industrious expert contributors is absolutely unacceptable. Enough is enough, support site ban. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formalized indefinite siteban: No matter how right or wrong Neuraxis was before today, by harassing and attempting to intimidate Doc James by, in essence, threatening to endanger Doc James' professional reputation and credentials (no matter how ridiculous that threat may be), Neuraxis has demonstrated a willingness to engage in conduct which can cause irreparable damage to the credibility and productivity of the project. While I would argue that by doing so, Neuraxis has in effect made himself hostis wikipedianus generis, and thus subject to a de facto ban, the nature of the conduct merits formalization of such a ban. I say so not because such conduct might have driven away an established and prominent editor, but because any indication that the community as a whole would not openly and publicly condemn such conduct damages the reputation of the project. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have never come across Neuraxis myself, but his long history of disruptive behavior and the recent legal threat towards Doc James demonstrates that he is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the material in this discussion makes it very clear that Neuraxis is here to push his POV by any means available, including personal attacks and legal threats. The disruptive behavior is so severe that a permanent site ban is the only appropriate course of action. (I should mention that I'm a wikifriend of DocJames, and also agree with him on the underlying scientific issues involved, but I would say the same regardless. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (post NLT ban) this kind of style inhibits many editors including myself from adding to the discussion of alt med articles. Jim1138 (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support site ban and block talk page access for this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support formal site ban based on legal threats and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - It seems that the discussion of the indefinite site ban is the only one remaining open. Expressed opinions or !votes to date so far as I can tell are 13 in favor with 1 against a site ban. Would it be appropriate to wonder if WP:SNOW might be considered relevant to invoke sometime soon? John Carter (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Non-administrator comment) Agreed, it's time to close this. While the supports really only started pouring in the last day or two, it's clear there's a consensus for a formalized siteban; the only oppose is really not credible. WP:CBAN states that "discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours". We've had enough time go by. Let's close this and let everyone go back to building the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The comments by Neuraxis on this page alone indicate the encyclopedia would be better off if a ban were established. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no comment on the content issues that have been ongoing. I supported the block that was levied by David Gerard against Neuraxis for their comment and would support a site ban. As I commented in the other thread, what is off wiki stays off wiki. Bringing up anything that has an impact on an editor's employment to silence the opposition is absolutely unacceptable. The ban gavel needs to come down. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This action is consistent with the reasoning detailed in ArbCom's motion to ban Phil Sandifer. A firewall needs to be maintained at all times between off-wiki and on-wiki activities, and breaching this barrier may have a lasting real-world impact on people's lives. The implied LT compounds the seriousness of the policy violation. Ignocrates (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Neuraxis has requested the block be lifted

    Neuraxis has requested on her user talk page that the block be lifted. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly my fault for assisting them in understanding that NLT blocks can be lifted, contrary to his beleif. I support the unblock, as per WP:GAB, with the understanding that the above site ban discussion may end up with a reblock the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No way. I support the lifting of NLT blocks by withdrawing the threat when it was just a legal threat being made. This was a case of harassment in order to cause another editor to back down from a dispute. In other words, it was deliberate use of a threat—even if that threat was not to initiate a lawsuit—to chill participation. Moreover, it was a threat that indicated an editor's off-wiki livelihood could be endangered. That is unacceptable on Wikipedia (and is the crux of my rationale for supporting a siteban above). If Neuraxis apologized to Doc James, I might be able to see the block being lifted (at least until the community ban discussion concludes). But right now, no way. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a non-admin but with an intolerance of legal threats, I do not support unblocking. I am also not keen on a site-ban (not yet) but I think talk page access should be taken away for a week or two, while the user ponders the question of how badly they want to edit Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (e-c) As a no-longer-admin who was one of the founders of Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility which had as one of its founding purposes making it easier for peope who have non-standard problems which can inhibit their ability to edit here, I am not myself averse to allowing the editor to use her talk page to propose or agree to terms of continued editing, rather the opposite. At the same time, I can question what good it might to to allow Neuraxis to perhaps continue to misuse the user talk page for other purposes, particularly if the site ban is approved. I think maybe the first priority here is to determine if the site ban is to be enacted or not, and then maybe leave a note on their user talk page regarding how to either use that talk page or perhaps e-mail to determine if any terms of continued editing would be acceptable to all sides. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Has Neuraxis provided a reason why the block should be lifted, including, at a minimum, a recognition of the wrongness of harassing another editor in a way that was likely to threaten his livelihood? If not, then this is all the more reason for a formal site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Mendaliv, I cannot support an unblock as long as Neuraxis fails to appreciate the seriousness with which the community views his (implied) threats against Doc James. (The wikilawyering by Neuraxis is...well, this: "So whereas the perception was that I was issuing a legal threat, any reports to a regulatory college is not a legal matter, but a professional conduct one.") In the interest of full disclosure, I probably wouldn't support an unblock under any likely conditions, given that he's already managed to cite WP:POV Railroad in response to comments on his unblock request. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban of Neuraxis

    NAC - Closing all discussion of sanctions other than site ban as editor has been indef-blocked for legal threats Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 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?[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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: [90], [91]. 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)[reply]
    • Support This may be sufficient. It is not clear if the user in question has any interest in editing other topic areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban as slightly preferable to site ban, based on the material presented above, but only on the following conditions:
    • Neuraxis to be topic banned from articles related to the topics of pseudoscience and criticism of science, broadly construed, for not less than 1 year and 1,000 edits, which is roughly Neuraxis' annual number of edits to date,with one of the requirements for the ban to be lifted displaying no serious problematic behavior in that time and, preferably, seeking a mentor;
    • Neuraxis is subject to an interaction ban with her/his critics here for the same period of time;
    • Neuraxis is banned from maintaining any pages related to these topics in userspace, either under the current name or former name;
    • Honestly, the previous behavior of this editor, particularly the previous sanctions including sockpuppetry, and their behavior here, raise in my eyes extremely serious questions about that person's basic honesty and integrity. I have for some time thought that we should have a variation on WP:SPA for WP:SAP for Self-appointed Prophet, the kind of person who seems to see no problems whatever in advancing their personal views under any circumstances, whether they remotely fall within guidelines or not.
    • There is an extremely slight chance in my eyes that this individual may be capable of becoming a reasonable, productive editor, but I think it is an extremely slight chance, and have no particular objections to a site ban. I am, as I think most of my record indicates, generally willing to give even the most problematic editor one last chance, probably to the degree of irrationality on my part. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. This is ANI re: a personal attack. This proposal for a topic or site ban is not valid, there have been no diffs provided that suggest there is disruption or destabilizing of the articles in questions. As there is no evidence presented, other than the fact the critics don't like my presence here on WP, that is not a bannable offense. John Carter you are seriously treading thin line regarding my 'basic honesty and integrity'. Those comments could easily be construed as slander/libel and I'm going to give you the chance to retract them, in good faith. You're crossing boundaries now, and personalizing this to an extreme. Please explain the logic, any of the supporters above, of insisting for a topic ban when there is no evidence presented and b) that is not within the scope of the ANI, as it was regarding a 'personal attack' (notwithstanding all the character attacks here on my person). Neuraxis (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you threatening me with legal action? John Carter (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. But you're getting very careless with your words. Strike out those words, you've crossed the line of civility a long time ago. Neuraxis (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Proposed discretionary sanctions on Neuraxis

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 [92] 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)[reply]
    Neuraxis, you seem to ignore once again the material in the page I linked to above. You seem to be willing to make any number of passive-agressive commentary on others while at the same time showing little if any abillity to review your own conduct in a reasonable light. At the same time, you seem to place yourself in an exalted position despite clear evidence of your own inability to adhere to basic guidelines. You seem to find it "overwhelming" to actually make a basic effort to meet the basic standards of competency here, and, as the page I linked to indicates, competence is required. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with the characterization that I am a fringe-POV pusher, or any insinuation that I am an alt-med apologist or a white-washer. A danger to the project, or the community. Smh. We follow the sources. This source [93] which concluded Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigm is the linchpin of all this. DJ opined that this source cannot be used under any circumstance. The skeptics want this buried because it challenges their ideology which states the overwhelming majority (if not all)) of chiros are pseudoscientific. Please don't hyperbolize the situation. I am not 'exhalting' my position, nor 'boasting' about my credentials. Nor am I being passive-aggressive, I am merely citing the facts, which you do not dispute. I asked for 'constructive criticism' and you answer with an attack. Here's what I think: Despite many other editors, to my count, 14 [94] who had issues editing with QG, I did err in adding the link. My personal beliefs aside, that wasn't right, and I apologize to QG. I also agree that I can use mentoring, which I had asked for,and you had a good suggesting of putting me into a similar program. I will voluntarily limit to 1RR in good faith. I will continue to use the talk pages before introducing any significant changes to any page I edit. I will use DRN and RfC as means to mediate stalled out debates, which is when frustrations start to accrue and things go to hell in a basket. These are my proposals to get the ball rolling here, they come voluntarily, under no coercion in a sincere to help resolve this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User_talk:Russavia#Unblock_request

    This discussion has continued for about 4 days, and has begun to slow down - even though consensus appears to have been reached some time ago. There are, as in all cases, those who argue that leopards cannot change their spots, hence there should be no unblock. Still others argue that we're doing the project a disservice by keeping someone who has been a positive contributor in the past blocked. Others of course fill the spectrum in-between. This project as a whole does firmly believe that offenders can be saved, and give second (or even thirty-second) chances - WP:OFFER is proof of that. This project as a whole does AGF. The challenge is that it's a requirement for the person requesting unblock to both identify and acknowledge all of the behaviours that led to the block, and also to identify a way forward that convinces the reviewing admin (or in this case, the community) that there will be no recidivism. The majority of opposes - and indeed, a good number of the supports - have focussed on the fact that one or both of these requirements have not been properly met. In the case of someone with an extensive block log, this is often based on the concept of "trust" - in other words, "we trusted you once ... and you have let us down again and again ... and have not gone out of your way to prove otherwise this time". How does one regain trust? Usually, this is a combination of both time and behaviour - and with the unfortunate background of this specific this appears to require both extensive time, and impeccable behaviour elsewhere. It can be left to Russavia to determine what they feel is appropriate to meet both the "extensive" and "impeccable" elements, and they can therefore judge their next steps AND their next unblock request accordingly. In my review of the comments, this is (by majority of the discussion) not an infinite block. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      (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))[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose Based on this users past actions, the act of unblocking itself would lessen wikipedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support (and assume the NYB restriction remains in place.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Support basically what Nick said. Legoktm (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • This is NOT a second chance. By my - albeit crude count - they've already been given roughly 20(!) chances.[95] 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)[reply]
            • "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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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).[reply]
    • Oppose per NYBrad, TParis and the mighty Bishonen.--MONGO 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose per Djsasso. Graham87 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Content contribution is not a free pass to act badly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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[96] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose. Too much drama, no indication provided that anything will change. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Is there any reason he still has talk page access? —Neotarf (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • Oppose. Enough time has been wasted on this drama magnet. — Scott • talk 17:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      Nope, you're not misreading me at all,  Roger Davies talk 07:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I have no !vote above either :-) the panda ₯’ 19:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I would support a 6-month or 1-year moratorium on future unblock requests. - tucoxn\talk 23:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    When the baby starts actively flouting the house rules, he or she gets grounded. That's what we've done here. We've grounded Russavia. And given that his flouting of the house rules has extended to socking, a particularly fundamental violation, it's clear that his grounding should not be ended any time soon. (To clarify, no, I am not calling Russavia a baby, only continuing the baby and bathwater metaphor in the previous quote.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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"[97] 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • Comment As Smallbones notes, knife-twisting aside, he is now de-facto banned. Formalizing a ban does have its purposes, but he cannot use his talk page anymore and any unblock will not be accepted without community or ArbCom approval, so there is not much use for a formal ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have any of his edits been anything but constructive? If the only problem with his edits is that he is making them while blocked, then the revert exemption is not of any interest at the moment. Unless he continues socking and those socks do things that are not simply constructive editing, there is no basis for formalizing a ban.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's hard to say, and I personally am not going to review these edits. But they tend to be insertions of images which I must presume he has uploaded to commons, and given that this has been one focus of the problems with him, I wouldn't object to reversion of such edits without consideration. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are no "problems with him" that would suggest media he uploads to Commons or adds from Commons would be generally problematic. Matters where there have been "problems" are singular incidents where the issue was a subject of some controversy and required significant discussion. Indeed, some of those matters reflect a cultural divide between Commons and the English Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't decide I really dislike Russavia's behavior since Arbcom accepted his unblock request a year ago. I don't want to him him back until that changes. But, he is a prolific content contributor and we can all agree he has the same goals as the goals of this project. I opposed an unblock request, but I do not want to rule out a return to constructive editing completely if he should decide that his previous disruption isn't worth it.--v/r - TP 18:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now up to sock 5 or 6

    I propose all edits made by Russavia`s socks are nuked, allowing his edits to stand will only encourage him to continue socking.

    Really? Cos he just created yet another sock. Either he is banned from editing or he is not, which is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Mendaliv on this, in short.
    He's not banned, he is blocked (at the time of writing). The edits he is making are of a high quality, not controversial and most importantly, do not continue the pattern of misbehaviour shown by his main account. What is more, it has been indicated to Russavia that he is not infinitely blocked (as noted by the closing administrator, above) let alone banned.
    I have restored the edits you and SuperMarioMan have reverted with a suitable edit summary, noting they were initially made by a blocked user. It seems unnecessarily destructive to remove good edits in the hope it will persuade Russavia not to sockpuppet and it seems a silly waste of your time running around reverting after him. Nick (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh I'm fine with reverting contribs that are not clearly positive without having to argue about it. Basically the banned status means you don't really have to discuss it. But if someone else wants to keep the material, or the revert would be to a clearly worse version... then why would you revert? Lowering the quality of Wikipedia is a bad idea. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
      • Nick is absolutely correct: Russavia has not been formally banned. Thus, the whole automatic revert provision doesn't even apply anyway. That said, I still think it's probably fine to undo any edits by Russavia socks that are not clearly positive without requiring much more of an explanation than that it was by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. But even those that aren't clearly positive (i.e., also aren't clearly negative), should another editor want to take responsibility for those edits, I see no problem with such an editor restoring the edits by Russavia (or those of anyone else for that matter). Cf. WP:PROXYING. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Any editor who believes one of the deleted edits is helpful can revert the deletion, thus taking on all the responsibility for that edit to themselves. That Russavia's not formally banned is totally irrelevant - this is simply another sanction additional to the indef block, that all edits can be reverted on sight. BMK (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I question whether this specific sanction makes the situation at all functionally different from a full-blown siteban. If not, I think there should be a clear proposal calling for one. If we're gonna call ducks ducks, we shouldn't call the birdshot we use to bag 'em "feather rufflers". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose, this is what is wrong with Wikipedia, back stabbing, back biting and moreso, Grudges..if we stop allowing users from adding information to wikipedia, then it would be better idea to shut down the wiki completely..Yes he is socking, yes i'm not happy with the idea but I have always supported editors that were ruthlessly banned by the wikipedia "cabal"..big deal he pissed Jimbo off, so stop brown nosing your way to the top, as it has been happening for years now... the Enwiki has become a disgrace over the years and people like the OP is not helping, stop crying and grow up, he should have been unblocked in the first place, he does MORE good to WIKIMEDIA than most of the 'supporters' combined on this noticeboard..it is true what they say, Wikipedia creates vandals, they turn good editors INTO vandals...if we started removing stuff added by BANNED editors just because they are BANNED and not because their edits were useful, we would be left with NOTHING.--Stemoc (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [98], 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 [99], 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[100][101][102] and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May [103][104][105], and again on 30/31 May [106][107][108][109], always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June [110], 10 June [111] and 12 June [112]. 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 [113][114][115].

    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 [116][117], after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here [118]. 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 [119].

    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)[reply]

    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, ([120]) 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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.[121][122][123] 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) [reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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. VanIsaacWScont 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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) [reply]

    Could response / non-response in previous ANI be viewed in this manner? Whatever I suggest that this stays open, unclosed, unarchived until Kwami responds here. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Atlantictire and In ictu oculi above, it's demoralizing when admins do nothing in the face of consistent complaints from multiple editors. Not even a slap on the wrist after causing distress in so many people? -Zanhe (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, unfortunately AN/I is rotten with POV pushers sticking up for each other, and that really muddies things. Big difference: the Friends of POV pushers are generally cool as cucumbers . These are people clearly at their wit's end. This is a highly arcane content dispute, so I think people are afraid of it. But there's got to be someone here who thinks they're smart enough to get to the bottom of it. GUYS?--Atlantictire (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Atlantictire "Yeah, unfortunately AN/I is rotten with POV pushers sticking up for each other" - I beg your pardon?? Which editors are you referring to? I for one am insulted to be tarred by this broad brush comment, and from a stand off observer point I can't see it applying to any of the above either. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • My involvement in language articles is minimal to nil, but as someone who's interacted with Kwami elsewhere, I think long-term sanctions for tendentiousness and edit-warring (not just whatever the next-level temporary block is) are long overdue. And I agree that this should not be allowed to be archived without a conclusion, regardless of whether Kwami's spent a few days inactive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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.[124] 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: [125]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    (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)[reply]
    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[126], which, informally, can be expressed as "No way." John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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.[127] 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.[128]. 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.[129] On a procedural front, BDB editors are complaining about me on the talk pages of an admin[130], 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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.[131][132][133] 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is the place for administrative review. Please stop forum-shopping. John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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[134]. 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Regards, Johnuniq, Coretheapple, G S Palmer. Your comments are acknowledged and prior answers herein should suffice. I trust that the depth, quality, and integrity of all comments herein will be reviewed and that requested guidance about our content compliance concerns will be provided. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[135] (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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
    • 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[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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.[137] 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)[reply]
    Thank you, Nagle. I will review these concerns and reply on my user talkpage promptly. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I have contributed to the review by replying here. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • Aside from being a nonstarter at the present time for the reasons previously stated, this suggestion contains some rather strange one-sided language: "Editors in the topic area will not use personal attacks and ad hominem remarks to discredit BDB employees." What about providing a defense to non-paid editors? OK to discredit us, I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Not sure which question the BDB team is talking about; they've posted so much. I've posted an edit request on Talk:Banc de Binary to make the minor change to the corporate identity info of their companies which the BDB team has been repeatedly complaining about. That should satisfy their one legit complaint. This probably would have been done weeks ago if we all hadn't been so busy dealing with other BDB-generated problems.
    Meanwhile, here's where we are:
    If we release full protection on Banc de Binary without preventing edits by the BDB team, there will probably be trouble. There seems to be consensus that something should be done to keep the BDB team from causing problems. Everyone has had their say on this. It's time for a decision. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to Nagle'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)

    THAT is the question which I pose to you. Where do you draw the line between an encyclopedic article and an activism article? HistorianOfRecentTimes (talk · contribs) was treating the article as both his own, and as an activism piece. You are doing the same: trying to "punish" us for some mistake we made in the past because we did something that 100 other companies (if not more) did as well. Let's separate between the various concepts here.

    • Banc De Binary is fully protected ( as a result of an edit war between a non-BDB-staff pro BDB sockpuppet [citation needed] and HistorianOfRecentTimes (talk · contribs) ).
    • Talk:Banc de Binary is semi-protected due to IP vandalism which also appears to be anti-BDB.
    • Editing restrictions were indeed levied against me. For more information and links to the relevant discussions, please see User:BDBJack.
    • If you think that lifting the editing restrictions is going to make a mess, then don't do it. I am personally in support of it staying and a neutral, uninvolved administrator should review edit request for validity, NPOV, and consensus. Right now, since the page was protected, I really do feel that this (could) be potentially happening.

    Now stop making such a fuss over the fact that we're not blocked. I suggest making some positive changes to the article. However, you are free not to. However, I do not believe that anyone's interests are met by this 4,000px high discussion about the fact that we are or aren't allowed to contribute.

    One last thing @BDBIsrael: It seems to me that responding to every single line or comment from every editor who does not agree with us is not generating the good-will we are looking for. I would suggest instead letting some comments slide, especially the ones that do not deal with contributing to the article. (Like this one). Let the community discuss until they are content that they have discussed, and when someone turns to you for comment, respond simply. Remember our motto: Simplicity Pays (if you want to add that to the page's infobox, you can source our website's logo.)

    I've said my piece, spoken my 2 cents, and made my position known. Good luck, and don't be evil. BDBJack (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, I do not. Their method is to use an avalanche of mainly tendentious edits to erode the will of volunteer editors. For their own selfish ends, this diverts great quantities of volunteer time. It also discourages volunteer editors from participating. I got fed up dealing with them last year and took a break for about 5 months. Driving away the volunteers = destroying the encyclopedia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While they're not powerful enough to "destroy the encyclopedia", they do seem to "use an avalanche of mainly tendentious edits to erode the will of volunteer editors." As I've said before, I suggest, as a minimum, a 30 day block for disruptive editing. John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • I would like others to take a look, but viewing stuff like this [138] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Dennis Brown Here's another one from today: [139] User changes release date from February 4 to February 14. Although unsourced in article, the article says that the album was slated to be released on the 4th. iTunes shows a February 4th release date, as does Google Play, AllMusic and the artist's Twitter feed. I haven't been able to confirm the record label yet, but I've seen Select-O-Hits pop up a few times, including here. I'm out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a final warning. He always edits from phone, so not sure how well he is getting the notices, but that isn't our fault. It is disruptive at this point, particularly since he will not engage in discussion at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the deleted article and, based on that, I don't really foresee any constructive editing any time soon. Either WP:CIR or perhaps even WP:NOTHERE may apply. I would be inclined to support a block as well. Go Phightins! 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I see MosesM1017 has been blocked for 48 hours, with the last edit being this on Dennis' user page. This looks like somebody who is having a technical problem communicating and working within policies, and I'm prepared to AGF that this was simply an attempt to try and communicate with Dennis that just didn't work. Editing on a mobile, especially where there's a requirement to correctly and accurately cite sources, is actually quite difficult. Still, disruptive is disruptive - it's just regrettable in this instance. I predict he will either a) slink off and never be heard of again, b) come back, carry on as before and get indeffed or c) sock. Time will tell which happens. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin undeleted an article

    Handled. Article has been re-deleted, situation with admin seems to be "on the mend", this discussion no longer is necessary. Thanks. Go Phightins! 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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).[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    Among his infrequent uses of the tools, this also comes up: [140]. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The first step would be to ask the editor who closed the AFD. Peter James (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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

    The RFC isn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The RFC has been deleted because it wasn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct mentions deletion after 48 hours, but this appears to have been deleted after only 32 - is there another guideline that allows earlier deletion such as this? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that even if there is an overwhelming consensus to remove the tools, only ArbCom can desysop an admin who is unwilling to give up the tools willingly. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorta true -- but the community can ban any user, even an admin, which would have the immediate effect of a desysop. Such an act, of course, would engender some controversy, and I mention it only as a hypothetical act. RfC/Us, of course, are not sufficient for such a community action, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • The only difference was adding a header for References.[141] 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • 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)[reply]
            • 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)[reply]
              • 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)[reply]
                • 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)[reply]

    I see that AntonioMartin has kept a slow burning edit war on The Beatles alive by continually adding them to Category:English boy bands. ([142], [143], [144], [145], [146]) 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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Sounds good to me! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Yeah. Upon reflection, I'm good with one more chance given the surrounding circumstances. Antonio has been put on very clear notice that out-of-process deletions/restorations—especially where he or his father is the article creator, or there's such poor documentation as to create the appearance of impropriety (e.g., the WP:SELDEL situation mentioned above)—will likely result in a petition to ArbCom to desysop him. While the responsibility for Antonio's actions falls on his own shoulders, his adminship dates back to a bygone era (indeed, it seems to predate the existence of the 'crat system). Some accommodation is not unreasonable, but it should be well understood by now that there shouldn't be any more. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the user User:LardoBalsamico

    My original and second request got arcihived, that's why I am copying this from the archives.

    Repost of original thread

    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. 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. It didn't get ant reply so it got "backlogged." Then I made my case to the dispute resolution board. First, it was denied because my case was already on the NPOV board but then 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 which is there for 2 months. (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 this talk page and this one. 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 my talk page.

    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 at this, 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 this edit, 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 [147] diffrent 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 here, 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's my notification.Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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 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. 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)[reply]

    Hopefully his time it will work. Thanks for taking the time to read my request.Rivaner (talk) 10:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The mentioned user is now violating the WP:LIVE policy as well. I made my case to the biographies of the living persons noticeboard. As it is always the case my edits are reverted by calling them vandalism and another warning is posted on my talk page. I won't be reverting his edits as I stated above. I don't want another edit-war with this user.

    Now, the user in clear violation of another rule. First, NPOV, then personal attacks and now violation of WP:LIVE. As you can see above he never joins the discussions as well. Please, help me with this situation. Rivaner (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I haven't looked into it in detail, but it seems like the user in question has some slight ownership problems - and they've been editing the article since 2011, and haven't allowed anyone else to do much. (By the way, if you want to keep this thread from getting archived, just post a new comment on it every few days.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As suggested, I've changed all the links to diffs.Rivaner (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Today, I double-checked my actions and changed all the direct links that I can to diffs. Some of them are still direct links but there's no way to change those to diffs as they show clear proves of all the actions related to my request here. Thanks for the suggestion, hope it is readable now.Rivaner (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User LardoBalsamico is continuing his personal attacks and also breaking another wikipedia policy (he was warned about this before). You can see this here.Rivaner (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User LardoBalsamico, again, breaking another wikipedia policy. In the 2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article, there is a part of basketball investigation. All the people involved are cleared of all charges but it is there in the article. He's adding the phone conversations. The courts didn't find these as evidince hence the clearing of all charges. The user is doing this despite my warnings and as you can see from his talk page he, again, doesn't even try to reach a consensus.Rivaner (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Corruption in Haryana article

    I'd welcome a second opinion on the recently-created Corruption in Haryana article - not only does it apparently violate WP:BLP policy by making serious allegations against living individuals which are not supported by the sources cited, but the entire thing seems to be a classic violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX, and synthesis at that. I was tempted to tag it for speedy deletion, but as far as I can tell it doesn't exactly fit any of the criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non adminstrive observation) Likely does violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX.. Might quickly Tag it with a PROD and see if this needs a AFD. LorChat 02:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that User:Rajsector3, the originator of the Corruption in Haryana article has made a habit of creating soapbox 'articles' - see Misuse of women laws in India for another one, and note the list of deleted articles on his talk page. I am also in conversation with him at Talk:Bhupinder Singh Hooda over his use of the talk page as a soapbox, and regarding his apparent inability to understand WP:BLP policy. While I think that some leeway might be allowed for the fact that English clearly isn't Rajsector3's first language, I have to ask whether he should be permitted to edit further if he is going to continue in this manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well a topic ban is a option...But thats a bit more harsh than not. LorChat 03:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump: I haven't had time to look deeper, but when I was reading the Misuse article, I couldn't help but think that the last sentence of the lede looked like something ToI editors would come up with, and lo and behold it is a copy of the ToI source. There maybe more, so perhaps you'd like to take a look? —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup - assuming you mean the last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede. Copy-pasted from the source cited, with minor changes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And then there is the issue of Rajsector3's poor grasp of the English language. Take a look at University Grants Commission (India)#Failure in implementing its guidelines verbatim - an article section he has just added. Almost incomprehensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, Rajsector3 has chosen to create an article entitled Honour killing in India by simply copy-pasting the lede and 'India' sections of our Honour killing article - without attribution. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if I can find any significant edits by Rajsector3 that are simultaneously policy-compliant and written in comprehensible English. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm referring to is different (I removed it and warned a different editor for that!), but the problem appears to run deeper than I had initially assumed! —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as I said. A topic ban or block might solve the problem. other than that its likely in my view a Competence Issue LorChat 05:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir, I apologise on above issues and for future, I will take care and leaving me with above solutions will be discouraging me and more harsh, I will take care as suggested by you (all). With thanks in anticipation.Rajsector3 (talk) 06:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have redirected it to Men's rights movement in India, per WP:TNT: this is garbage, top to bottom -- including the title and lede ("Misuse of women laws in India is rapidly increasing and there is no check to stop this misuse"? Really?) -- and needs a rewrite before it it even APPROACHES acceptable. --Calton | Talk 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. A template clearly created to push a POV. Another problematic article created by Rajsector3 is Divorce in India, which consists largely of material copy-pasted (without attribution) from our Divorce article - plus poorly-written moralising additions such as this:
    "Divorce rate in India is remarkably increasing are there is debate in Indian Society that who is responsible for the same, e.g. prevailing law in India, Man or woman, modernization and loosing roots from the old customs, tradition etc. Its main effect is that a divorcee person has to reel in the pain and it has increased the apathetic situation of woman in the Indian society. Moreover, it gives impetus the thoughts of immorality, irrespective of their sex. Many times women are blamed for the breakdown and it results in divorce."
    Quite simply, content like this doesn't belong in any encyclopaedia worthy of the name. And I have to say that I'm entirely unconvinced by Rajsector3's statement above. Not least because it displays yet again that (contrary to a claim on his user page) his grasp of the English language is questionable to say the least. I suspect that this is at the root of most of Rajsector3's problems, and is probably an indication that he would be making better use of his abilities if he were to contribute instead to a Wikipedia in a language with which he is more familiar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose indef block unless conditions are met

    The user has indeed made a habit of creating soapbox articles, many of which have been prodded, others speedied, compare his talkpage. He (it seems safe to assume the user is male) seems unreceptive to being told about WP:BLP, per Andy above, and about WP:SOAPBOX, despite his promise above that he will "take care as suggested by you all". After that undertaking, he has spammed a protest against the redirection of Misuse of women laws in India to three five user talk pages plus article talk, arguing that the redirection was "harsh". Which it wasn't. Redirection was the only remaining recourse, as Kinu's prompt and appropriate PROD had been removed by RomanSpa who called the subject "notable", a statement that seems unfortunately to have encouraged Rajsector3 greatly and unrealistically about the merits of his article.

    This is not promising. The user is creating a lot of work for Wiki editors by creating so many non-viable articles and templates, that often have to go through fairly laborious processes like templates for discussion. (And the redirect Misuse of women laws in India should really go to redirects for discussion, since the very phrase is soapboxy, but life's too short for all that.) I agree with Calton that it's very difficult to find any useful edits in the contributions.

    Proposal: I propose that Rajsector3 be indefinitely blocked per Competence is required and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, unless he undertakes to henceforth take all his article creation through articles for creation and to stop creating templates altogether. (There isn't a "templates for creation" option.) Rajsector3, please click on the articles for creation link and read about article creation requests. Could you commit to always taking your future article ideas through that process? If not, I'm afraid I propose blocking you, not because I think you're trying to cause trouble — not at all — but because your article and template creation is using up too much of our most precious resource, which is the time and energy of our volunteers. Bishonen | talk 10:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Comment. I suppose I'd better make some sort of a comment here, since I'm peripherally involved. I can't really speak for the various other articles that Rajsector3 has created, though from his contributions page it's clear that there have been a great many. My involvement in this arises from the Misuse of women laws in India article, where I did object to the PROD. My reason for this at the time was expressed on the article's talk page: briefly, the subject did strike me as, on balance, probably notable - there do seem to be cases where Indian laws designed for the protection of women seem to be being used excessively. I don't have any particular interest in this article - I'm in England - but there have been occasional mentions of this problem in the English media, and I didn't find it too hard to google some reasonable references. For these reasons I felt that the article was probably worth keeping. That said, the article as it stood was not well-written and contained a high proportion of "soapboxing", and I entirely understand other editors' concerns on this. I hope, though, that we don't end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
    I suspect that Rajsector3 has been mentioning me largely because I was taking a more conciliatory approach to one of his articles that other editors. I don't have any connection with him apart from this, and have already added notes to the appropriate talk pages explaining this where I've noticed he's mentioned my name in connection with this article. What does strike me, after a brief scan of his contributions, is that he's only been on Wikipedia for the past three months or so, and is clearly still learning how we work. I hope that this will be taken into consideration when discussing future actions. Perhaps a useful enhancement to Bishonen's suggestion above would be if Rajsector3 agreed to work through a suitable training course, perhaps Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure or WP:TUTORIAL, and perhaps also considered seeking WP:ADOPTION. Together with a commitment to refrain from creating articles except through the AfC process for (say) the next year this should lead to a general improvement in this editor's performance. I'd be interested to hear other people's comments. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...briefly, the subject did strike me as, on balance, probably notable - there do seem to be cases where Indian laws designed for the protection of women seem to be being used excessively... I think you need to become acquainted with the topic of Begging the question, here. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the great recommendation. RomanSpa (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Rajsector3 (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. He has made an unblock request, saying he is willing to cooperate, but I'm not sure he has really understood what the problem is about his editing, and frankly, I see a big competence issue here (compounded of course by the language issue), so I'm not sure I see much of a prospect of this becoming a constructive editor, even under the kinds of conditions Bishonen outlined. Is there someone who would be willing to invest their time tutoring/adopting this editor? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) I can certainly see your point about the tendentious editing, Fut Perf, but RS3 complains in his unblock request of me (we..?) first asking for an undertaking and then blocking before he could respond. He has a point, too, and I think it would be better to let him respond here and, as I proposed, not block him if he undertakes to go through AFC and to stop creating templates. Article and template creation is what he mostly does, and is where the chief problem lies. I've put the unblock on hold. What do you say, are you OK with an unblock for the purpose of responding here? I don't like the appearance of messing him about (=asking him to respond and then not allowing him to.) Bishonen | talk 14:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    (edit conflict)I've no desire for this to become a witch-hunt. However, based on some of the comments above, on what I found on Rajsector3's talk-page and on my own experience of pages created by this editor, I've requested a Contributor copyright investigation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good job, Justlettersand numbers. Meanwhile, Fut Perf has agreed to an unblock for responding here. I certainly agree with him about the tendentious editing, but not so much about the potential usefulness of tutoring or adoption. Experience has made me cynical about those, and I wouldn't encourage anybody to invest perfectly good time in them in this case. The AFC process could hopefully deal with the problem a little more briskly, and give the user some tough love. that might actually help. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Thanks

    I thank you for your worthy consideration, especially to user Bishonen and your tough love you gave me, 'I give undertaking that I will create Articles through AFC (Article for Creation) and if possible please delimit the time for six month or one year' and will follow your guidelines as you will suggest time to time and as has been suggested by you earlier. Profound thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Good, thank you for responding, Rajsector3. Let me put it quite specifically, then: will you undertake to create articles only through Articles for creation, and not to create any other types of pages at all (such as for example templates) for the space of one year? You only need to answer yes or no here (unless of course you wish to give reasons for your reply). Bishonen | talk 06:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Yes, I agree on above terms & conditions, thanks.Rajsector3 (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a sock of Okip: Please block me

    Self-admitted sock and related accounts have been blocked. De728631 (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

    Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive242#Okip_socking

    Please block me, and the other four or five accounts I added the sockpuppet template too just now.

    Before I went out (this time), I said my fuck you to User:Jclemens

    Wholesomegood (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked Wholesomegood. I'll leave it to someone else to block the other socks if they truly are socks.--v/r - TP 06:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything which is presently fresh for checkuser I've blocked. NativeForeigner Talk 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Isis Lai and Guangdong Xinyi Middle School

    Isis Lai (talk · contribs) created Guangdong Xinyi Middle School, which got nominated for deletion. The discussion attracted a lot of editors to work on and improve the article, doing enough that it became an obvious keep. The problem is Isis Lai keeps returning and copying and pasting in earlier versions, i.e. the versions before the many fixes, without explanation in edit summaries or elsewhere, having also uploaded proble copy-vio images for the article. Not vandalism but they clearly don't have a clue and are unable to work collaboratively.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    From what I can see, it doesn't look like Isis Lai has ever engaged in discussion on any level (even the usual edit summary jabs that article owners tend to use when they revert). Is it possible that this editor doesn't even speak English and is just restoring content prepared by someone else? Might be a WP:CIR issue (or perhaps a weaker form of the same: "Communication is Required"). Anyway, currently at 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. Issued a 3RR warning. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: KennyYudashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This editor created a userspace draft at 15:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) using images such as File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg. Why is this significant? File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg was only uploaded at 07:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)—nearly a week later—by Isis Lai. No way on earth that's a coincidence. Not saying it's socking: could just be coworkers. But there's something going on. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Isis Lai just made another partial revert, her sixth in the last 24 hours, immediately after being warned for 3RR. Someone want to block? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 24 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And now a userspace draft/fork of the page (essentially a copy-paste fork of Isis Lai's preferred version of the article) that got approved at AfC was pushed to (of all places) Isis Lai/sandbox. Yes that's in articlespace. Currently tagged for A10. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The community endorses an indefinite block of Neuraxis for posting indimidating comments and off-wiki libel. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

    In the course of a ban discussion. [148] [149] IMO a pretty blatant attempt at legal intimidation of Doc James in the course of the discussion; note that legal threats against Doc James are a real thing that happens, not something idle. The block is indefinite but is not intended as infinite. Opinions? - David Gerard (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Intimidation? Absolutely, and it should result in a block because of the added harassment by referring to off-wiki matters of Doc's profession. Bright-line legal threat in the sense of WP:NLT? I'm not quite so sure. A legal threat, in my view, is a threat to institute legal proceedings. While the second diff comes close to threatening an action for defamation, the worst part of the first is the suggestion that Neuraxis has been engaged in off-wiki discussions with others about whether Doc could be subject to disciplinary action: the only "action" Neuraxis could take to cause this would be to make a complaint against Doc to a licensing board or similar, and any investigation or action that proceeded from that would be independent of Neuraxis. That's not a lawsuit. But I do think it's pretty severe harassment and indicates that Neuraxis is willing to engage in further harassment. What does this mean? I don't think a mere retraction of any "legal threat" by Neuraxis should be sufficient for an unblock to be granted. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantically, Neuraxis isn't the one bringing a legal threat to the table. Bringing off wiki matters into play onto wiki is a blatant attempt at intimidation and harassment. What is off wiki should stay off wiki. Good block Blackmane (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement "Those comments could easily be construed as slander/libel and I'm going to give you the chance to retract them, in good faith" definitely qualifies as a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if it's a bright-line legal threat, but Neuraxis' comments were definitely intended to be inappropriate intimidation and mudslinging, dragging in external disputes in an attempt to gain leverage. Neuraxis' suggestion that another editor – a physician whose Wikipedia account is publicly tied to his real-life identity – is engaged in "professional misconduct" is at least as egregious an attack as the one that Neuraxis complains could be "slander/libel". Good block, and if not permanent should probably be lengthy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block - The essential point behind WP:NLT is that an editor must not come anywhere near attempting to use real-life legal threats or intimidation to chill on-Wiki discussion. The diffs clearly show Neuraxis was attempting to do exactly that. Zad68 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse While not a direct threat, it is obvious that the intent was to chill discussion using intimidation that touched on "legal", enough so to warrant the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block. While I don't think we have a clearly defined policy like NLT regarding intimidation, we should. Threats which can impact an editor's real life and career should not be allowed. What happens at Wikipedia should stay at Wikipedia, and off-Wikipedia communications, plans, and schemings should never be allowed. Such threats can effectively chill a discussion and silence an opponent and are totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. This should be a safe place. Neuraxis, unlike Doc James, is an anonymous chiropractor who could suffer no harm in real life because of occurrences here, and yet he dared to threaten Doc James. That's beyond the pale. We can't allow it, and we really should have a policy against WP:Intimidation written up, which can be invoked instead of NLT, for cases like this. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
    • It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.
    These both clearly apply to any action which would tend to create a chilling effect on editing, so while intimidation does not have its own specific policy, the rationale given for disallowing legal threats should de facto apply to it as well - and my observation is that doing so is standard practice. BMK (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Some editors try to get off the hook by trying to narrow it to making an actual, tangible threat to sue. Wikipedia's definition is broader than that, as you've noted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor socking, edit-warring to add himself to articles

    Articles: Dhenkanal district, Dhenkanal, India, List of people from Odisha, CA Raja Narayan Tripathy

    Discussion here. Note the IP has changed over the last few days. Can an admin take a look? Semi-prot or a rangeblock may be needed if it is decided the edits are disruptive. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the busy 117.197.253.214 for a week. The range is too big to block, so I semi'd those articles, except CA Raja Narayan Tripathy, which has been prodded, so I didn't bother protecting that one. I was tempted to speedy it, but "really, really obvious delete as non-notable" ain't a speedy criterion, I suppose. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Thanks. I was tempted to speedy it too but credible claims have been made (I suppose). --NeilN talk to me 20:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There were two more articles, Bhuban and Kamakshyanagar, that were linked to the bio and I unlinked them. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just blocked another blatant IPsock, 117.201.146.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), for reintroducing that information. --Kinu t/c 05:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also fairly certain that a couple of new users who have shown up to contest the deletion at Talk:CA Raja Narayan Tripathy are SPA socks. Anyone want to take a whack at CU, or does this smell like a WP:DUCK situation? --Kinu t/c 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I've gone ahead and blocked the socks. I see the article is tagged as A7, so it'll be put out of its misery soon enough, I suppose. It probably could even be deleted as a G11, seeing as how the sum of everything here makes this look like nothing more than egregious self-promotion. --Kinu t/c 05:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: bobrayner, Sairp

    Given that this little spat hasn't actually produced anything that requires administrator attention, perhaps it should be closed so that all (especially Ubikwit, with his SPI "that will be filed tomorrow" - i.e. probably won't be) can calm the fuck down. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There are a couple of editors being extremely tendentious at the Rs/N thread on Russia Today Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Russia_Today. In particular, this edit [150] and the series of edits by a new editor that the editor chose to delete after I questioned their motivations. I suspect that this editor may be a sock in light of the fact that they are a new account with an apparently well-developed knowledge of some Wikipedia practices.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You've posted two diffs by two editors. How does this become tendentious, much less "extremely"? Are you suggesting that Sairp is the sock of Bobrayner? Be careful of making WP:ASPERSIONS. – S. Rich (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ubikwit, it might be helpful if you said why you think my edits are tendentious, but in the meantime, I think a boomerang may be inbound.
    Ubikwit has been making up some pretty bizarre claims about how there's a Consensus to use a particular source and, alas, there are many rhetorical tricks used to wave off the many people who disagree with Ubikwit's Consensus - usually that opponents are biased and have some kind of anti-Russian agenda, and their comments are just arbitrary opinions. I'm quite surprised to learn that my own comments are invalid due to Ubikwit declaring that I have a POV on the Russian annexation of Crimea, because I have tried very hard to avoid that topic on en.wikipedia (I have enough work on my hands trying to deal with other controversies). Other editors have pleaded with Ubikwit to rein in this tendentious editing:
    And so on. bobrayner (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the RSN thread, and it looks like consensus is going against Ubikwit. The two diffs presented in the opening post are clearly unrelated to one another (timestamps about 5 hours apart), and are both examples of editors who initially replied negatively to Ubikwit, and then actually took back what they said. I don't see any reason to take admin action against people who have already retracted what they are accused of doing. I agree with bobrayner that Ubikwit has also spoken harshly in the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) First, Ubikwit, the word "tendentious" does not mean what you think it means. It does not mean "tenacious, but in a bad way". Second, you're accusing an established editor of socking. That's completely uncalled for and worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG. Third, this is par for the course for Ubikwit, who seems to suffer from a chronic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some kind of permanent WP:BATTLEGROUND death match mode, where anyone who disagrees with them is immediately attacked, dragged to drama boards (where Ubikwit's attacks are routinely dismissed), and other kinds of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. It's exactly this behavior which has landed him in an going ArbCom case (if they ever actually finish it) and it does not seems to have chilled his hard-to-deal with behavior in the least bit. Boomerang it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)You can't be serious, can you? In case you need reminding, here was your first contribution to the thread, in full.

    I agree with most editors above: We should avoid citing RT, and there is clearly no consensus to treat it as a reliable source. In the past, I've noticed that some editors want to cite RT because it diverges from what mainstream sources say on certain controversial topics, but that's exactly why we shouldn't cite it. We have enough NPOV trouble already; we don't need crap like this. bobrayner (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

    Aside from the fact that you "lied" about the "most editors above" point, you were obviously engaged in soapboxing, and in a manner aimed at denigrating my good-faith and valid comments because you were trying to facilitate you POV regarding the annexation of Crimea, apparently. How do you justify your egregiously uncivil and deceptive conduct?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Will you please stop making wild and completely untrue accusations directed at other editors? It's beyond tiresome at this point. Bob didn't "lie" about anything. Nor did he "soapbox" - he made a good faith comment which addressed the issue. You're raving and annoying the living hell out of people. You're impossible to talk to. Everything with you is a "with me or against me!" WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and attitude. You waste a tremendous amount of other people's time who are forced to respond to your nonsense accusations or who get fooled into trying to reason with you. Frankly, you really have no business participating in a collaborative project, until you grow up a bit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have accidentally removed a link when quoting my comment. The link which explicitly said that RT was propaganda. Why? bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish: Please specify precisely what you are referring to regarding "spoken harshly"?
    @Bobrayner: It was you that introduced this source with the comment, "we don't need this kind of crap". So if your beef isn't with the representation of the annexation of Crimea, then what exactly were you commenting about in that thread?
    From where I stand, it appears that you were you just being disruptive, joiing a couple of other POV pushers attempting to issue a blanket dismissal of RT as a reliable source, which is beyond the pale as far as WP:RS and WP:NPOV are concerned.
    "If you claim that I "accidentally" removed one of your posts, then it was obviusly an accident, right? So why do you ask, "Why"?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile Ubikwit keeps on repeating the same old bullshit about me having some POV on Crimea (apparently POV means bias, and bias means that yet another person disagreeing with Ubikwit can be set aside). I have tried to avoid Crimea and I have no strong feelings on that particular issue. Does any other editor find it difficult to understand that when I point out problems with a source, it's because I think there are problems with the source? No ulterior motive required. Not, of course, that Crimea is relevant to a question of whether or not RT meets our criteria for reliable source. I am quite used to such spurious accusations; I try to improve a lot of other controversial topics, and it goes with the territory. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard should be for assessing whether or not a source is reliable, not for inventing a "consensus" out of thin air and then making up crap about anybody who points out problems with the source. bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    [151], [152]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of socking are serious - if Ubikwit does not have the strength of character to file an SPI on those whom he accuses here, then WP:BOOMERANG would be quite in order. I would note that I cited Wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning the use of RT in that referenced discussion, and that Ubikwit seems a tad unwilling to accept what many experienced editors have stated in that discussion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)@Bobrayner: Your crude language is a reflection of nothing but your crudeness.
    You posted the article about RT on Crimea, editorial blah blah blah, not me! What was your point? Or were you just being pointy?
    Morevover, you accused me of removing a link you posted above, but I did a little checking and don't see what you are talking about. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to grace us with a diff?
    @Volunteer Marek: Need I dig out the bullshit you posted on a previous thread related to the same topic? I've already supplied it to Arbcom, so I might as well, eh Mr. "full of shit" [153]. Here is the earlier thread Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_170#Is_Voice_of_Russia_article_reliable_for_quotations_attributed_to_PM.3F. It's barely a month old, VM.
    I haven't had the time to file an SPI, but maybe I will tomorrow.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tryptofish:You have posted a couple of diffs accusing me of misconduct, but those diffs clearly state the relevant policies being violated in the discussion by the editors to whom I was responding. This is about an attempt by several ideologically motivated editors to have a blanket prohibition on the use of a source of the stature of RT issued on the RS/N board. Their conduct, severally and in combination, is tendentious and against core policies, and I brought the issue here because the situation was starting to get out of hand there with newcomers like User:bobrayner chiming in out of nowhere with diatribes about "crap" from RT on Crimea, etc., in a strictly diversionary and disruptive manner.
    I should note that one of the disruptive editors (the SPI condidate, User:Sairp) chose to delete all of their comments, which included a number of I didn't hear that edits.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:59.41.252.228

    Starting from April 30, this user has persisted on editing the pages Alempijević, Ćesarević, and Dokmanović to fit the user's views on Wikipedia policies and norms. The pages are Serbian surnames, and were formerly redirects until the user changed them to the current state. Discussions attempting to inform the user of the guidelines have gone nowhere, with the user threatening to change all relevant pages on Wikipedia to fit his own interpretation.

    The user began to edit the pages on April 30, with the edits seen [154], [155], and [156] without any edit summaries. I've reverted the changes and left two vandalism template warnings on the user's talk page. The same changes to the pages were made on May 31 ([157], [158], [159]) all with the same edit summary of accusing me of vandalism and pointing out that there are more people with the same surname. I reverted all the edits on the same day, also leaving message on the user's talk page informing the user that the type of page the user is attempting to create (apparently a DAB page) was valid only if there were multiple entries on Wikipedia with the same surname, giving examples from other Serbian-surname redirects for both types of pages.

    On June 3, the user reverted my edits again, but this time leaving an edit summary and a on my talk page both accusing me of vandalizing, as well as interpreting Redirects from surnames to be optional by arguing that Category:Redirects from surnames's word choice of 'may' in 'A redirect from a surname may be used.' allowed redirects to be changed into the pages as he's created - a page that was neither a redirect or a dab. I've [160] on two points, to stop accusing me of vandalism and only change the changes from a redirect only if there are multiple entries. Despite this fact, the user have left a [161] on June 19 (the time of this posting) with the re-emphasis on 'may' and stating that the user will change all the redirects to his version of the surname page.

    If this is the wrong page to post this, please correct me. KJ «Click Here» 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Friends don't let friends edit whilst high

    BROKEN
    Trouts all round. Just remember to test all scripts on a small scale (50 odd pages) before letting it loose. --Mdann52talk to me! 10:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Recently a script was written as part of VADA that allowe redirects to be taggged for what was thought to be G6.

    However, Special:Contributions/Sfan00_IMG shows that I had G6 confused with F6... Result at least 500 mistags with the tool assisted editing.  :(

    So some questions...

    1. Hsve all the problem edits been contained?
    2. Does User:Sfan00_IMG need blocking for lacking competence? (i.e I didn't notice this issue sooner.)

    Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So this is why we have Twinkle If you could give me the diffs i could fix it for you @Sfan00 IMG:. Its a easy but time consuming fix. and the deleting admin will likely go over it one more time and delete it anyway for F6. don't worry about it. LorChat 00:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean G6. The confusion was why Stefan2 acted promptly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me? are you talking about another editor or yourself? LorChat 00:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See the discussion here: User talk:Sfan00 IMG#File:"Dr Laurence Kirwan.jpg".jpg. Some 400-500 file redirects were incorrectly tagged by Sfan00 IMG for deletion as having no fair use rationale. I have since reverted most of those, so Sfan00 IMG should have got hundreds of mw:Echo notifications. Since nothing dangerous happened, the Echo overflow is in my opinion enough punishment. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have violated WP:3RR In Theroy that would be a little bit uncivil wouldn't it? There is other methods and i think you gone a little harsh.@Stefan2: ? LorChat 00:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The problem was that Sfan00 IMG added some incorrect tags to a lot of files. When this was pointed out to him, both he and I started reverting his mistakes. All was already solved before he posted the section at ANI, and no admin action is needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely right, NO action is needed, nothing damaged. He didn't really have to bring it here, but I guess he was heading off anyone else doing the same, confused over the actions. We all make mistakes, and should have a sense of humor about it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What i'm wondering is what This button does. LorChat 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:183.219.58.106

    RESOLVED
    183.219.58.106 is an open proxy, and I have blocked it for 2 years. The same user has used at least one more open proxy (223.83.200.14) which I have also blocked. I shall look at the possibility of blocking further IP addresses, and at least one account.

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

    This Ip has so far added a warning template on my talkpage twice, first claiming ownership and then vandalism over at Bosnian War. The only edit I made to the page was an undoing of the warning IP's edit [162] which was undone by multiple editors before explaining why in the edit summaries. I asked for page protection and it was granted for the page. I would like this IP to stop placing these unwarranted warnings on my talkpage as I see it as a bit of harassment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also affected. [163] Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the revision history [164] it seems that there is a pattern in the edits from the IP addresses. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourced info was added to the article's infobox and was reverted multiple times with no reasonable explanation. Appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me because the changes were both verifiable and productive. These users were given multiple warnings about removing content, all of which were ignored flat out. Now, suddenly, I am the vandal. Before blocking anyone over this, can we please sort it out here? Thank you. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation by the IP. --NeilN talk to me 02:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't excuse inappropriate removal of productive content though. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suspect this IP of socking (Now blocked) User talk:61.135.177.185 has made the same edits at Bosnian War. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See also the disruptive, bureaucratic policing and lack of understanding by other users here. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Its called a WP:CONSENSUS, I don't see anyplace where you have attempted to discuss this over at Talk:Bosnian War so I do not know what you are talking about when you say "I have offered to settle this on a talk page, but apparently, no one has thus far been interested". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right here 183.219.58.106 (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see amy sort of consenus there. LorChat 03:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you admitting to using that IP even though it was blocked? I do not see any relevant discussion either to your edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And More vandalism from this IP LorChat 03:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I have been removing improper use of non-free logos, which keeps getting reverted ([165], [166]). THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS OF THIS SERIES. THIS LOGO IS FOR THE US VERSION ONLY AND DOESNT BELONG ON THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    If you actually read the article, you'll find it's about all versions (U.S. included). --NeilN talk to me 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of that, my friend. Well well aware of it. But then why not have the logos for all the international versions on that page? The logos of each nation's version go on it's respective page, not the international one. That's how fair use works. 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting off topic now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands right now, IP 183.219.58.106, should be blocked for personal attacks(accusation of sockpuppetry and vandalism)[167][168] directed at Praxis Icosahedron on his talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Knowledgekid87: It's not getting off topic when other users are engaging in similar behavior, which I am trying to revert. Is anyone even reading my comments? 183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, here is another example of unjust content removal by another user not assuming good faith. What kind of edit summary is "??". That's absolutely not a reason to revert a constructive change.183.219.58.106 (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think a use of a non-free image is not in compliance with our NFCC policy but others disagree, then make your case at Wikipedia:Non-free content review rather than edit warring as seems to be your wont. --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, judging from the Bosnian War/Survivor edits, this is a sock of a blocked editor. --NeilN talk to me 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another sock. --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Michael josh removing infoboxes

    Some of User:Michael josh's edits have been removal of all wikicode before the lead section (mostly an infobox, but sometimes also other templates). For this reason, User:Aspects reported the user at WP:AN3, for which the user was blocked for 72 hours: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive248#User:Michael josh reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked). The user seems to have resumed infobox removal by removing the the one from TNA Bound for Glory yesterday. What should be done about this? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Has there been any discussion with this user to determine why he's removing infoboxes and dablinks? It doesn't look like it (I don't see any real edits outside of articlespace). It also doesn't look like he's ever used an edit summary either. Despite the fact that this fellow has evidently made productive edits, the removal of wikicode can only really be explained as vandalism or a competence issue. I would support a block to prevent further disruption until this user engages in some discussion of his behavior. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was tempted to just block him for a week or two since this was a continuation of the edit warring that got him blocked the other day, but lets see if he comes here or tries to explain. If he instead just reverts another in his war against infoboxes, I would recommend a block. Editors with agendas and no willingness to discuss with others are problematic and it tends to erase what other good they might do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed Michael josh's infobox removals because I was checking the orphaned fair use categories, so that is why my reversions of the infobox deletions were spread out and usually days after his removals. His other edits seems to be productive, but his unexplained infobox and sometimes cleanup templates are concerning. He has never provided a single edit summary, user talk page message or article talk page message. I left him three warnings, the edit warring notice and now Stefan has left a notice about this thread. This user has either thus far not realized he needs to communicate in some way, does not know how to communicate or is just unwilling to communicate. If it is the last, then I am not sure how we can get them to communicate and might eventually lead to a ban. Michael josh just created Bound For Glory (2014) that contains an infobox, but keeps removing the one from TNA Bound for Glory, so it is hard to explain his edits without his communication. Aspects (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    96.228.244.95

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

    I got into an edit war on Tired light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the named IP. I am 100% certain that this is User:Licorne and have filed a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Licorne to that effect. However, per WP:BAN, I believe we are simply supposed to revert on sight, but rather than breach WP:3RR, I thought I'd get administrator input here.

    Thanks,

    jps (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Based on my (limited) knowledge of this particular ban, your conclusion is likely correct, but I'll let the SPI speak for itself. For what it's worth, I've temporarily semiprotected the article to prevent the IP's edit warring. --Kinu t/c 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, but maybe the protection should last more than one day? This particular user has a tendency to wait out semi-protections and then simply go back to reinserting his original research into this article. jps (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Re-evaluating admin decision from September 2013

    In September 2013, admin John topic banned me (vaccination). However, i believe the judgement was in error since i did not engaged in an edit war, got no warning and didn't acted disruptive. After a group of users through the fringe notice board begun to look into my related edits they concluded i post fringe material or lack competence. The archived heated discussion can be found here, where i complained at ANI about subsequent actions from a few users. Most accusations from these users were unfounded and as pointed out i do not think the incident amounted to a topic ban, since it doesn't fit with WP:DE. There was a single source mentioned which is not compatible with WP:MEDRS. I did no attempt to re-add criticized content and i have no plans at this time to edit any of these topics in the future. In my edits i used a wide range of sources, most of them were from government entities (CDC or from the FDA and from science journals)- the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I did not looked into this until yesterday and after a brief discussion with John today i conclude that he rushed his decision. I ask here for someone not involved to re-evaluate my topic ban status, because i feel it was enforced wrongly. If this isn't the right place for such an inquiry point me to one, Thank You. prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That wasn't an admin decision, the topic ban was a consensus decision by the community - John merely evaluated the consensus (which seems clear). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) John didn't topic ban you, the community did. John merely evaluated the discussion and determined there was consensus for a topic ban, which, frankly, there was. The few opposes seemed directed at the original proposed sanction: an indefinite block. At any rate, if the reason for your request for the topic ban to be lifted is that it was improperly implemented, I would have to disagree. If you want it lifted for substantive reasons, I think you might do well to reframe your request to reflect that. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The consensus in the discussion seems clear and reasonable. Based on Prokaryotes' comment to John from just a couple of hours ago (" Thanks for clarifying to me John, why you have topic banned me. Summary: I got topic banned for a single edit and because i tried to explain that edit afterwards.... i think a user shouldn't be banned from a topic because of a single edit..." [169]) it is clear that Prokaryotes has not grasped the reason why his past conduct was not appropriate, and it seems likely that the problems would persist if his topic ban were lifted. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if that is CIR or just willfully being obtuse, although the distinction hardly matters. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "CIR"? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CIR. jps (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well d-u-h, hellLloooo?? That's really funny that I had to ask!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Btloveadele1d repeated recreation of article merge/redirected as a result of afd

    Btloveadele1d has just now for the third time recreated List of awards and nominations received by 5 Seconds of Summer, which was merged/redirected after AfD discussion. User has received multiple warnings already. --— Rhododendrites talk |  04:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Probably merits a short block... hasn't broken 3RR yet (one revert away), and while it's not vandalism, it's clearly against consensus (the AfD closed only a week ago). This appears to be one of those silent editors; few if any non-automated edit summaries, almost no discussion (in fact the only instance of discussion I could find was here). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked until he agrees to stop.—Kww(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the threat of a lawsuit regarding the Yank Barry article, mentioned previously on AN/I, was carried out. A lawsuit has been filed in California against four named Wikipedia editors (I am one of them) and "Does 1-50, inclusive". There is a press release: "Lawsuit: Rogue Wikipedia editors conspired to manipulate Wikipedia pages to ruin reputation of philanthropist, charity he co-founded"[170]. The "Does 1-50, inclusive" means they would like to go after all editors and admins involved with the article who did anything they didn't like, but only have the names of those of us who edit under our real names. There may be follow-up legal efforts to get the identities of other editors from Wikipedia so they, too, can be sued.

    Not only are they suing over what was put into the article, they're suing because their PR was taken out: "... the Wikipedia editors removed truthful and verifiable content from the Wikipedia pages pertaining to plaintiffs with the intent and purpose to downplay, minimize, attack or criticize favorable content about the plaintiffs ... ". I am informed by an attorney that deletion cannot be defamation, but don't take that as legal advice.

    The Wikimedia Foundation may take this on; they're looking into it. It's such a broad lawsuit that it's an attack on Wikipedia, not specific editors. (In case they don't, I already have lawyers lined up. Everyone involved will need legal support. I've talked to enough lawyers that I expect to win this.)

    Please don't revdel anything associated with Yank Barry. (Someone suggested that on the BLP noticeboard.) Better to keep the history intact.

    The article is in good shape. Through all the controversy, all the factual issues were hammered out, and everything is quite well sourced. The Wikipedia process worked.

    This guy has tried a libel suit once before, against a journalist in Canada. He lost. Don't panic. --John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ironically, all this new lawsuit stuff is only going to add to the "notability" of this character. Negative press is still press... Doc talk 05:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take this as legal advice I wouldn't put too much faith in this, the suit is frivilous at best. The burden of proof is not only on the plantiff in a libel suit, but that burden of proof is quite high. Not to mention that several suits such as this have been readily dismissed. However, I am curious what the policy is on this as I'm unaware of a similar situation happening before. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that Yank Berry will be put under office protection until the lawsuit plays out. Past that, I have no idea, but it remaining under office protection is a likely outcome, as is banning every account associated with Yank Berry's PR machine. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 05:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    All I can say is...Good luck LorChat 05:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole process with Yank Barry went well by Wikipedia standards. There was a lot of information about Yank Barry to sort through, and the many editors who commented on the talk page did a good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. The solidly sourced stuff went into the article. Some items needed more sources, which were found. Some weren't notable enough for the article, and were discussed on talk but left out. The sockpuppets were identified and dealt with by admins. The PR puffery was deflated. WP:BLP standards were met. Not much trouble; overall, discussions were civil. (Compare Banc de Binary, with Paid Editing From Hell.) As Wikipedians, we have nothing to be ashamed of here. John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is anything I can do to assist the lot of you, I'm happy to help in any way I can :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Lawsuit Filing

    For any reviewing admins here is the filing in its entirety. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 05:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging discussions

    This discussion should be merged with the one ongoing at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Yank Barry. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=613653814"