Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User_talk:Russavia#Unblock_request

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strongly Oppose. Above, Newyorkbrad has shown nicely that nothing about Russavia has changed since the last time he was blocked. Nothing good will come of this. --Conti|✉ 20:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support. This is an extremely productive user with a large number of high-quality contributions, many of which are in much-neglected areas of Wikipedia. We cannot afford not to take advantage of his knowledge and productivity - after all, building a comprehensive, high quality comprehensive encyclopaedia is our goal. It is now well past "time served" for this user. I'd like to note that, during his time in the enwiki "jail", he has been very active in Wikimedia Commons, where he has uploaded an astronomical amount of high-quality photographs among other contributions. It is now time to let English Wikipedia profit from this user as well. It makes no sense to continue confining him to Commons and deprive our encyclopaedia of his high-quality contributions. Nanobear (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Newyorkbrad's analysis. The unblock request indicates that Russavia does not realise the magnitude of his previous behaviour, and if we unblock we would likely see that behaviour repeated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Nanobear. Overall, I believe that this user will be a net positive if unblocked. I don't question the idea that he has problems: that's blatantly obvious, but he has more positives than problems. On top of that, some of the "oppose" rationales are nonsense; for example, Polandball was definitely not racist: it was an intra-European thing, not to mention the fact that writing about racism doesn't necessarily make you racist. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support basically what Nick said. Legoktm (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support In dubio pro reo. --Steinsplitter (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock Russavia has made some fine contributions, provided he can manage to keep himself on the straight and narrow (and I have no reason to believe otherwise) unblocking will be a positive. I am sure that given the high profile, a reblock will be swift, if necessary. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unblock. I don't believe that Russavia has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, and is unlikely to be a net positive if unblocked here. He's done valuable work on Commons, but has also more than occasionally engaged in behavior that would likely bring him a civility block if he had done so here, not to mention his prior block record. Additionally, his unblock request doesn't meaningfully address the reasons he was blocked in the first place, and with anyone other than Russavia, would likely have been procedurally declined. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brad and per TParis. Russavia hasn't changed a bit, from what I can see. Also, massive time-wasting dramaz follow him wherever he goes - Alison ^❤ 22:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Drama has always been part and parcel of wikimedia Allie, its probably what makes this place interesting. I'm not a big fan of him on commons but over the last year or so, He has proven to be a good editor and I always believe in second chances. Some of the work he does on commons, having access to enwiki can help the wiki greatly...--Stemoc (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe in second chances too, sometimes third chances. How many is Russavia on? Right off the block on his last 'second chance', he paid to have a painting made of Jimbo with a penis and then edit warred to keep the picture on Wikipedia. What is he going to do immediately after this unblock request?--v/r - TP 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Give Jimbo a vag?...in all seriousness, the word '2nd chances' is a loosely used term, everyone on wiki atleast once was given a second chance, heck some even went on to become admins. The one good thing is that he can always be blocked again, its not like he is a 'vandal-only' account, he has over 70,000 edits to this wiki, most of which is good. If we started blocking users for having opinions, there would be no wikipedia..we have to assume good faith here. If we continue to ban experienced editors, what example are we actually setting for future editors?..--Stemoc (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
      • This is NOT a second chance. By my - albeit crude count - they've already been given roughly 20(!) chances.[1] Are you saying that everyone deserves 20(!) seconds chances? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me twenty times? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "we have to assume good faith here" No assumptions are needed. You do not have to assume something when you have history and facts to demonstrate something. Simply look at the user's history once unblocked, look at their willingness to abide by any restriction we place on them, look at their disregard for the community's time, and their disrespectful approach to the community. Russavia treats himself as a distinguished editor who deserves to edit here and acts as if he is the project's lone savior against prudes and censors so much so that he can't accept when the community feels he has gone too far.--v/r - TP 00:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Deli nk, Spartaz, Only in death does duty end, and many others. I would suggest instead that we limit this user to make such requests otherwise they will continue to waste the community's time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, per others, especially Newyorkbrad. Given that Russavia was involved in epic-scale trolling on his talk page related to a copyright issue just three weeks ago, assertions that he has "done his time" seem rather premature. (And those familiar with my own history will be aware that I am far from being one of those "all copyright is stealing from humanity" wingnuts.) Deliberately creating pointless drama is a recurring theme, and one which seems – based on recent evidence – unlikely to abate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• oppose per the extensive history of drama and bad behavior. The need to keep him on a short leash is reason enough not to reopen the cage at all. Mangoe (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The only thing we know for sure is that an unblocked Russavia would end up at the center of more drama. Regarding the suggestion that a reblock could occur, the problem is that some people are expert at expanding boundaries. Is anyone going to block Russavia if he goes to Jimbo's talk and says "Hi, I'm back!". How about something more pointed? There is no way a block for gentle poking would work, so an unblock means there will be more polandballs or pointed paintings or whatever. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Horrendous block log for a variety of offenses. I see no sincere intention to change his disruptive behavior. The very notion that he will somehow stop trolling after yet another unblock is interesting. I know of very few "reformed" trolls. None actually, but YMMV. I certainly don't believe that this editor is reformed from his penchant for trolling. He glosses over his extensive disruption as engaging in "some controversies", wanting to "continue to engage as a good faith member of our community". I do not buy that. This thread has no realistic chance of achieving a consensus to unblock. Maybe a supportive admin should just boldly unblock him and we can watch the same show all over again? Doc talk 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The quotes presented by Smallbones clinch the matter for me. Russavia continues to harbor a poisonous grudge which is a toxin we do not need at Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Russavia's block log tells a story of broken promises. Every single entry that is a "violation" is Russavia going against an agreement. So for anyone who suggests that Russavia is going to behave this time, what is different now from every single other time? I think that it's about time we say, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me a dozen times, shame on the community". -- Atama頭 05:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. During his absence from this project, Russavia has continued to troll and disrupt elsewhere, and I don't see any indication that this particular leopard has changed its spots (for reference, see his recent contributions to his talk page and on wikimedia-l). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
• Strong Oppose in the most serious terms enough has been said. Enough has been done. No reason for return. satusuro 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The unblock request is ingenuous to the point of dishonesty; the mailing list comments regarding the writer of an unfavorable press piece show the same attitude toward abusive content that led to the current, well-deserved block. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - being a 'good' editor is not nearly enough of an excuse to try and justify DICKish behaviour. He's been given enough chances in the past and blown them all - now it's too late. GiantSnowman 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Brad and per my unpleasantly vivid memory of the Pricasso affair. I don't care if that was a year ago, I do not believe Russavia has become a reformed character in that space of time. Recent editing of his talkpage doesn't suggest it either, to my eyes. Incidentally I've removed a trolling oppose from an IP above, about what Russavia is like in real life and about how "he must be punished". The IP is requested to use their account if they want to post crap like that. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose per NYBrad, TParis and the mighty Bishonen.--MONGO 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure I can say any more than has already been said above. This is really just a not good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblocking. I see nothing that suggests that Russavia's behavior will be any different in the future than it has been in the past. His behavior did not improve after his multiple prior blocks, and it would be foolish of us to expect otherwise this time. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I can't see any evidence that he has changed or that the problems won't continue if he's unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Djsasso. Graham87 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Content contribution is not a free pass to act badly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose serious issues resulted in the ban, his life on Commons isnt as rosie as its being said he lost that communities trust in August[2] but a person can operate a on Commons without issue even totally isolated from much of the community as it doesnt have the collaborative demands necessary to write content. Gnangarra 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose no real indication that problems won't continue, TParis and NYB summed up the issue quite well.--Staberinde (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too much drama, no indication provided that anything will change. Gamaliel (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion - Unblock only for the purpose of allowing Russavia to appeal his block to ArbCom. If ArbCom declines to hear the case, reblock. If ArbCom agrees to hear the case, leave him unblocked in order to present his case to ArbCom. If he engages in personal attacks or trolling while the ArbCom case is in progress, ArbCom can take into account, and can decide to ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • On a practical level, arbcom usually handles block/ban appeals over email, not the case pages. An unblock isn't needed for him to email arbcom. On a different level If there's signifigant consensus that the community doesn't support an unblock IMHO it's be inappropriate for arbcom to over rule the will of the community.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see Arb accepting the case anyway. Clearly the community is capable of dealing with the issue, and Arb doesn't accept a case unless the community is incapable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock We do have some editors that give good service and who also cause some trouble. I missed what he did this time at the time, but I feel that there'll be so many people watching him like shitehawks that he won't have much chance to do very much wrong before it gets stopped. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. In addition to my reasons stated on Russavia's talk page, I should mention that the editor stated an intention to "look at having topic ban removed" for Aeroflot; this implies that the editor is interested in returning to areas where he caused problems before. I echo the comments bade by Spartaz, TParis, and Newyorkbrad above. Also restating the obvious, Russavia can continue to contribute to the project on his talk page and on Wikimedia Commons. (edit conflict) - tucoxn\^talk 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Nothing in Russavia's recent behavior either here or on Commons convinces me that he won't immediately resume drama-mongering. --Carnildo (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Many editors, myself included, have wasted far too much time analyzing Russavia, searching without success for indications that he is not really a highly sophisticated troll. He has had a score of "second chances", and always returns to disruptive behavior. Enough is enough. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any reason he still has talk page access? —Neotarf (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock I've had some limited interraction with Russavia and he certainly seems committed to the project. Sure, his past behavior has been aberrative on occasion, but if we lift the block he's going to have a lot of eyes on him; as Anthonyhcole says right at the start of this discussion, "Block him again if he trolls again". IMHO, no editor can have too many chances, providing that their overall contribution to the project is a net positive.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough time has been wasted on this drama magnet. — Scott • talk 17:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Enough trolling is enough. No sign at all that the user understands and has moved on from past behaviour. Note also this diff, in which arbitrator Roger Davies suggests that Russavia, in his dialogue with ArbCom that led to his unblock last time, promised to turn over a new leaf and in fact did no such thing. (Pinging Roger in case I am in any way misreading him.) I see no reason we should believe him this time with that track record. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something new

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note under WP:CBAN is the paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

I told you people so, exactly a year ago. But would anybody listen? Pfft.... — Scott • talk 00:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reblocked with talk page access removed. Removing unlock requests, discussions of disruption, and the SPI investigation announcement, with the edit summary "if it doesn't relate to creation or curation of content, it doesn't belong here"[3] indicates that he doesn't seem to realise what a talk page of an indef blocked user is supposed to be used for, or what is expected to even consider unblocking sometime in the future. Fram (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Comment - There is also precedent for the site ban of prolific content editors by the ArbCom. An example is Kiefer.Wolfowitz, who was banned for personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• Further comment I believe the formality involves the option to revert on sight without worrying about the delicacies of 3RR. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Can't decide I really dislike Russavia's behavior since Arbcom accepted his unblock request a year ago. I don't want to see 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)

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.

• Support as nom Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support nuking all sock edits, as a reasonable extension of the rule for speedy deletion of articles created by socks of blocked users. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If one can't find anything wrong with the edit then it should stay.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)
• Comment- I don't think that they should be nuked, I wouldn't support that. Although, whoever wants to remove those edits they can remove them by themselves. Whoever wants them to stay, they can simply re-write. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• Now also editing as ArgentinaSquarepants (talk · contribs) -  Confirmed and blocked - Alison ^❤ 23:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• That account (and others of Russavia) has attempted to create a new article, which is a well written article but does indeed meet the speedy deletion critieria (Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency). It has been deleted a total of four times now by SuperMarioMan. Just wondering what others thoughts are on articles rather than individual edits. Nick (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Technically, the speedy deletion criteria are easily met, though I think it would be good to have a discussion over whether the article subject otherwise meets the deletion criteria. If an article on the subject would be appropriate then it would be good to allow its restoration and just try to get other editors to review it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Abstain I'm just wondering if anyone has asked him directly what's going on. And I mean over Skype for a face-to-face discussion, if not in person. Is it possible that he feels like no one is listening so he's just getting louder? I don't know much about this case, but if you're reading this Russavia and you're down to talk about whatever, you can drop me a note at wllm@wllm.com. I represent no one but myself. I have no authority. But I have ears.     -wʃʃʍ-     09:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but when we find ourselves fighting to prevent people improving the encyclopedia then we need to take a serious look at what we're trying to do here - deliberately damaging the encyclopedia to win an ego war against an officially-sanctioned unperson is just plain stupid. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boing. So he socks to create good content. Der. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  Exactly! My thinking is that blocks are to prevent disruption, so if someone is blocked and socks to create disruption-free good content - hey, the block is working! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Boing. Concentrate on the edits, not the editor. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Someone is either blocked or they aren't. As per BMK , any editor who feels that an edit is valuable and worth preserving can put their money where their mouth is and revert the removal, taking responsibility for the quality of the edit themselves. Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

  Well then, why not cut out the middleman? When good content is seen to be added, rather than deleting it because of who added it and waiting for someone else to reinstate it - just don't delete it! Take joint responsibility for good content by not removing it in the first place, the way every one of us does whenever we read something here and don't change it. Don't delete it, don't come bleating here about the naughty man who's been helping make things better when he's supposed to be grounded, just be happy that someone has made things better. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Kwamikagami edit-warring at Gaulish language

I am at my wits' end with Kwamikagami (talk · contribs). The other day, I intervened as a neutral admin in a bitter feud between Kwami and Skookum1 (talk · contribs) (see here). At the time, I was seeing the fault predominantly – though not exclusively – on the other side, and ended up formally warning Skookum [4], 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 [5], 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[6][7][8] and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May [9][10][11], and again on 30/31 May [12][13][14][15], always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June [16], 10 June [17] and 12 June [18]. 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 [19][20][21].

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 [22][23], after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here [24]. 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 [25].

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

I had a quick look, as I enjoy reading language articles, though I don't have much to directly contribute towards them. I think the root problem is a general lack of collaborative editing - instead of just slapping {{fv}} on a sentence, ([26]) would it not be simpler to change one or two words so it fits the source? eg: " The more divergent Lepontic Celtic of Northern Italy has also been compared to Gaulish". DRN would be the obvious next place to go - that said, if somebody is repeatedly making three reverts (and no more), then they're obviously clued up on WP:3RR and deliberately skirting it to cause just enough disruption not to get blocked for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unfortunately, I'm agree that the edit warring and intransigence has risen to the level that administrator intervention is necessary. As Future Perfect at Sunrise says, in addition to the issues at Gaulish language, it's affected numerous other articles. For instance we had an extensive central discussion about Kwami's proposed changes to the Celtic language infoboxes here, and the result was that literally no other editor supported any of his suggested changes. However, he continues to revert war them back into the articles.[27][28][29] These changes aren't even consistent with each other. His behavior shows he's not willing to work constructively to build consensus, or accept any consensus that disagrees with him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• I hate to add on here, since Kwami is one of the most productive and knowledgeable Writing Systems editors - an area of special concern to me - but this seems to be a pervasive, ongoing problem with Kwami's editing style. Part of it stems from the fact that Kwami is so often actually correct in many of these situations that when (s)he is wrong about something, it ends up being a huge problem, because Kwami ends up treating good-faith editors with a better understanding of the material as if they were POV pushers. It's becoming more and more obvious that Kwami needs to seriously undertake a process of developing collegiality in his/her dealings with other editors or needs to take a wikibreak. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty good analysis of the problem, indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Zanhe, I'm guessing you read Chinese. The paper Kwami found explicitly said his chart was vowels and not allophones, correct? Reverting your edits and canvassing another editor instead of accepting your translation is pretty bad faith. An admin should have interceded on your behalf.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm proficient in Chinese. Source: "成对的舒促韵母的元音却是不同的，这种差异具有辨音意义。所以金汇方言的单元音有 20 个之多" Translation: "Pairs of checked and non-checked finals have different vowels. These differences are meaningful in distinguishing phonemes. Therefore Jinhui dialect has as many as 20 monophthongs." I translated it for Kwami in the article talk page, and the Science article also lists 20 vowels (not allophones), but he simply dismisses his own source (which is a publication of the local government), as well as Science, as unreliable. -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I can absolutely understand how Kwami looked at that vowel chart and went, ah ha allophones. In fairness to Kwami, the authors of the Science article were evolutionary geneticists, not linguists, and I commend him for looking for the actual linguistics research that was used to compile the authors' data set. But... if both sources say vowels. It's. Vowels. I hope that article currently reflects the sources and not an OR reading of them... or whatever sources have been found since.--Atlantictire (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I was grateful that Kwami found the source. If only he would adhere to what the source actually says. -Zanhe (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

At any rate, Kwami hasn't made any edits since June 12. I take this at least partially as a conscious effort to disengage and an acknowledgement that the preceding behavior was causing a problem, which would be a good sign. However, if the behavior resumes, this matter is simply going to require some kind of action, whether blocks or edit restrictions, as this disruption has simply gone on too long.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, Blackmane, my comment is extremely germane, and no In ictu oculi I was not referring to you or any of the clearly distressed people in this discussion. There is much concern that POV pushing has hopelessly complicated the AN/I process in general and that is why disputes such as this one go unresolved. It's hard to tell up from down anymore. This is why I would favor parties here choosing an intermediary rather than an admin making a unilateral decision.Kwami's choosing not to participate, which is unfortunate.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Just for my view of the things: I know that you and Kwami (and me, and some others) had some clashes at Talk:Secular Islam Summit. But that was more than a year ago. And if I remember well, I thought there were worse behaving editors present there instead of Kwami. Did you have any (to put it nicely) interactions with him since? And did his attitude worsen over time?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

O wait, as seen from the links in this discussion I see he did.Jeff5102 (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

tangential discussion about process

Here's a thought: I'm finding that Wikipedia's better copy editors are really its angels of NPOV. They attempt to revise articles that are very difficult to read because ceaseless edit warring and has cluttered them with endless appeasing concessions to one camp or another. Soon enough, the copy editor finds himself adjudicating content disputes. The good ones know how to ask questions, evaluate sources and seek advice from resident experts. Best of all, they have no dog in the fight and no agenda other than ensuring that an article is accessible and factually accurate. Coretheapple is a crackerjack copyeditor. Yes, CTA, I am volunteering you for this task. Kwamikagami, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Cuchullain, Skookum1, In ictu oculi, Zanhe, Roscelese, Bladesmulti, Cagwinn, Jeff5102, Vanisaac, DeCausa, Ritchie333, Bladesmulti (sorry if I missed anyone): would you be amenable to having a controversial article copy-edited by Coretheapple? Even if Kwami doesn't respond, we could start anyway. If the copyeditor reports that the discussion has devolved into passive-aggressive WP:PUSH word games, then perhaps Drmies or Bbb23 could intervene with warnings and then sanctions. If this experiment were to work, I think it might have encouraging implications for dispute resolution and editor retention. The facts are the facts are the facts, and when they are continually and even willfully disrespected and no one does anything about it, well... that's when incivility happens! Peace, friends.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Well, that's very nice of you! I've been yelled at a lot lately. Flattery will get you everywhere. :) Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Almost everywhere. That is one hell of a mess complex subject! And on a subject about which I know nothing. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a Gaulish language. I wouldn't know where to start, or end. Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Not fair for me to say "mess," as I don't know enough about the subject to even say that. Coretheapple (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Coretheapple, I know linguistics (love the linguistics pages here by the way), and know my way around a discussion on phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Snow Rise is a massive Steven Pinker nut (and I absolutely mean that in a good way) so I'm guessing she has some competency with this as well. I think we could help you, in conjunction with the other editors, determine whether or not something is in fact a reliable source and answer questions about what a source is actually saying. Since, at the end of the day, it's the arguments over sources that make people insane. If you're up for it, you stand to learn a lot about a really fascinating topic. I believe in you! Let's take what's best about Wikipedia and use it to fix what's worst.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Well, I'd be happy to help as much as I can, but you know, I am totally ignorant of linguistics. I went back to the version of a year ago, hoping to find it more reader friendly, and I found it was just as confounding. One does have to know a bit about the subject matter to know if there is bias or not. Why, even to be biased in this requires an admirable amount of expertise. If someone was POV pushing, how would I know? For example, I looked at this Mr. Kwangi's edits, and shrugged. Keep in mind that when I'm not arguing with paid editors I'm usually writing about obscure choreographers and police detectives. Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC) That's fine and I don't want you to feel like I'm nagging you to do something you'd rather not do. I started copy editing engineering-related articles, a subject in which I have very little competency, precisely because I couldn't understand them at all. I write a draft and ask, guys, is this what you in fact are saying? In any case, it's absolutely fine for you to pass on this.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) No no... not so fast. I have a few minutes. I'll go through it right now, purely as a reader, and edit for clarity. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I went through this in visual editor. I have no idea what the background of the article is. I made a few minor fixes. The only thing that stood out is this: were I a college student with the sorry task of researching "Gaulish languages," I would go to this article and probably rely on it as if it were the Gospel. However, large segments of the article are not footnoted. I think there is a need for more of that. I am too ignorant of the subject matter and intimidated by the academic prose to tag it too much, however. Tell me, where is the POV pushing in this article? I couldn't quite make it out. Coretheapple (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There were a whole slew of related Celtic language articles that Kwami was rogue editing. I mainly took issue with the fact that he was totally re-organizing the Celtic language trees and citing as his primary source an article that, if he had read in full (and I have my doubts that he did) he clearly did not understand (even the author of said article, in a personal communication to me, stated that he thought Kwami's edits were "confused"), as his re-organization was rather idiosyncratic. Kwami also attempted to remove the label "Celtic" from the lede in the Lepontic language article (even though its Celticity has long since been accepted by the majority of scholars) and has been engaged in a bizarre suppression of even the mere mention of the new hypothesis that Tartessian may be a Celtic language (to the point that he even cast aspersions on one of the greatest scholars of Indo-European linguistics of the past century, Eric Hamp, simply because Hamp appears to have accepted the validity of this hypothesis in a recent paper; Kwami went to far as to suggest that Hamp didn't write the paper himself!). Kwami also through "dubious" tags on everything with abandon. It really felt like an all-out assault on his part on the Celtic language articles.Cagwinn (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I do not find evidence of Kwami trying to remove "Celtic" from Lepontic language (what he did try to remove was "Continental Celtic" as a family node). As for the Tartessian language debate in February, I haven't read thoroughly through all of it yet, but as far as it is about the Adams/Hamp paper in "Sino-Platonic Papers" [30], I do think that Kwami probably had a point in voicing reservations about it; it is a really strange publication in several ways. Should that discussion be reviewed once more? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS is an occasional series dedicated to making available to specialists and the interested public the results of research that, because of its unconventional or controversial nature, might otherwise go unpublished." Kwami is absolutely right to express reservations about using this paper to draw conclusions about a particular language, regardless of what Hamp's credentials may be. I don't think that Hamp himself would have supported that.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

He did try to remove Celtic from the Lepontic article - see his edits on 13 May 2014‎. There is no reason to express reservations over Hamp's paper; Hamp's qualifications are impeccable, his is highly regarded and respected by his peers, and he wouldn't put his name on anything that he did not support (and I have been assured of all of this in a personal communication with J. T. Koch).Cagwinn (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think everybody understands that Hamp's credentials as an Indo-European languages scholar are impeccable. It's just the express purpose of the Sino-Platonic Series is to publish interesting research that doesn't meet the evidentiary standards of peer-reviewed linguistics journals. It's the equivalent of a preliminary cancer drug study in which the results are interesting but there's no control group and/or the sample size is too small so you can't draw firm conclusions from it. I'd be happy to look at the study's methodology if you're still not convinced!--Atlantictire (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Coretheapple re:references. Some of those are pretty interesting. Aulus Gellius, Julius Caesar, Sidonius Apollinaris, Jerome, Lucian… all noted linguists of the ancient world! :-)

I am having a little difficulty following the debate on the talk page. How did you decide that “Continental Celtic” was a phylogenic category and how did you decide where to place Lepontic in the Celtic language tree?

Not asking for a lesson on clades and paraphyly and whatnot. Are there sources that explicitly order Continental Celtic and Lepontic as you have or are these inferences?--Atlantictire (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Atlanticire, this section is pretty huge now. I can tell you that I won't even revert Kwamikagami, even if he is not online. He should resume discussion and try to accept changes from other editors. Who wants to read Wikipedia:Long-term abuseKwamikagami? Futperf is not only one who has objected the editing pattern of Kwamikagami on Gaulish Language. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to excuse edit warring or unilaterally re-categorizing a whole bunch of languages, and definitely not to point fingers, but if it's at all possible we're attempting to substitute wikipedia consensus for scholarly consensus... because the linguists just haven't made up their minds about some of these things... that does seem like a recipe for driving somebody nuts. Please, please correct me if I'm wrong.--Atlantictire (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, I only just realized Cagwinn actually created Wikipedia:Long-term abuseKwamikagami (sic). Come on now. I know several of us have been frustrated with Kwami, but he's still a good-faith and valuable contributor. "Long-term abuse" pages are for persistent banned sockpuppeters and the like. I've speedied that page as an obvious attack page. Please don't do that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not a Wikipedia bureaucrat and don't know the ins-and-outs of how to report people (I have never had cause to report anyone until Kwami started his war against me). I clicked through some links here on reporting users for bad behavior and I thought I was following the correct procedure, but Wikipedia is absolutely byzantine. Kwami was harassing me on my Talk page and threatening to report me, so I responded that I was going to report _him_ and that's what I thought I was doing by creating that page. I guess I was wrong.Cagwinn (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't too much help with my run-through (see? I told you so). My main problem was sourcing. I couldn't detect POV pushing, because one has to be familiar with the subject matter to pick up on that. If there were such POV pushing, it is especially serious for that precise reason. As for the quality of existing sources, again I think that one has to know more about linguistics to detect that. There is an absence of sourcing on far too much of the article, and I almost slapped an OR tag on it, but I didn't feel comfortable enough with the subject matter to do so. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Resolutions (Uninvolved Editors)

Constant reverting and tagging information in an article as "dubious" is needlessly contemptuous of other editors. Kwami's behavior towards Zanhe in 2012 was extremely regrettable, as both Zahne and Kwami's sources supported Zahne's position. Kwami proceeded to revert Zahne's edits and canvass another editor.

Here Kwami does seem to have legitimate concerns about WP:VERIFY, but this does not excuse distressingly autocratic behavior such as reverting and malicious tagging. Failure to respect sources and scholarly consensus is a serious matter--especially to people who pride themselves on their academic integrity. If Kwami indeed feels this is happening he Cuchullain, Cagwinn, and whoever else is involved in the Celtic language dispute ought to agree upon an intermediary whom they trust to mediate a disagreement over content.

Support 3-month 1RR proposed by In ictu oculi, as slow edit-warring is a long-time bad habit and this may be necessary in order to ensure more collaborative editing.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary, Round 2

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

---

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.[31] 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: [32]. BdB is in big legal trouble. The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to stop. Their US legal problems appeared to be over. The CFTC now says they didn't stop, and is going after them in court for big financial penalties, including triple damages on almost everything they did in the US, and is even going after their CEO personally. BdB's editors would prefer that information not appear in Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. First, thanks to TParis for closing off BDBIsrael's attempt to impose their own set of rules. Second, it appears the BDBJack is not blocked, so we now have two paid COI SPAs representing BdB. This is an unusual situation. We can deal with this, but it's going to be time-consuming. As for the interpretation above that the CFTC might somehow let BdB operate in the US, see page 30, section E, of the CFTC's court filing[33], which, informally, can be expressed as "No way." John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Edit conflict) This is not a "rumor". The SEC and the CFTC, which are U.S. Government regulatory agencies, told Banc de Binary to stop operating in the US.[34] 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.[35]. 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.[36] On a procedural front, BDB editors are complaining about me on the talk pages of an admin[37], my own talk pageUser_talk:Nagle#Banc_de_Binary, the article talk page, here, and activity on ORTS alluded to by BDBIsrael atTalk:Banc_De_Binary#Informal_Mediation. Could we centralize this, please? John Nagle (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

• OK. the "new" account BDBIsrael has just placed two three walls-o-text on the talk page stating in excruciating detail (over 14K 16K characters) every single period and comma it wants changed in the article, in two three successive talk page posts.[38][39][40] Fine. Noted. The volunteer, unpaid, unconflicted editors can now consider these suggestions in conformity with each editor's time schedule and list of Wikipedia priorities, without further disruption, wikipoliticking and interference from Banc de Binary. The endless argumentation and wall-o-text needs to stop. Time to ban the company from Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support any of a block, a topic ban, or a site ban, because these editors are not here to build an NPOV encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Agree the sheer intensity of the COI editing is disruptive as such, independently of the possible justification of any one edit they make. I, for one, am willing to block the lot here, and will do so soonish unless I hear some very good reason to the contrary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic or site ban because it's frustrating to have to deal with this day after day when we could be improving the encyclopedia. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 17:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This company has employed both declared (non-underground) and undeclared (sock) accounts for a lengthy period of time, a period of many months according to the block history. It has shifted its tactics periodically, but has not wavered from its aim to whitewash the article, and the consensus of all editors commenting upon this except you is that this behavior is tendentious in the extreme and not in good faith. Most recently the BDB editor has argued strenuously to make the falacious point that no allegation of illegality was made against it by U.S. regulators. Pushing that point further, it maintained on your talk page that User:Nagle was worthy of a "warning" because he correctly stated that[41]. I don't think you appear to understand the gravity of what has been going on. What I do know is that your support of the BDB editors is very much a minority viewpoint. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose I think that a complete ban is a bit premature at this point. BDBIsrael has offered to partake in mediation and has already begun to address the concerns that initiated this proposal, such as the length and frequency of their comments. BDBJack as also agreed to step away from the situation for the time being and focus on separate articles (which effectively meets your second proposal of limiting BDB to one account). Mike V • Talk 02:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Mediation—are you aware of the background to this case? There can be no "mediation" with people who are highly paid to promote a certain point of view—all that can happen is that SPAs learn how to operate free from sanctions while driving away editors who might oppose their view. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support complete site ban. This firm has sponsored three dozen socks. Isn't that enough? What more do they have to do? Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support complete site ban. The community doesn't have time to keep dealing with this mess. Nothing to be gained by allowing BdB to continue editing. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

• You're not doing yourself any favors by replying to every single comment here, BDBIsrael. Others have suggested that you stop, and I agree with them: cut it out. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Negotiation break

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

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

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

Noting the above, one last comment. Here's why this really matters. Read this story of a retired couple who lost their life savings in a few days with Banc de Binary.[42] (Yes, that's not a reliable source, so we can't use it in article space. It's not an isolated incident. A search for "bank de binary scam" will turn up many similar stories.) Wikipedia is a top search result for Banc de Binary. Right now, if someone searches for Banc de Binary, they'll see information on Wikipedia that may make them, rightfully, cautious about sending them money. That's a good thing. That's why we're here - to provide neutral, verifiable information, not PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Proposal

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

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

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

• Sounds like something to consider after the editors are blocked as proposed above this one, after unblocking, if there is unblocking. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • So we can punish them? Because the only reason to consider blocking first before a lesser sanction is because we want to punish. This goes completely against what I think is a WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.--v/r - TP 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I am distressed at your refusal to recognize the depth of disruption caused by this company, which warrants a block by any objective measure. Our first obligation is to the volunteers, not to the companies that want to shape articles as they see fit. To be frank, you seem angry - but not angry at BDB, but at the editors who have been trying to prevent it from rolling over Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, you want to wield someone else's block button. Your trigger happy finger has earned your future RfA attempt a place on my watchlist.--v/r - TP 20:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • ???? That makes no sense whatsoever. Neither sentence. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • What distresses me even further is that you disregard that they in fact have been blocked, multiple times, the last time just a few days ago, for socking. Their latest sock was extremely disruptive, and in fact I see that his unblock was refused on the grounds that he warranted blocking even if he wasn't a sock. You call what they did "mistakes." Mistakes?????Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced "not driving COI editing underground" is really a pressing concern in the present instance. COI editors on this topic, be they declared or undeclared, will always be easy enough to spot, and now that we know that tactics that the company has resorted to in the past, all future accounts displaying the same pattern will easily and quickly be detected and can be disposed of. I'm also not convinced there will be any legitimate need for the company to make its edit wishes be known. It has had more than enough time and opportunity to do so; it's time for them to leave the community alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)c
  • I agree that the "drive underground" argument makes no sense. TParis has used this same phrase before, and I pointed out to him that this company has used both declared and undeclared editors for a significant period of time. This proposal is constructive, unlike the sniping I have seen come from this same editor directed solely at editors who have tried to counter BDB tactics, but I feel that it is simply not necessary and shows undue solicitude for BDB. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You might want to choose another word rather than solicitude. I consider that a personal attack. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Yes, it appears that the company has made mistakes. But right now it seems they are trying to cooperate. Even if they are a thorn at the moment, and in this specific case, the overall COI issue is my concern. How we treat BDB right now is going to reflect on our overall treatment of COI editors. Jimmy recently changed his tune against all COI edits toward being against only undisclosed COI editors or COI editors on article space. We had a big change in our treatment of COI editors earlier this year and we need to be careful not to fall back into old habits. This is for our benefit, by encouraging COI editors to be open, than for anyone else.--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, it's a comment on the proposal. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the history of disruption by the company, just kind of shrugs it off, treats it like "no big deal." As for Wales' view of COI editing, I'll go to his page and ask him. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not right. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • TParis: According to Jimbo Wales, you're not right.[43] Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I care little about any signal we are sending out to other COI parties through the way we deal with this one. Other COI parties will still do well to adhere to our rules from the start. This one didn't; they utterly screwed up by what they did at first, and if the community has now lost patience with them, that's the price for them to pay. True, they may be trying now to "cooperate" – but we have no need of that cooperation at this point. We don't need their help in writing this article, so we lose nothing by telling them to get lost at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • "I care little" clearly.--v/r - TP 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree with Figureofnine above. After a full block for a month or so, then we can consider this. Bear in mind that, until a week ago, the BdB team was still running multiple sockpuppets. (Ref: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel.) When that was forcibly stopped, they tried buying paid edits on eLance for $10,000.[44] When that backfired, they created a new account, and tried wikilawyering and endless rehashing of the same arguments. Only when all else had failed did they try acting "legitimate". That phase has only been in progress for less than 48 hours. As for the "fresh start" claim, see Wikipedia:Clean start, esp. "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes..." That clearly does not apply to BDBJack (talk · contribs) or BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). We routinely block editors for a month or so for disruption. That's appropriate here. This is a gentle sanction for the documented bad behavior. Per WP:SOCK, all BDB accounts could be blocked by any admin as being connected to known sockpuppets. John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I have contributed to the review by replying here. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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)

Gaaaaah!

A few observations as a cynical old bastard.

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

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

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

Ducking Out

Since it's very obvious to me that the community at large does not want our presence in the Banc De Binary article, I am going to duck out of it for a while and try to focus on something else. I'm starting some work on some stubs that I found interesting and that I think I can contribute to (see User:BDBJack#Articles_in_Progress). I may feel the desire to throw in a reference here or there, (and I would still love an answer to the question that I posed to Nagle (talk · contribs) ), but there's no point in trying to fight with everyone. So, please forgive me for the irritation and "waste of time" that I've caused to the community. Hopefully you'll let me edit (correctly) in peace. (FYI if anyone has a suggestion for articles which I might be able to contribute to, please let me know on my Talk Page) BDBJack (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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:

• Banc de Binary is fully protected.
• Talk:Banc de Binary is semi-protected.
• A community ban on BDBJack from Banc de Binary was, I think, put in place, but I'm not seeing it in the log of blocks and bans.

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)

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 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)

• Support permanent ban of all BDB COI editing of any article, talk, or other page on WP. They are here to destroy the encyclopedia. Admins: please act now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Destroy the encyclopedia"? You don't consider that overkill? Relax. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 03:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

In addition to the waste of volunteer time, this situation, if not alleviated, also stands to hurt Wikipedia's reputation. Already this company's activities on Wikipedia have received publicity in three major media outlets [45][46][47] I am sure that it is under continued scrutiny, making it all the more necessary that the issues highlighted above be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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 these examples: [48], [49]. 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 [50] 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) 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)

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

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)

• 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)

• By the way, this link that you posted does not exist. Perhaps you should provide a diff instead. In fact, this whole thread could use some more diffs. Perhaps the reason no one has touched it is because you've made it so they'll have to sift through so much stuff that they don't even want to bother. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Actuallly, that link was to show his personal attack Thanks for your help. Now, as you've suggested, I am going to edit my original post accordingly. Hopefully, this time this case will be solved.Rivaner (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

• This is the diff that you're referring to, I believe. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC) Yes that was the one, thanks.Rivaner (talk) 05:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

User LardoBalsamico is continuing his personal attacks while reverting my justified edits. You can the personal attacks; here, here and here.Rivaner (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked both editors for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR in response to a report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was blocked by a report from user LardoBalsamico who used personal attacks even on his report.Rivaner (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I updated the original post since there were some changes in related diffs.Rivaner (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 07:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Isis Lai (talk · contribs) is back after block, with more images of unknown source, while KennyYudashi (talk · contribs) has returned to edit in a similar way at Wong Tai Sin Temple (Guangzhou): copy-paste restoring earlier versions of content which is full of errors since fixed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'd support indefs for both accounts to compel them to engage in discussion, especially given the concerns of copyright violation. We can't have more copyvio images being uploaded by either. If there were a CSD provision for it, I'd support speedily blanket-deleting all their new uploads given they have given zero indication other than using copyright tags that they understand the rules for uploading content here (I'd certainly support deletion on a protective principle rationale if someone PUF'd all their images). Might seem a bit BITEy, but the copyvios are serious business. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

KennyYudashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Just reuploaded File:Wong Tai Sin 4.jpg, which had previously been deleted per CSD F9 when it had been uploaded to File:Wong Tai Sin 3.jpg by Isis Lai (which is now a different image, also uploaded by KennyYudashi, though this new one actually has EXIF). I've tagged the new file for F9. I'm also marking the others, which I can't determine as copyvios, as do not move to commons so we can figure this out first. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

In fact, I just noticed another fun connection: Isis Lai was blocked at 12:57 20 June 2014 (UTC). KennyYudashi made his first image upload at 13:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC), nine minutes later. See my prior note about the connection between these two accounts. I think this, with the reupload of File:Wong Tai Sin 4.jpg, is evidence enough that KennyYudashi is at least proxying for Isis Lai. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Now see File:Xinyi 2.jpg and File:Xinyi Middle School.jpg, which I believe are bit-for-bit identical to previous images that Isis Lai uploaded (and were deleted). One (Xinyi 2.jpg) has also been uploaded to Commons. I am now formally requesting a block for KennyYudashi to compel him to respond and explain their relationship, and to account for their history of copyright infringing uploads. We need to nip this in the bud. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, now at SPI: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KennyYudashi. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor socking, edit-warring to add himself to articles

• RAJA NARAYAN TRIPATHY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 117.197.253.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good block all around. It is clear that they were here to promote themselves and admitted that they got their staff to try to save the article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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 [51], [52], and [53] 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 ([54], [55], [56]) 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 [57] 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 [58] 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)

The only incident here is User:Kkj11210 vandalising my edits which are trying to establish -- on the pages for specific Serbian family names, articles about those family names instead of redirecting them to some specific individuals who happen to bear that family name.

Obviously, User:Kkj11210 believes that specific Serbian family names should not exist as articles on Wikipedia. However, for reasons not completely clear, s/he is not expressing the same vigour and dilligence in deleting non-Serbioan family names such as e.g. Smith. I think that the reason is that s/he accepts the dominance of an Anglophone, US-dominated Weltanschauung on Wikipedia in English that will minimise or indeed elliminate everything User:Kkj11210 sees as unimportant, or peradventure an outright Serbophobia; I haven't taken the effort to investigate and honestly, I do not have time for that.

And neither should I have to do that. User:Kkj11210 should be told not to remove articles about family names in Serbiana nd to allow for the articles about specific names to grown into full fledged entries.

And that's it about this, as far as I am concerned. I am not going to come back to this discussion and reply any further, because I have said what I had and intended to and I now feel that there is no need to ellaborate any further for any person of at least average intelligence (which I am going to assume User:Kkj11210 does have) and at least a neutral viewpoint about Wikipedia articles (which, again, I am going to imagine anyone who edits on Wikipedia, including [User:Kkj11210] has).

59.41.252.228 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

59.41.252.228, what you're trying to make (single pages used for selecting between multiple subjects) are called wp:disambiguation pages. Generally we don't make those unless there are already multiple existing articles to disambiguate between. So if there's only one article about someone named Alempijević (Aleksandar Alempijević in this case), we'd leave Alempijević as a redirect. Once there's another article that could also be a disambiguation target (e.g. if we had an article about someone named Bob Alempijević), that's when the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation page. Alternatively, if you wanted to write an article about the Alempijević family, that's great, but you'd have to find enough documentation that the family itself was notable under the notability guidelines (WP:GNG). We do have a number of articles about famous families like that, such as the Bach family. But you have to supply a reasonable amount of text and sourcing (like in that article). A single sentence like "Alempijević is a Serbian family name" doesn't qualify as a Wikipedia article, so that's why it keeps getting reverted. You have to write something more substantial than that, with enough references to establish notability. That's all that's going on here. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

• (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)
• 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)

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)

I've issued an unambiguous final warning on his talk page, that he need to not delete any infobox unless there is a clear consensus to do so, else he will be blocked. As for whether they belong or not on any article, I don't care, but we don't need here is a repeat of previous infobox wars. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And based on this I've blocked for 2 weeks. Feel free to reduce or lengthen as you see fit. No need to notify me. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that sounds about right. If I had caught it first, I would have done the exact same duration. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruption at Suzannah Lipscomb

A number of IP addresses (all starting 82.132...) have been disrupting this article, demonstrating WP:IDHT throughout. The background to this is that I carried out an OTRS action, and a user Lw1982 (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted it (for which he was blocked for 36 by Callanecc. Following the block, an IP started editing the article and the talk page, continuing to today. The IP user seems to have a vengeance towards both me, and has repeatedly deleted talk page comments. I would appreciate if an admin can take the relevant action on this. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone, probably with a WP:COI, is attempting to micromanage this article. Reasonable edit requests will be considered, but edit warring and talk page disruption should not be tolerated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982. @Ianmacm: the user you are referring to is already doing this (see talk), and I feel the accusations of micromanaging are not true. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me guess: the "brand new" users want all mention of her ever having been married, to be expunged from the article. Am I right? Evidently nobody ever told Ms. Lipscombe the old adage: "marry in haste, repent at leisure". Guy (Help!) 11:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, in fact rather the contrary. Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982 for what the disruptive IPs and the SPA have been up to re the article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Just spotted this edit: "deleting all my comments as fed up of a dictatorship site that does not allow freedom of speech and shuts people down for asking questions". I think some blocks per WP:NOTHERE may be the order of the day... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Update: Lw1982 blocked one week for sockpuppetry. IPchange indeffed as sock of Lw1982. Article semi-protected from the hopping IPs until 4 July. (IP range too large to block.) Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston (administrator)

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

---

EdJohnston blocked me on 18 June 2014 on false grounds, after a complaint by an apparent sockpuppet. He de facto obstructed my unblock request by responding on the request, which suggested it being reviewed on the administrative backlog (reviews may only be done by another administrator).
Info and links provided on my talk page. --Wickey-nl (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, he did not obstruct your unblock request at all. His comments following your unblock request are normal - I often do the same. Nothing he said stopped any other Administrator from seeing and responding to your unblock request. It was not a review. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ergo, no one settled my request for unblock. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• You think you're entitled to a review of your unblock request on a 48 hour block? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You violated 1RR on Civilian casualty ratio. You got blocked. You made an unblock request. Ed discussed on your user talk but didn't respond to the unblock request. Ed couldn't be cleaner here if we threw him in a clothes washer with a whole bottle of bleach. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Stating here that I violated 1RR, without substantiating it, makes you repeating the same fault as EdJohnston made. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• You made this ANI thread to complain about EdJohnston somehow "obstructing" your unblock request, not argue the merits of your block (which expired). But I'll entertain the idea that your block is still reviewable for a moment. Let's presume for now that your block was incorrect. What should the remedy be? You're not blocked, so we can't unblock you. Block logs aren't purged even of wrongful entries, so that's not happening. You seem to suggest that Ed's administrative action was incorrect... so I presume you think some kind of sanction is merited relating to Ed's administrative actions. Not gonna happen. This single action, even if it were 100% a screw-up on Ed's part that he then refused to recognize as his mistake, would not be severe enough to merit any form of sanction against Ed. So basically, even if there was something incorrect here, this is moot. And frankly, your own behavior in this situation is questionable: I would refer any interested party to the (still being edited) "Suspicious procedure" section at your user talk page. The level of wikilawyering going on there (as here) is disturbing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not divert this question to the minor point of obstructing an unblock request. The point is that this administrator did something very fundamentally wrong, namely false accuse of violation of 1RR, and block with the help of an apparent sockpuppet. Whether or not it was his sockpuppet, double fault. And even if it was not a sockpuppet, it was still a false accusation, also on the noticeboard. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The minor point? That's the whole point of this discussion, if one is to believe your original post to this board. As to your implicit allegation that EdJohnston is engaged in sockpuppetry, I will not even dignify that with a response. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's focus on what matters, the key point. The editor believes they were blocked on "false grounds" because they didn't violate 1RR. Are they right or wrong ? The answer to that question has important implications in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. Now, first let me say that in my view Ed is one of the best admins foolish enough to volunteer time to help keep the ARBPIA topic area from getting out of control. In this case he made a decision about whether a series of edits was a 2nd revert within 24 hours and therefore a 1RR violation. See User_talk:Wickey-nl#Related_edits for the details. It is not the first time that I have seen this kind of interpretation from an admin but I think what matters is that there is general agreement about what constitutes a revert in this kind of situation so that editors know whether they are violating 1RR. I didn't regard this as a 1RR violation personally because the second series of edits wasn't something I would normally regard as a 'revert' (again see User_talk:Wickey-nl#Related_edits for the details). That doesn't mean I think Ed made a mistake. Ed's interpretation is not inconsistent with a literal reading of WP:3RR, but it is not possible to predict in advance how any given admin will deal with this kind of situation. If the interpretation used in this case became standard, it could be used to enforce BRD because it is very common in ARBPIA for editors to change material that has been in the article for a long time, get reverted and then revert the revert rather than follow BRD. I see that pretty much everyday. If that is a 1RR violation editors need to know. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think the poster has a valid complaint here. I don't see how the second series of edits constitutes a "revert"; they didn't change the same content as the first series of edits. Sean.hoyland tries to explain this on Wickey's talk page but I think his version of events is certainly an over-literal interpretation of WP:3RR. That said, EdJohnston may have more to say about this, and the odd mistake is unavoidable in any case. Subsequent to that initial questionable block there was no fault from anyone - Ed continued to comment on Wickey's talk page, as he is entitled to do, and he didn't touch the unblock request, which is considered best practice. The fact that Wickey's unblock request went unaddressed during the 48 hours that he was blocked is something he's just going to have to come to terms with if he wants to carry on participating in a voluntary project where no one has formally established roles or working hours. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
• The poster is offbase on every point. First, they clearly violated WP:1RR by reverting twice. The fact that it's different material, forgive me, is immaterial. The policy is clear. Nor were these minor reverts where an admin might overlook it. As for predictability, read the rule. Comply with the rule. The fact that an admin might in their discretion choose not to block is not something you can count on.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, does that mean that editors in ARBPIA can only make one sequence of uninterrupted edits per article per day that changes existing material because subsequent edits that changed content would be a 1RR violation. If someone else makes an edit the editor would need to stop (or add new content rather than change material with any subsequent edits). If that is the case it should probably be explicitly stated on the ARBPIA templates. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First, technically that is what it means, although as in just about everything, an admin has discretion not to block if the change is insubstantial. As I also said, I wouldn't count on it, especially in controversial subject areas. Second, there's no need to state that on the template. The template cites the policy. We don't want templates interpreting policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Okay, let's assume the second series of edits doesn't count as a revert: Ed made an error. I'd ask Ed to be more careful. End of thread? I think, though, we would just call this harmless error: even presuming the second series of edits wasn't a revert, it was removal of content without discussion on an article, in a topic subject to a 1RR restriction (and discretionary sanctions, though I note that Wickey had not been given a ds-notice at his user talk until after the block). I think the decision to block on other grounds would have fallen fully within Ed's discretion: in other words, he could've validly blocked for other reasons, though such a block probably wouldn't have been as uncontroversial as a valid 1RR block. I'd also note that had Wickey been interested in defending his edits, he had about 37 hours between Ed's first warning that there might have been a 1RR violation and offer to discuss it, and the time the block was issued. Wickey instead chose to ignore that warning and offer to discuss and just go on editing (and reverting) on other articles within the scope of ARBPIA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • And yes, Bbb23 is right. A revert doesn't need to be of the same material. It's never needed to be. The point of 3RR (and 1RR by extension) is to compel discussion on talk pages, rather than in edit summaries. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not an adversarial process. That said, it's clear that the restrictions on edit warring were not meant to encompass actual iterative changes to an article that just happen to involve partly undoing a previous edit. But that's not what happened in this case. That Wickey's first revert counts, as far as I can tell, has not been credibly questioned: all the discussion focuses on that second series of edits. Honestly, this specific edit in that series, wherein Wickey removes File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Attempt to Kidnap Soldiers Thwarted.jpg and a caption as "propaganda", is a revert of this edit (though some changes had since been made to the caption). Now, let's just assume Wickey went through the trouble I did and found the specific edit where that photo had been added, and happened to use the edit summary "Undid revision 490939280 by Jiujitsuguy (talk) WP:POV remove propaganda". Can you honestly say this wouldn't count as a revert towards a revert restriction? We wouldn't even be here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's correct, it reversed "the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" with the action having taken place in May 2012. Bear in mind 1RR was introduced into ARBPIA to stop edit warring. So the question should be, who was the editor edit warring with ? How can you edit war with a topic banned user's edit from over 2 years ago ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

First, you can't expect an admin to look at something that happened two years ago when, on the face of the edit, it's clearly a revert. Second, is the only thing the OP changed was that - nothing else? Third, was the editor whom he undid, so to speak, topic-banned at the time of the edit? Third, if the 2012 edit was so terrible, why has it stood all this time? Fourth, if the editor is claiming an "exemption" under 1RR (no such exemption actually exists), he should make that defense at the time of the report. Did he do so? All he's done here is rail, as far as I can tell.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring isn't a private wrong like a tort: it's not something that merely harms another person. It's a wrong against the community: to bastardize an old phrase, it's a breach of Jimbo's peace. That the editor in question was subsequently topic banned is irrelevant. And even then, you need to keep in mind that this editor had every opportunity before the block to respond to the claim that he was edit warring. He chose to ignore that opportunity and instead made another revert on an ARBPIA-covered article. What is Ed supposed to do? I submit there is no right answer: it all fell to Ed's discretion. So unless you have a cogent argument that the block was as a matter of policy clearly inappropriate, we should not be questioning Ed's block. Period. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• "you can't expect an admin to look at something that happened two years ago when, on the face of the edit, it's clearly a revert". If editors believe something is not clearly a revert and on the face of the edit it's article development by changing old content rather than edit warring with another human being, and admins reinforce that view by not consistently treating something like that as a revert, and the community in general operates on the basis that it's not a revert by not reporting similar instances as 1RR violations, it's not clearly a revert.
• "is the only thing the OP changed was that - nothing else?" No, they changed other content too in the second series of edits. I think it's also all from May 2012 or before.
• "was the editor whom he undid, so to speak, topic-banned at the time of the edit?" I've no idea, I doubt it, but my point was that 1RR is meant to be about stopping edit warring, actual edit warring between human beings. It shouldn't just be about counting reverts in my view (and in practice in many edit warring noticeboard cases it isn't just about counting reverts). 1RR in ARBPIA has been quite effective at reducing edit warring in the topic area, at least edit warring by editors who are not sockpuppets (which is probably about half of the active editors). But that effectiveness is predicated on editors knowing (and caring about) whether they have made 1 or more than 1 revert in 24 hours in an article. I don't think I need to spell out how important it is for admins to make sure that editors in ARBPIA know what a 1RR is in practice, when they should submit edit warring reports and what result they should expect.
• "if the 2012 edit was so terrible, why has it stood all this time?" There are many reasons why that could be the case, but the quality of an action that was subsequently reversed in whole or part isn't relevant to the issue of when that reversal becomes a revert.
• "if the editor is claiming an "exemption" under 1RR (no such exemption actually exists), he should make that defense at the time of the report. Did he do so?" There's no reason for an editor who believes they only made one revert to claim an "exemption" under 1RR. What will happen is what happened here. The editor will think and say that they didn't break 1RR. If admins are going to tell them that they were wrong they need to get their stories straight.
• "All he's done here is rail"...sure, in part, but that's what happens in ARBPIA when people think they have been mistreated. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that editors in ARBPIA know that when they change existing content, even if it is several years old, even in the absence of any other editors or edit warring, it is a revert.

Mendaliv, I don't mind which interpretation is right according to policy. I don't mind whether an editor is blocked. Nobody died. I don't even mind that this was all triggered by the kind of petty, vindictive and dishonest behavior that is the norm for many sockpuppets in the topic area, a sock who got exactly what they wanted in this case. None of that really matters. I'm interested in the constraints on editors in the topic area in practice and the tools available to put fires out and deal with disruptive aggressive editing, which is still endemic. These rules and their implementation affect the temperature, the level of conflict in the topic area. A small change can have a large effect. For example, if it is the case that editors in ARBPIA can, strictly speaking, only make one sequence of uninterrupted edits per article per day that changes existing material, that is, at least for me and probably many editors, new information and a potentially useful tool to rein in aggressive editors (or take out perceived opponents of course because every rule will be abused). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1: "First, you can't expect an admin to look at something that happened two years ago when, on the face of the edit, it's clearly a revert."

It wasn't a clear revert at all. Can you expect an editor to look at something that happened two years ago?

2: "If someone else makes an edit the editor would need to stop" (because further editing will cause a second revert).

This is a very weird interpretation. It ignores the purpose of the rule, to stop editwarring. Indeed, that would mean that the change of two arbitrary old sentences automatically constitutes a violation.

3: My interpretation of second revert in this context is the undoing of an edit of another editor, made by that editor within 24 hours after the first revert. Without an edit, there is no revert which can cause a second revert. This does not contradict the rule "An editor must not perform more than three [(or one)] reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."
--Wickey-nl (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Please help remove damaging comments on a page

I wish to have a comment I made on a page removed completely from the page. I realise now that the comment I made is both untrue, damaging, and libellous and I wish for my comment to be totally removed (even from the view history). The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7, 14:58, 17 June 2014‎ on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kelly_Grovier&action=history The comment is: (Challenging the fiction that Mr Grovier has a doctorate from Oxford. To do so, you have to submit a final copy of your thesis to the Bodleian, before the degree is conferred. There is no record anywhere of Mr Grovier having completed this degree.) I now know that this is untrue, and I should not have written it. Please help me remove the comment entirely from the page. I cannot undo it and I dont understand how to remove it completely :-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeybear5000 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The bit appears to have been removed by another editor. No admin is going to remove that from the view history, since it's not child pornography or something, and since he was adding sourced information (albeit original research, which we don't accept) in place of an unsourced assertion. Unless a source is added regarding his doctorate, nothing should be in the article about it. The way you say it's "damaging" almost sounds personal. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone falsely called me a PhD, I'd be flattered. There's nothing 'damaging' about it, just because it happens to be wrong. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, other way around, Monkeybear5000 is pushing for the unsourced assertion that Grovier has a PhD, while Hatofcleverness7 is adding somewhat sourced WP:OR saying that isn't so. Per WP:BLP, they're both wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks folks. This is me, I tried to change my user name. Its a real issue, Monkeybear5000 and hatsofcleverness7 is the same user, I tried to change the name. The comment I made re the doctorate not being available should be entirely removed, I was wrong, and the information is just not right. So yes, please, delete it, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeybear5000 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're not just impersonating Hatofcleverness7, then log in on that account and post that you're both Monkeybear5000 and Hatofcleverness7. Otherwise, you're just looking like someone dishonestly impersonating Hatofcleverness7. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm both monkeybear5000 and hatofcleverness7, I tried to change my name but I seem to have two accounts now. I made the comment about the PhD but he does actually have a PhD, and this isnt proof that he doesnt. Please remove the comment I made, it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatofcleverness7 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(Monkeybear5000 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)) I am monkeybear5000

Confirmation that the above was left by Hatofcleverness7 [59] Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, does this look suspicious to anyone else?

Monkeybear5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) implies he created the Kelly Grovier page, but his contributions page shows that he did not and the history for that article shows it was created by T-stcloud101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who's only other major edit was asserting that Grovier was a co-founder (instead of just on the editorial board) of European Romantic Review. Hatofcleverness7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who, just to keep the records straight, used to have the username Monkeybear5000 before the current Monkeybear5000) added sourced (albeit unacceptably original) information in place of unsourced information, and was reverted by BODBOD2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with the edit summary "Removing libelous vandalism: Successful viva for doctorate held on 20 July 2005. Copy of thesis subsequently deposited in Examination Schools. Missing citation on OLIS currently being investigated" -- indicating that BODBOD2014 is connected to Grovier in some way, if not Grovier himself.

EDIT after more caffeine: The current Monkeybear5000 claims to be Hatofcleverness7, even though Hatofcleverness7 clearly indicated they did not want to be associated with that name and there's no reason why Hatofcleverness7 couldn't have made this request him/herself.

Without some good evidence to the contrary, I can only believe (the current) Monkeybear5000, T-stcloud101, and BODBOD2014 are sockpuppet WP:SPAs (probably of Grovier's), Monkeybear5000 trying to hijack Hatofcleverness7's identity. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I concur and I think hatofcleverness7 needs to be investigated as part of the same action. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was confused by this line above "The comment was made by my account monkeybear5000, with the user name now changed to HatofCleverness7" (which would seem to indicate the present message is being left by hatofcleverness7, right?) but it was autosigned as monkeybear5000, which does seem to indicate one person operating both accounts. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm more under the impression that the current Monkeybear5000 is trying to hijack the name and pretend to be Hatofcleverness7, otherwise it would be Hatofcleverness7 who filed this original request. Hatofcleverness7 stated that they did not want to be associated with that name. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Hatofcleverness7: - Can you comment on what appears to be Monkeybear5000 impersonating you at the top of this thread, please? Thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

If Monkeybear5000 is truly Hatofcleverness7, they can easily log in on that old account. I'd not object to an immediate indef block for trolling and impersonation if Monkeybear5000 replies as Monkeybear5000 instead of Hatofcleverness7. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm sure I left Morton's Fork lying around somewhere here. It's either impersonation or unapproved multiple accounts. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They're acting in opposite goals, though.

Monkeybear5000 has tried to remove a citation needed tag and censor an archive link that demonstrates that Grovier is on the editorial board (i/o co-founder). This leaves me with little good faith in the idea that he's not Grovier trying to censor the article for puff purposes. 15:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Dunno what's going on here but they've now confirmed via the Hatofcleverness7 account it the same editor, see above Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Monkeybear500 here, I wrote the sentence but it is not true and I would really appreciate it if you could remove it. Monkeybear5000 (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am also HatsofCleverness7 too Hatofcleverness7 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC) please help me take out that comment :(

Okay, now that the confusing identity of the two accounts has been clarified, I really see no reason for further suspicion here. This editor made a rash remark about a potentially problematic BLP issue and is now trying to do the right thing in terms of BLP, by retracting it. Don't see why we shouldn't honour that request, so I have indeed hidden the two edits in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the reason half of the users on Wikipedia have a committed identity using SHA-256,512 or Whirlpool. :D --Ankit Maity ^{«T § C»}_{«Review Me»} 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

That committed identity stuff is silly and irrelevant. Monkeybear5000 showed control of both accounts by logging as both of them. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I was talking about Hatofcleverness7, who could prove himself easily using committed identity. If his account is hacked, he can ask a steward to restore that to himself using his committed identity (you know like one-way encrypting with a string of your choice). Although it's really unclear whether Hat and Monkey are the same guy, or different and is Monkey in access of Hat's account. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 05:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Karsad147

User:Karsad147 has on three occasions created vanity articles about himself, which were speedy deleted. User was asked to stop doing this. User returned with List of Monkey Quest characters, which is clearly not a genuine article about Monkey Quest. (Monkey Quest is a MMORPG online video game found at Nickelodeon's Nick.com website).

There are the List of Monkey Quest Charcters which are released in 2014. Sample text from article:

• Roman Brilliantant

Roman Brilliantant is the charcter he is the Sea Dragon Counter he was creatd by Karsad147 (Kyle Chester Ancheta Antoyne) He serve the Monkey King when he is adopted in 2012 the last one he appears in the upcoming video game in Nickelodeon on 2016.

Extended content

Seeno Baltotus Seeno Baltotus is the Femish charcter lives in Femland inserts him when Kyle Chester Ancheta Antoyne keeps him produce and he Became friends in Chim Foo origins in the world. Nik Calmwolf Nik Calmwolf is a Henrish charcter which he takes place in Henriland when he Besided of those he is being ocxiderd in themselves sabotaging those villains in Ook. Leonardo Loyalship Leonardo Loyalship is a Femim charcter of he is discount by the Esterators when Leonardo is afflicted by the Bad Pirates he is voweled of those 25 years ago until he is adopted to defeat Ka. Ultra Sparkwarrior Ultra Sparkwarrior is the British devoping those Arubans and Politteans under controlling him Ultra is diversed by the villains in the Carnivals and Cities under Ultra he is beyonded by the Healers

I'm not sure how we can influence positive editing from the user who penned the content above; so far the contributions are clearly disruptive and there might be a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Here is a photo the user uploaded, but it's unclear what this blurry photo labeled Episode 42 is meant to illustrate. See also: this edit, this one, and this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My guess is Candy Crush, but I don't know why it's here. Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I just blanked her user page as a copy-paste copyvio from the Pokemon wikia, Bulbapedia, which operates on Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 according to the bottom of the page. I presume that a straight copy and paste into Wikipedia is still a violation. Blackmane (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Edit: Of course, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong and will self revert in that case. However, if it is a copyright violation, it is still in the page history. Blackmane (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No need to self-revert, since it would be a vio of WP:USERPAGE. Unless it were to be argued that this was the user's work in progress, but I think I'd like to hear that argument from the user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

At the top, it says "From Bulbapedia...", I went and had a look at the wikia that this referenced and its a word for word copy paste. Blackmane (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted that image under CSD F9 as a clear copyright violation. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They've created List of Optimus Center characters, which I've tagged as CSD:G1 (which I think is correct). Blackmane (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The user removed the CSD template. They're clearly not here for constructive purposes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I just removed G1, which is not correct; patent nonsense is something different than what's there (it could totally be copyedited into something coherent). If it's a hoax, go ahead and hit it with G3. If it's a copyvio (entirely possible given the editor's track record), tag accordingly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually just retagged as G3 for obvious hoax: just googling "Optimus Center" makes it clear there is no such work of fiction, though there is a school in the Philippines by that name. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv - User appears to be active right now and reverting CSD nominations. I've warned him on his talk page and I will revert one last time, but I'm at my max. It would be helpful for an admin to handle this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Proper final warning template issued. Next time he removes a speedy deletion template, just send him to WP:AIV if an admin hasn't already responded to this. This guy needs a block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And now at AIV following yet another revert of the speedy deletion templates. Hopefully a block will be forthcoming. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

An admin may want to revdel this edit from May: Karsad147 had evidently temporarily thought the way you added an image to a Wikipedia page was to open said image in a text editor, copying what was inside, and pasting it into the edit window in the "image" field of the infobox. I actually tried to reverse the process by pasting it into vi and saving as a JPEG; nothing happened, but I'm presuming it somehow is an image file and almost certainly does contain some copyrighted image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Mendaliv: Thanks for the correction. I had figured that it was related to a school or something but wasn't sure whether to tag it as G3 or G1. To me it had looked like they were blending something school related to some sort of fictional setting. Upon reflection, I should have gone with G3. Blackmane (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User:CorporateM

There has been a long-standing content discussion at ResearchGate. User:CorporateM has suddenly descended and made wholesale changes to the article. ([60] but see numerous individual edit summaries). In response to my attempt to cordially challenge their bold editing, User:CorporateM has declared that s/he need not carry on a discussion with me and specifically challenged me to go to ANI if I want to proceed any further.[61]

If people here want to get into the content discussion, then I suppose they'll do so. It wouldn't hurt to have some more experienced editors get involved, as long as they are willing to listen and engage. For the present purpose, though, all that is needed is a judgment regarding User:CorporateM's disdainful tactics. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion already taking place at AN, which is what drew my attention to the article. CorporateM (Talk) 18:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of that discussion. Nevertheless, 1) it is not clear to me which of your statements you are trying to excuse by saying you were referring to that discussion, and 2) Your snap judgments remain breathtaking. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Spam issue notwithstanding: It certainly has been dramatically changed, in a fashion that removes almost entirely all criticism from the article. While the structure of the article may not be ideal, and criticism sections are not favored, I don't agree that the sources for that negative information are quite as crappy as has been suggested by CorporateM. For instance, this blog[62] seems to fit within the parameters described in the weblogs section of WP:RSE. "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer." However, despite the challenge to go to AN/I, I don't think this is the place to discuss such things. Coretheapple (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It's very frustrating that I cleanup thousands of bytes of promotion without a hitch, but every time I remove equally poorly-sourced criticisms, there is an incredible amount of resistance and every possible reason is found to keep as much as possible, often using extreme interpretations of primary sources, advocacy sources, or blogs. To use a blog as an expert source, the author needs to be a renown expert within their field. There's plenty of source material in The New York Times and no reason to rely on a much less source like a blog from a library. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: Thank you, that is exactly the argument I have made about that source. I agree that this is not the place for a content discussion. If your response can be taken as a nudge for CorporateM to engage in discussion instead of expecting their dictates to be followed uncritically, then we are probably done here.

@CorporateM: As I've said, I appreciate your general orientation to improve articles of this kind, and I can't speak to what you have encountered at other articles. Content discussion continued in the appropriate place. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: The New York Times, and other news papers are not always a good source either. More often than not, a company can feed a press release to e.g. Reuters, and it will end up with minor changes in a dozen of newspapers; without much independent verification! ResearchGate is very good at this game, as seen with STAP cells. E.g. on Wired [63] and GigaOm [64] they dropped the headline "Major stem cell study debunked on scientific social network", despite the study having being "debunked" a month earlier outside of ResearchGate... and dozens of sites copied this: [65]. Paul Knoepfler, a researcher who did most of the "debunking" commented on Twitter: [66]...

Of course New York Times will not report e.g. on the potential dangers of uploading your publications to Researchgate. We have to rely on sources such as the Swinburne Library ("blog") - an NPO institution with the responsibility to assist researchers at publishing - to point out potential copyright problems with the RG approach.

Nor will the New York Times publish an article like "sorry, STAP cells were debunked before RG". Negative results just don't get published as well as press releases. In other words: news aren't good sources for anything that can write press releases full of self-advertising. And there are plenty of articles just packed with references such as that: New Relic, ZocDoc, Zoosk, Apptio, Software analytics. All packed with "references" from "news" such as ZDNet, CNet, TechChrunch; which happily "rewrite" ("retweet"?) press releases by companies. Are such sites really better than a university library? The rule "if it has 'news' in its name it is good, if it has 'blog' in its name it is bad" is too simple. --188.98.212.25 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP and editor

Looks like the ip 70.190.0.110 and user User:BloodyCrip are the same person making legal threats: "A class action lawsuit may also be filed where you will be listed as the defendant", also made here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

These people continue to harass me for cleaning up malicious links and articles that promote well known malware, including rogue software. These articles can harm millions of Wikipedia readers and internet users. Their actions can destory the reputation of Wikipedia as being a safe website. The promotion of malware should never be allowed on Wikipedia. The admins in question have no knowledge of the subject and should not be allowed to edit such articles in the future. If this harassment continues a full investigation will be conducted. BloodyCrip — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The legal threat appears to deal with the editor's objections to the article on Yet Another Cleaner, claiming that the subject software contains malware. While there might be something to be said for making some of the information from the controversies section more prominent... apart from that, this isn't a WP:DOLT situation. Anyway, blocks are warranted on this: even if the legal threat is not credible, it's an attempt (albeit sophomoric) to gain leverage in a dispute using threats of using the legal system to resolve an on-wiki dispute. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And I note that BloodyCrip's response above, threatening "a full investigation" unless he gets his way, gives a pretty good idea of the situation here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

As blatant a legal threat as can be. Before indef'ing the user, is there any merit to his claims that some of the linked sites are connected with malware? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE seems to apply for the user... Connormah (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not a virus or trojan, but Cnet admits it messes with your registry, and looking further ([67], [68], [69]), I would treat it like malware if it came near my system or those I'm responsible for. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the article does mention that there are criticisms of the software. There's no reason for the user to be removing sourced content and threatening those that replace it. ... discospinster _talk 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh..no. I won't get into the specifics here, but forum posts and warning about having any program remove registry information are not admitting it "messes with your registry". Of course a registry cleaner alters your registry. Every registry cleaner I've used warns you not to remove vital entries. So anyone that just "cleans" their registry without looking what they are removing may believe the program "messed with their registry", but the fact is, the user just did it. Also, this has nothing to do with the legal threats the IP and editor are making. They don't seem to understand what the program does either. Also, CNet has been allowing programs to install 3rd party software with their "free" versions. BUT, there are options to not install the software. In order to be available on CNet, they have to give the option to not install. And they do. Dave Dial (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So, given all that, why hasn't the user been indef'd yet? Legal threats cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic (although I didn't take it there), but the actual effect of the software on say, my mother's computer, would be no different than deliberate malware -- I'd end up spending time bringing the computer as close to the state it was in before that program was put on there due to problems caused by the software. And read the CNet page I linked to, CNet says that one of the downsides to the software is that it "can interfere substantially with your system Registry, often with negative results." Yes, all software of that kind does that, but one of the sites I linked to (which I believe is actually cited in our article) points out that it starts doing a scan whether you tell it to or not (indicating a dangerous lack of control), produce false results, and collect user data for spamming purposes. WP:Assume clue, next time. Or install it on your system and use it for a bit if you're so convinced it's safe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I concur with Ian here insofar as the advertising component is something I'd consider highly undesirable. It wasn't long ago that the terms "adware", "spyware" and "malware" were used interchangeably; only very recently have these had any real difference in meaning (mostly because the "adware" wasn't breaking things as often as it used to). While we usually are pretty unforgiving when it comes to requiring a reliable source for certain claims, internet subculture-type stuff has been historically given a bit of leeway, especially when it comes to articles about dodgy software. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Indeffed Bloodycrip under NLT. His comments make it overwhelmingly likely that he's the same person as the IP who was making explicit legal threats, and even if he somehow wasn't, the threats he has been making haven't been appropropiate either. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I just broke my TBAN, community input appreciated

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

---

I believe reverting obvious socks ought to be an exemption, especially with one known for copyvios, what say you? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see exemptions. If the user has been warned previously against copyvio and isnt heading warning there may be an exception here but its no guarantee as copyvio isnt vandalism without meeting particular circumstances. Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no copyvio on this one, just reverting a well known sock. Simply I am asking to be let off for reverting in violation of my ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• A few things: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive, the IP is clearly within the range and geolocates to the exact same region as previous Nangparbat socks (although, European geolocation in general and UK geolocation in particular is all but worthless). In my experience, Darkness is better at identifying N*bat socks than anyone else, and I don't remember him being wrong very often, if ever. However....this edit was N*bat deleting content not adding contentious material. Honestly, you should NOT be reverting these and in my opinion, you should instead be reporting them via email. It isn't technically listed, but in my opinion it would be within the spirit of the exceptions, as he is a banned editor. If you are reverting BLP material out of an article, then current exceptions already covers that. I don't recommend any action here (this time), and would oppose sanctions simply as you've come here for clarification and I think you were acting in good faith. But yes, you did break your Tban restriction, with the best of intentions. Please don't do that again. I don't want to see you end up blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I just now saw you have already been given an exception for filing at SPI. You could do that, and email ping a clerk, or even me if you must. Seriously, DS, I know it is slower but you have to just live with it as long as you are under sanction. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with User:Dennis Brown here, unless it's something that clearly needs to be removed immediately (defamation, threats of violence, etc), then you should probably list it at SPI, and leave it to someone else to review and take action. In this case I don't think it's actionable since you had the good sense to bring it here for further review, but you probably shouldn't do it again. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I'm a non-administrator bystander but I'm a little confused by this TBAN violation. He'd asked for another TBAN exemption to revert socks a couple of times before all this[70] [71]. Looking at the relevant Talk pages, it seems that Callanecc told Darkness Shines on June 14 to wait a couple of weeks[72] before bringing up reverting socks again; then DS asked to revert one[73] yesterday, got no answer from Callanecc, and said he'd do it anyway[74] today and came here. It's seems clear to me that DS really wants to be able to revert socks and is trying to force the issue, which seems to me to go against the spirit of the TBAN. Of course I'm neither especially experienced nor an administrator so I could be reading all this completely wrong. --Ca2james (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• He was already been given an exception for SPI right after being advised to wait a couple of weeks. He isn't asking for an exception here, just clarification. Lankiveil summed it up better than I, but we are saying no exception exists for copyvio OR socking, and saying no action should be taken over this singular, good faith breach. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the clarification. --Ca2james (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• As no one has yet objected, I issued a mini trout and notice to be more careful on DS's talk page. This should be adequate this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nathan0313

Meh, I don't think this edit was in keeping with the spirit of WP:CIVIL, considering my hand-tailored note was intended to help explain why the content they kept wedging into the article at Laura Marano kept getting reverted. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've left a message on his talk page, explaining in plain English what he did wrong, what policy it violates, where to go to get help, and what will happen if the edit warring or personal attacks continue. For now, I think that is enough, but would leave this open in case he doesn't get the message. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Based on the response to your comment ("i really dont need another guy correcting me" and "just please let me edit my things"), I'm not feeling very confident, but WP:AGF and all that. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't say you are wrong, but before we get ugly I want to make sure we've exhausted all the good faith we can reasonably spare. It doesn't always work, but sometimes it does, so it is worth me spending a few comments to see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Agreed, and the response to your latest comment was slightly more promising. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I think The Honorable Dennis Brown did a fine job explaining the community aspect of the project. I'm satisfied with the response and I think this can be considered resolved. Intervention doesn't always mean banwhack. Thanks DB. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Tristan.andrade.136

May I please get some admin eyes on this situation? User Tristan.andrade.136 was brought to ANI in March 2014 for WP:COMPETENCE issues. He never responded and it was determined that he was not ready for prime time, and his account was indeffed. In the interim, the user has come back every Friday to make IP-based edits at articles he created, for example Slugterra: Ghoul from Beyond. The edits are still mostly copy-pasted and/or poorly written. I filed a few SPI reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tristan.andrade.136/Archive but was ultimately told that WP:RBI might be the better approach. I started reverted edits on sight and the user complained on my talk page. I responded and tried to keep it friendly. User came back to edit again tonight, "STOP ALWAYS BEING AFTER ME I AM LIKE THE ONLY ONE YOUR AFTER AND HATE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" What is the protocol here? They have been indeffed, yet they keep returning to contribute problematic content. They can't be reasoned with, taught, warned, and now it appears they are attempting to be emotionally manipulative by racking up an absurd bullying/hounding case. Help requested. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe mediation or block's the only way. Consider semi-protecting the article so that IPs don't touch. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 05:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are multiple articles that he is interested in. I don't think it would be prudent to protect all of them. On the other hand, maybe. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the articles he's interested for a short time might be a good idea. I've seen it work before - if troublesome kids find themselves unable to edit their favourite articles for a few weeks in row, they will often give up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've requested semi-protection on two of the articles, and I suppose I'll just continue to RBI if I see him elsewhere. Thanks y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant of Melkor - continued trolling, bullying, insulting, and edit warring

[I am a novice when it comes to editing pages. Please pardon any mistakes - I'd be happy to promptly correct them]

I submit this complaint about the user Lieutenant of Melkor who has not only harassed me for days, but has trolled others for years. The following is from his archive pages

talk/archive 1

• February 10 2012 against user Mlm42: “go on to Google Books and Scholar, where tolerance for total bullshit such as "Kinmen, Taiwan" is lower
• March 19 Personal Attack against user TheGeneralUser
• June 10 2012 against 140.109.113.28
• June 15 2012 under Stiki, a threat against Rsrikanth05

Also see Rsrikanth05 archive page June 2012 from Lieutenant of Melkor (GotR) “It is self-evident that you know nothing about WP:MOSDAB” followed by a threat

• August 7 2012 under ROC/Taiwan and PRC/China against N-HH.

talk/archive 2

• December 29 2012 against Skrelk "You, as a user with less than 500 edits, have much to learn" GotR (found in revisions)
• December 31 2012 against Jon (Pimpnmonk)
• January 21 2013 against Ryulong. And … Again shortly after under "Songshan"
• February 12 2013 under "Your ANI removal of a topic against KillerChihuahua" This was particularly disconcerting as Lieutenant of Melkor appeared to be deleting evidence in dispute in an active case as he did with me. Furthermore by his own admission he violated Talk-Page guidelines and appeared to sidestep ANI guidelines.
• February 2013, warned by Favonian about edit wars
• February 23 2013 under Edit Summaries, warned by GeorgeLouis for his edit summary comment “I'm not going to put up with this tomfoolery” and again in March 2013, again warned about edit wars
• March 22 against Emmette Hernandez Coleman
• August 16 under Non-sock accounts, acknowledgment of and admonishment for “his poor behavior”.

2014 incidents - the following occurred as recently as Feb to May 2014 Feb 17 2014 ANI NOTICE [“I am not a repeat convict but instead one who previously did not control his temper well. I also intend to subject myself to a 1RR (usual exceptions for vandalism, spamming, etc.) to minimise the risk of edit wars, not use edit summaries exceeding one sentence, and abide by a strict WP:NPA policy”] M.o.p. replied “if you edit war, you will be blocked again. If you make anything even resembling a personal attack or jab at another editor, ditto” M.o.p. (master of puppets continued with his final warning to Meltor "It should go without saying that violating any of these terms will result in the reinstatement of your block" Since this warning by an administrator a mere four months ago, Melkor has been

• warned by [AlexF (Feb 13)] for disruptive editing,
• rude to [Onel5969] "I have no blazing idea what you are talking about"
• personally attacked [on May 3 "an IP on well-known policy when said user can't even avoid opening the article like a newspaper"]
• warned by (possible admin) [Philg88] for his edit comments "pathetically has nothing better to do" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisan1 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• Giantsnowman (May 11) and subtropical man (May 24) for edit warring. He has personally attacked Onel5659 (Feb 26), Eldumpo and Giantsnowman (May 1), an IP user (Mar 3 - "I don't need any lecturing by an IP on well-known policy when said user can't even avoid opening the article like a newspaper" ), and even administrators (April 1 to Tokyogirl79 - "The irrationality of most administrators continues to confound me"). In this year alone he has been warned by two users/administrators about comments: Philg88 twice (Mar 20 and May 13) and Rhaworth (Apr 3)

Also I do not wish to be disingenuous with the administrators or the readers. While I am aghast at his unprofessional and cowardly behavior, I confess that I am also amused and entertained at his degree of rudeness, foulness, cowardice and hypocrisy (his revolting responses to polite inquiries would be hilarious if they weren’t so offensive to the norms of common decency). The following brief account will show both his insults and offenses as well as my own retaliatory reactions to them – again, to be frank, as I always deal with internet trolls, I reacted, communicated, “bandied” with him in his manner, “holding the mirror up” so to speak.

PERSONAL ATTACKSOn June 16, 2014 I corrected Austin, Texas to indicate that it is the 29th largest city in the U.S. I had previously corrected this months ago, and was frustrated that someone made the mistake again – I commented “Man I hope this is the last time we have to do this. There are 28 larger cities in the U.S.” Melkor responded on my user_talk:paisan1 page about his “wholesale reverting my edits,” “w.r.t. population”. Not knowing what “w.r.t. population” means [and I laugh at myself about this] I failed to find out what kind of population is “w.r.t.” I politely asked him via email since to me (and most people) this is the most efficient way of communicating as opposed to editing a page. I invite the administrators to review the interaction in its entirety user_talk:paisan1(less the beginning email to him which I assure was professional and simply inquired why he was being rude and why he would criticize me of not knowing what “w.r.t. population” meant whilst misspelling the word “realize”, and also why he was rude in his edit summary saying “man you had better realise no one cares about area rankings except for maybe JAX, Juneau, etc” (see revision history of Austin, Texas). I ceased being polite since it was obvious he had no intention of maturely communicating.

DELETING THE EVIDENCE along with continued personal attacks Administrators may admonish me for not signing on my own page, but one thing I did not do was delete any of our comments - I would never delete evidence like that. Meltor on the other hand did so on Revision as of 18:19, 18 June 2014. He deleted the comments in their entirety up to the original post. He intentionally deleted the evidence of his harassment. On MY talk page. And his edit summary comment: “what a farce of a diploma”, not the first of his edit summary insults to me and not the last. He deleted it again at 19:43. And again at 23:26. Then he/she, the aggressor, warned me about attacking other editors. I cut and pasted it to his talk page. He once again deleted the evidence and tagged the warning at the bottom of my talk page. I reversed it and pasted the warning on his page again. (He appears to have either elicited help from IronGargoyle or IronGargoyle is Meltor using a different login/email account. I suspect the latter since under IronGargoyle the same warning tag was coincidentally placed on my page where none was placed on Meltor’s, but I remain uninterested)

VIOLATED THE GUIDELINES by tampering with the code in my talk page To make things worse, Meltor then went into my talk page and inserted an archive box – I never gave permission for that – and he listed it as “for your good” (if it was for my good, why did he not do that before he deleted the posts on my page?). Melkor then systematically changed the dates of the posts to June 8 so that the posts would archive and disappear from my talk page. His comment: “this will do the bloody trick”. My posts archived and I had to undo his violation. His final comment was to ask me if I was “stupid or void of common sense” since I have “chosen to accept” the auto archive, when in reality I never chose to accept anything since he himself entered the code to do so on my talk page. And his final edit comment: “Wow 60+ edits in, and still no idea how to rvt multiple edits instantaneously 0_0”.

Clearly Meltor has benefited Wikipedia in one or two significant areas: Climate, China, and Taiwan. However, given the history of this editor, his harassment of me and others, his boorish interaction with others, his bullying edit wars, and his clear lack of respect for the administrators and the guidelines, surely we’ve reached the point where the burden of his annoying and counterproductive actions and comments outweigh any perceived value of his contributions, projects that could be taken up by someone else. How many other editors have to complain about him/her? He is a student who revels in the god complex nature of creating weather boxes while exhibiting legitimate signs of aspergers, or at least a complete lack of understanding social interaction. If I am honest enough to admit my retaliation and counteractions to his aggression, then also believe me that I make that last statement with no interest in being “amusing” at all, nor being amused; Meltor should not be allowed to continue as an editor. --Paisan1 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr 207.38.156.219 (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• As our IP friend indicated above, too long, didn't read. Do us a favor and read that linked essay, then read WP:DIFF to learn how to provide diffs (examples of editor problems should always be diffs, not quotes), and please work on being concise. I am admittedly too verbose, but you have me beat. There is no way anyone is going to read and research all that in the format you provided, it would take over an hour. Another short essay that is worth reading is WP:NOJUSTICE. Admin aren't here to dispense justice, thankfully. We just solve problems and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• To take a leaf out of your book, exhibiting legitimate signs of Aspergers [It's capitalised], or at least a complete lack of understanding social interaction is likely the most severe personal attack I have seen from a good-standing editor on my time here. You are not my psychologist nor have you ever met me in person. He appears to have either elicited help from IronGargoyle or IronGargoyle is Meltor using a different login/email account I hardly knew there was an editor under that name. February 10 2012 under Sorry, against user Mlm42: “go on to Google Books and Scholar, where tolerance for total bullshit such as "Kinmen, Taiwan" is lower You can't find anything recent? That was eons ago and you may find NONE OF THAT after restoration of my good standing in February.
• And for what purpose are you here? This ("appreciate the entertainment value") and this (scroll to the very bottom, "I will continue to enjoy calling him on it.") suggest you are in a battleground-like mentality with the purpose of seeking retribution against me. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 17:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur with the point on suggesting Lieutenant of Melkor is exhibiting signs of Aspergers. That is quite the serious personal attack. I would also strongly advise Paisan1 to provide a short summary of the complaints, three paragraphs or less, and entirely without the editorializing. What you've provided here is too long for a RfC/U, let alone an ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I will begin the process of editing the complaint today and attempt to finish tonight (I have other projects) and I thank you for the input. Again, I meant the Asperger's comment with sincerity, not meant as a jab ("no interest in being 'amusing' at all). A major symptom of Asperger's is a person's inability to monitor and adhere to the norms of social propriety and interaction. The evidence above, especially towards editors who were POLITE to him/her, shows either his true inability or his complete apathy towards common consideration. For the latter I'd be happy to insult because then we'd know it wasn't psychological disability. I regret the Aspergers comment and withdraw it NOT out of an apology since I did not mean it as an insult but because it was misinterpreted as such. I'd be happy to remove it, but I leave it in tact as evidence against me, the victim of his harassment.

To the admins and the other readers, please note that Melkor continues to sidestep the issue. The entire list from his Archive page 3 are recent offenses. Furthermore, my entire interaction with him was only this past week with numerous personal attacks, not "eons ago". His response that my Asperger's comment was "the most severe [he's] seen" exhibits his hypocrisy since he continually called others "insane". While I am editing, I ask the admins to review this case, how he has attacked me and others this year alone, and how he manipulated my talk page to delete the evidence three times (and later under the guise of archiving).--Paisan1 (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I meant the Asperger's comment with sincerity Regardless of your intent, you have never claimed anywhere to be a trained/qualified psychologist and the like, and for all we know, you may be acting an impostor. Archive page 3 What Archive? my entire interaction with him was only this past week with numerous personal attacks, not "eons ago" In nearly all of the cases, some falsified /deliberately mis-represented, that you cited, they did indeed occur eons ago. If you found my "w.r.t. = with respect to. Very easy to look up" remark condescending you could have chosen to ignore it (it's not as if I used a ridiculous acronym in the likes of what is found here). Instead, you played along as I expected someone with a battleground mentality to do and stated you "enjoy calling him out" (link above). To the admins and the other readers, please note that Melkor continues to sidestep the issue. Until you learn to heed the advice of Dennis Brown and Mendaliv, no one has any reason to do address the "issue". To most others, all of what you have written here at AN/I is nothing short of unsupported babble. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, administrators, please note above how Meltor sidesteps the issue to detract from the issue while proving his hypocrisy. He himself never claimed anywhere to be a trained/qualified psychologist and the like, and for all we know, [he] may be acting an impostor as he has called me and others "insane". He sidesteps with "w.r.t." since I indicated on my talk page user_talk:paisan1 that it didn't bother me and still laugh about as indicated above; all the while still refuses to consider that he shouldn't have said any of the insults that I have listed above against me and others THIS YEAR. --Paisan1 (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on you, boy. So far, NOT ONE link.

• Yawn*. Paisan1, You are belabouring under the delusion that I can somehow 'delete evidence'; the only way to do so on this site is to act in an administrative capacity. Pathetic "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Melkor, you've picked a bad neighborhood and time to be smug. These comments and that fact that you are pointing out anyone's Aspergers shows there probably is something to investigate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: I am not clear on what you mean. Are you implying I suggested at any point that someone has Aspergers? The only person doing that here is Paisan1. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have linked your talk page with full access to your archive. Do you deny any of the offenses I have listed out? Don't worry - I already know you will neither deny nor confirm. Sidestepping. --Paisan1 (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

To the readers and admins, editing pages is new to me so I appreciate your patience. I have edited much of the above account and will do my best to link the "diffs" for your review of Melkor's violations. I ask the administrators to grant me one consideration. If I had been an isolated incident there would be no ANI submission here. He simply barked up the wrong tree. But he has harassed others and violated guidelines as recently as LAST MONTH, and this after his previous ban where he said he would strictly adhere to them. With respect to Dennis Brown consider this not justice but an end to an two-year long problem.--Paisan1 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

TO EVERYONE, Asperger's is a serious mental condition. To be very clear, I did not use it as an insult the way that some might use the r-word for someone with autism. I would not do that; I have my own personal reasons, and it's beneath me. I have not claimed to be an expert either, but you don't have to be an expert to compare the serious problems that a true Asperger's syndrome person has with social interaction with the continued and consistent rudeness and lack of professional communication that Melkor has exhibited. I truly regret the comment, NOT because Melkor may have been insulted (I am indifferent on that), but because it has mistakenly caused alarm and misunderstanding. The irony is that if Melkor had Asperger's (which I still wonder about) it would stir honest sympathy from me - I'd probably drop this whole submission.Paisan1 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Paisan1: you're just digging yourself deeper. It's entirely inappropriate (not to mention offensive) to start commenting on a fellow editor's mental state. If you have a problem with Lieutenant of Melkor's conduct, then comment on that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not that thrilled with either of them at this stage. Real life keeps interrupting me, and this mess (as I've noted above) is impossible to investigate properly without diffs. I'm seeing lots and lots of rudeness, and it isn't all coming from one person. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, how am I digging myself deeper when I expressed regret at ever using the term? I'd like to try again - TO EVERYONE due to misinterpretation I completely retract and regret the reference to Aspergers. I propose we move on with the subject at hand, set aside that I ever used that term, and proceed with the presumption that all parties involved are not hindered by anything and are fully accountable for their comments and actions. I hold myself accountable which is why I have not deleted anything from my talk pages or archives in full candor and which is why I retract and regret the mistake mentioned in this inserted post. I hope that Mendaliv and Dennis Brown will likewise hold Melkor accountable for the list of offensive comments (including referring to my sanity and others) and his recent actions for which he promised in an earlier ANI case (where he was banned) to avoid doing in strict adherence to guidelines. --Paisan1 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I must step away for several hours. I will return to summarize my argument in following Dennis' advice. Please note that it appears that Melkor has unarchived his posts and yet I am now not able to locate some of the incidences listed above for linking and referencing. Thank you, administrators, for your consideration. --Paisan1 (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Any comments about another editor's mental status are inappropriate. Comment about content, or (where behavior is a problem and it's actually necessary), on-wiki behavior. Do not make claims about people's motivations, their off-wiki activities, or the like. With very, very limited exceptions (I honestly can't even think of one offhand) it will only serve to take the intended discussion right off the rails (as has happened here). So let's all move on and, as Dennis has advised you, produce diffs as you've been instructed. Mere reference to archive pages and the like is not going to help you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE. Melkor has deleted his archives in their entirety. Where at first it might appear that they are all on his talk page, several of the referenced incidences above are now gone; including but not limited to two of his ANI reproaches. He said earlier that I was belaboring (spelled correctly) under the delusion that [he] can somehow 'delete evidence', he has proved that it is not delusion. I will still make my case, but evidence has been figuratively shredded

I've got a couple points. First, if you provided evidence in the form of diffs, which you have been asked to provide several times, it would not matter what Lieutenant of Melkor did to his user talk archives. Second, for heaven's sakes, it doesn't help your case to be using <big> tags around your contribs. Just chill out. Go back and find diffs. Provide them. Provide a concise summary of what's going on. I promise you that if you can follow those instructions your complaint will receive all the consideration it is due without prejudice because of any prior mistakes you may have made here. Just do that much. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

When you say "deleted", do you mean blanked or properly deleted by an admin? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently Lieutenant of Melkor tagged his user talk archives as {{db-u1}}, but at the same time restored all the archived content to his user talk page. As long as the edit histories are intact as well, I see no problem with that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Can the deleting admin recover them if not? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Skamecrazy123: It doesn't matter since the user talk itself is intact. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 21:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but I don't think it's necessary. It's all in Lieutenant of Melkor's user talk page history. It falls to Paisan1 to get the diffs. I don't think it's that much to ask. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only brought it up to make a point that there were ways and means of getting the evidence needed (if it existed in the first place) even if it had been properly deleted. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I already knew it could be retrieved from the talk page history but aside from the fact that Melkor is simply trying to make things more difficult and postpone accountability is there no one besides maybe skamecrazy123 that is questioning why he deleted them in the first place? No suspicion? (I'm still away on business; will return with diff links tonight - thank you for your input Skame and Malv)--Paisan1 (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there's no suspicion. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely odd, but it's such a triviality to look at page histories that no experienced editor would consider it an effective means of covering things up. Especially when he's restored the previously-archived comments at the same time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if it's considered odd. What he seems to be doing is restoring the archived content to the talk page, maybe to provide a quicker way for Paisan1 to get the diffs he needs. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty damn weird to even edit your own user talk archives: almost everyone lets a bot do it for them, and then never even looks at the archives again unless they have to go to ANI over something. Even the people who delete certain notices from their user talk pages (I'm not one of them) usually leave stuff that's been archived alone. But for some reason, Lieutenant of Melkor found it necessary to restore his user talk archives to his user talk page. Without more, it's one of those "who cares" things. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe being one of those "damned weirdos" who archives by hand has given me some (possibly unwarranted) empathy with him. Considering the talk page history is intact, I agree with you about the "who cares" bit. Let's see what, if anything, Paisan1 gives us as far as diffs go. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am surprised and disappointed that no one is suspicious - he suddenly moves his entire archive to his talk page shortly after receiving notice, but no suspicion? OK. In the above history of incidences I listed a February 2013 "Your ANI removal of a topic". You'll find that it is no longer listed on his talk page and no longer in his archives. The same for the ANI NOTICE from Feb 17 2014. He has fooled you into thinking that he was doing something helpful. This surprises me he has succeeded in doing so, nevertheless, I will link to the diffs. Mendaliv I "have been asked several times" for diff links in the middle of the day when I have barely had a chance to do them correctly. I have asked for patience in this - would you please grant that to me as the first thing I did per Dennis was to edit my submission down and the second was to read both of the two or three articles sent to me all the while multitasking and working. I will provide evidence of the claim in the previous sentence when I do the diff links. (I am TIRED, buzzed, and very happy. Just got home after midnight and I will do a poor job if I try to do this tonight. I am not as fast as Melkor - he was able to speedily delete his archive before I could start reading the essays)--Paisan1 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You've had 17 hours to find and present them, which you should have done in the all-important first post. Everyone here has lost their patience. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 04:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lieutenant of Melkor: Do yourself a favor and holster the 'tude. I would not recommend adding archive templates or completely deleting this thread again. It will end... poorly. @Paisan1: Just go to bed (or continue enjoying yourself); this thread will still be here in the morning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: He's had 17 hours. More than enough time to excavate any jetsam and flotsam he wants. He failed not only with the first post (most crucial), but in subsequent engagements with him. Time to pull the plug on him. Work is no excuse; for all we may know he may be falsifying again. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 04:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to walk away from this and give Paisan1 additional time to present his case. If he continues playing around, then someone other than you will archive this thread. Work is an excuse, and while he may have failed on the original post, WP:BITE means we don't just kick him out of here for it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, sorry if this comes at a bad time, but I noticed the section header and recognized LOM's username; just a few days ago, I left a frivolous message on his talk page about it (I am a lover of all things Tolkien). I skimmed through bits and pieces of this debate, but one thing really stuck out at me — the reference to Asperger's syndrome. Ignoring the merits of the accusations made, I felt compelled to comment here based solely on that, as mental health is something I'm very passionate about.

  I was diagnosed with high-functioning Asperger's syndrome about fifteen years ago now. And by "high-functioning", I really do mean high-functioning — most people would never guess that I had the condition. The hallmark symptoms are not immediately evident in my case. I am very apt at nonverbal communication and have never had any issues with making friends. I'm a textbook example of a highly sensitive person. I dislike talking about myself, but I do take pride in believing that I am seen as someone with tremendous compassion and empathy for others, both on Wikipedia and in the real world. Yet my sensitivity plays into my diagnosis in a unique way. I do struggle with interpreting social cues, but not in the sense where I act out in inappropriate ways. Instead, it manifests itself as a tendency to interpret certain situations in a negative light. For example, say I was walking past somebody in the hallway and I smiled at them, but they didn't reciprocate; I would oftentimes feel that I had somehow made them uncomfortable. There are a million different reasons why someone would not smile back, and it doesn't necessarily tie into anything I've done. Another common issue I have is assuming that people see themselves as "above" me when they do not respond to my messages on social media sites. The condition is very unique and carries a spectrum of its own. Mine is probably one of the mildest documented cases, and it does not prevent me from doing the things that neurotypical people are capable of doing (I have other disabilities that do hinder me in a lot of ways, but AS is not one of them).

  For a long time, the condition was virtually unknown within the public sphere. Nobody had any idea what it entailed, and most never even heard the term before. Only within the past five or ten years has it become a well-known psychiatric disorder. Naturally, it has since become a go-to "diagnosis" used by professional internet trolls to deride anyone they deem socially awkward. This is obviously a grotesque insult to those who do not have the condition, as it calls their social competence into question. When you say that someone has Asperger's, the implication is that they are fundamentally lacking in social skills. It's also insulting when directed at someone who does have the condition, considering how they are likely more sensitive to negative feedback about their social interactions than others. But did you know that it's offensive to people with Asperger's syndrome even if they are not the ones being targeted? It generalizes the whole diagnosis and creates the presumption that most or all people with Asperger's are a certain way. The saying goes: "If you've met one person with Asperger's, you've met one person with Asperger's." There is little in the way of commonalities between cases outside of the overarching criteria. It should always be remembered that people with AS are individuals with their own unique personalities and interests, as with any other person. Another thing to keep in mind is that Asperger's is nothing to be ashamed of. It's almost like being homosexual, or having a genetic predisposition to colon cancer (just as a random example). You are born with it, and you are pretty much guaranteed to die with it. Doesn't make you any less of a human being than everyone else.

  So please, don't bring psychiatric conditions into your disagreements with others. It is gravely insulting to the subject of your speculation and broadly offensive to people with those conditions. You can say that someone doesn't seem to "get it", but you can't give them a full-blown diagnosis based solely on your limited observations of their behaviour. Kurtis ^(talk) 08:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So I decided to take a quick look at Lieutenant of Melkor's userpage, since userpages often help you get a feel for a user's personality, and Lieutenant of Melkor's responses towards the end of the above exchange left me very concerned. I noticed that he seems to be maintaining a shitlist/wall of shame—such lists being violative of WP:UP#POLEMIC—including at least one instance of calling another user a "loser", and another suggesting that Paisan1 above attained his academic credentials fraudulently. But this doesn't end at that point. I checked the diff LoM includes in that list item, which suggests that Paisan1 is more of a loser than the other editor. What follows is what I discovered.

The diff turned out to be Paisan1 reverting an edit of LoM at Paisan1's own user talk page, restoring several posts in a thread on that page, including several posts of LoM. That is, LoM had for some reason removed an entire thread of conversation from Paisan1's user talk page. That left me curious. So I examined the page history some more.

From 18 June to 19 June, LoM broke 3RR on Paisan1's user talk page in the following edits: [75] [76]* [77] [78] (* was by 96.255.46.87, which is clearly LoM editing while logged out). The coup de grace was this creative edit, where LoM modified all the signatures in that thread (which were all his) from 17 June to 8 June. Why? Immediately before doing this, LoM set up automatic archival "for" Paisan1. By changing all those sigs to 8 June (when the current date was 19 June, and auto archival was set up to happen after 10 days), he caused these two edits to happen: [79] [80]. How did Paisan1 fix this? Not by noticing LoM's alteration of his own comments and reverting those edits, but by changing the thread archival time to 100 days.

I am shocked beyond belief. I submit that LoM has clearly engaged in bullying of an inexperienced user, and that sanctions for this conduct are merited. I personally offer my apologies to Paisan1 for not seeing this before. It wasn't as big as my nose in front of my face, but it should have been visible had I done much more than demanding diffs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And pinging my learned colleague Dennis Brown who had also joined in the call for diffs above, and shown concern in this thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: I haven't edited his talk page for many hours, and you still want action? My goodness, your tone wreaks of "the press screaming for blood" (as described in Tomorrow Never Dies). I'd rather go about minding my own business than dealing with twerp issues such as this, I'm sure you feel the same. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 07:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read my post above. I'm not talking about a 3RR block. You would do well to take this seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: sanctions for this conduct are merited still your words. By the way you have posted here, you seem to be operating under the delusion (I'm not consciously violating WP:NOTTHEM here), that Paisan1's behaviour WAS NOT an aggravating factor, namely the outright, repeated, unjustified refusal to sign posts on his talk page, other issues aside. It's best if everyone here move on, drop it, and forget about it for good. This still appears to be nothing more than a personal vendetta, only to be piled on typical AN/I fashion. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 07:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong: the edit warring likely does merit sanctions given 1RR was a condition of your unblock. @Master of Puppets: You may wish to examine this case, if you're still active. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• This high level of interference with a talk page is unacceptable. I don't know either party and am uninvolved, but LoM appears to be defiant and combative, a clear vio of WP:BATTLE. From what I am reading above, I ask that an admin block LoM at once. Jusdafax 07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• @Jusdafax: Right, but I have no interest whatsoever in touching his talk page in the near future. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 07:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

But that still doesn't excuse you from breaking the 3RR rules and fiddling about with Paisan1's user page in the manner that you have done. Not to mention your confrontational attitude. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to note that a few the user's edit summaries are also a bit bitey/uncivil, as well: "What a farce of a diploma", presumably referring to Paisan1's education level, and "Wow 60+ edits in, and still no idea how to rvt multiple edits instantaneously 0_0", which, presuming it's referring to use of the undo button to do so, is something I myself didn't learn I could do until recently (and I only learned because Wikia's recent changes nest contributions) and I have over 4000 edits. This isn't a lot (but I didn't do intense searching), and I'm not sure it's any sort of evidence of a larger problem, but it may be evidence that LoM might lose his cool during disputes. - Purplewowies (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lieutenant of Melkor: May I point out WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions are just as open to scrutiny as Paisan1s. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Kurtis, it was because of the mere possibility of your comment that I regretted mine, which is also why I withdrew it. Thank you for your intelligent words on the subject.--Paisan1 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

[this was meant to be sent an hour ago]− I am in a great mood and I am appreciative of those who took the time to research this to see that I am right on this about Melkor. I do not deny my own actions - I own up to them - but you'll hear me say this to the end: all of my actions and comments were a direct REACTION and defense to his offenses against me. You'll note that I have been practicing signing my posts in all other situations (unless signbot needed to remind me). I woke up 30 minutes ago and have to step away for just under an hour. I have not had time to review the proof someone else provided above. Are they the diffs that were needed? I will return home with the intent of going through my talk page history and Melkor's to provide the proof unless Mendaliv or Dennis tells me otherwise. Mendaliv, apology accepted but unnecessary - thank you, I am very grateful and relieved. Thank you also for understanding about my work schedule. I ask the administrators to take one more thing into account before I return with my diffs links and summary of argument: PLEASE NOTE, as is his way of sidestepping the issues, Melkor has yet to address or even deny any of the allegations I have set forth.--Paisan1 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I do not say this in defiance or disrespect so please do not misinterpret: (in response to Melkor's accusation that my unsigned posts on my talk page was "unjustified") I will never apologize for not signing my posts on my talk page (and this is important) whilst I was defending myself with Melkor. Anyone will note that the reason Melkor brought up the signing issue was not simply to correct an impropriety but to (as is consistent with his behavior) sidestep the issue at hand by trying to make me look the offender. I happily did not play into his game. To be clear, I did not know about signing my posts until then. I barely knew I had a talk page until his post. And I have signed posts since then and intend on doing so from now on because I have no interest in breaking protocol or guidelines. I intend on signing my posts on my talk page and all other pages, but if any admin thinks that I should be banned because I didn't sign on my talk page while I was defending myself against this offender then ban away. You (Mendaliv) strike me as someone with intelligence who is desiring to be fair minded. I am grateful for that which is why I own up to you and the other admins my actions. I undid Melkor's deletion of our posts on my talk page specifically so that my actions would be open to scrutiny for everyone to see. It is my continued hope that the admins see the forest for the trees - that I am just one of dozens of who have been burdened by his rude comments and unprofessional behavior. Please also note that he accused me of "falsifying again". I hope that I may count on someone to call him/her out on that now that another user has provided proof of my assertions.--Paisan1 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

my plan (diffs) for the next two hours is to change the links above in my argument to the diffs - that is my priority. Once I do that, I will review the diffs that another user has posted so as to avoid redundancy. After that I will set forth a "closing argument" of sorts as to why Melkor shows no signs of repentance from his previous actions for which he was admonished and banned via ANI. See you soon.--Paisan1 (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, and I mean not to embarass you either. I'm sure you're an altogether decent editor who just made a few missteps. We've all said things we shouldn't have — myself more than anyone can shake a stick at. ;-) Kurtis ^(talk) 17:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Has he been banned? His user page no longer exists. Paisan1 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• No, he just requested that it be speedy deleted as a userpage, just like his talk page archives. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here it comes. personally attacked Onel5659 (Feb 26) Take a look at unaltered exchange in full. Nothing there resembles a personal attack in the slightest. subtropical man (May 24) User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor/Archive 2#No, you wrong In fact, he took up this issue at Template talk:Weather box, and it was determined he was the ONLY one to oppose the transclusion of templates I created; CBW asked for wider input here, and the response basically refuted Subtropical-man's assertions. Eldumpo and Giantsnowman (May 1) That's one-sided, isn't it? I suggest reading how that turned out at this venue. April 1 to Tokyogirl79 - "The irrationality of most administrators continues to confound me" That was clearly not directed at anyone in particular. and Rhaworth (Apr 3) How is this abusive in any manner? What's more, I promised I would stop creating side versions, and I did. Philg88 twice (Mar 20 and May 13) Not so much admonishment as advice and counsel. counterproductive actions and comments outweigh any perceived value of his contributions, projects that could be taken up by someone else That's not up to you to decide. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing by Paisan1

I would like to call attention the blatant WP:CANVASSING that Paisan1 has undertaken. None of the users he has bothered (one more) regularly posts at my talk page and/or collaborates with me. While the wording in each of his messages may be neutral, the body of recipients certainly isn't, demonstrating an unequivocal violation of WP:CANVASSING, and perhaps worse. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 19:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I welcome any input on this. As I read the language, "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." I am not unduly trying to influence the decision, and once again I hide nothing. I specifically desire the input of previous admins on the subject. As far as I can tell, it is in the best interest of the wiki community to do so. If I am wrong in this, I have no problem making amends - that's how I do. As Melkor admits, my wording is VERY neutral and I simply invite review. This is yet another attempt to detract from the issue - he still has not denied any of the offenses he has committed.

Breach of topic ban

Could an admin please review User_talk:Kunal_gurjar#Breach_of_topic_ban. Although there is a clear breach of the topic ban and there are plenty of signs that this is a caste warrior, I'm wondering whether the problem is basically one of youthful excess and/or inexperience. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

- Sitush (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Kuwait_Towers

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

---

Hi there! Our normal closer nominated this, and both of the secondary closers have voted on it; it's a fairly simple close - all supports and over the quorum - but I'd prefer someone else actually makes the decision on whether it passes or not. If someone does, I'll do the rest. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

AR.Freeflight

Hello, I have come here to say that I created this page and PrinceSulaiman tagged my page for SD under g7 here and I got puzzled because I neither blanked my page nor did I requeste for its deletion. I gave quite friendly suggestion to the user but he didn't seem to get point and recently a new IP editor 59.158.247.90 has tagged my page under G11 here. I'm wondering that why this new user is keep on doing so? I'm not new one here, I'm sure both are the same users who are keep on tagging my page from new account and IP. Please solve the problem, Thank you. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 13:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not my IP Address 59.158.247.90 they're not related to me. I suspect they may be related to anonymity. Regarding this incident you may need to get in touch with an Administration, Thank you PrinceSulaiman (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering that why did you tagg page for SD here as I never blank the page or requested for deletion ? If you don't know about speedy deletion policies than why are you making such decisions? Do you know what does WP:CSD#G7 mean ? Well I assume good faith again and leave it to an admin A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But at least you have removed the tag and the second tag seems to be added by another user, I could see the reason that it was for promotion of A.R Freeflight which is prohibitive in the Wikipedia also its considered as spam. I have also suggested you to provide references from other article (News) excluding the official website of A.R Freeflight.

I do not think its necessary to write an article about A.R Freeflight which is not important, You can also take look at the article of Spam and here. Thank You and I hope you understand PrinceSulaiman (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PrinceSulaiman please do not tag an article you are not the original author with {{db-g7}} unless the original author has blanked the article or has explicitly asked for the article to be deleted as you did with AR.Freeflight. A.Minkowiski you need to discuss the deletion of the article with the deleting admin, Nick. GB fan 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick GB fan, I have already discussed this issue with another Admin and have it settled soon. Thanks for advise. PrinceSulaiman (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN by User:Dan56

During the last week, Dan56 has reverted nearly every contribution I've made to several articles that he apparently thinks he owns.

• 20 June @Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album): Citing WP:TEDIOUS
• 18 June at same: I identified some worrisome copyvios
• 17 June at same: I think "classic" is peacockery outside quotes

• 21 June @New York Dolls (album) Dan56 removed a perfectly reliably sourced addition

• 20 June @Modern Vampires of the City: [81]
• 18 June at same: [82]
• 12 June at same: [83]

There are others that I don't feel like digging up, but the point is that he seems to be following me around and reverting my helpful edits for no other reason than he wants it his way. I am feeling bullied. Like he is trying to drive me away from articles on his watchlist. Is this appropriate behavior? Harmelodix (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing all three of those are on Dan's watchlist given he'd made contribs to all three of those articles prior to the reverts in question. As such, I don't think it's really fair to call it hounding. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

By that logic, one could never be said to hound anyone at a page that they had previously edited, which sounds like a dangerous tangent to WP:OWN. Harmelodix (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it means that you have to provide better evidence than three articles where you were reverted that Dan had previously edited. Honestly, I would go so far as to say that the accusations of hounding and WP:OWN don't make a whole lot of sense together. Hounding suggests that an editor is (inappropriately) going out of his way to follow you around and revert your edits. Ownership suggests that an editor is excessively sensitive to any edits to articles he believes he owns. If Dan is extra sensitive to edits to those three articles, how is it hounding? How are you being singled out in that case? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Its ownership because he vehemently protects his preferred version and its hounding because he has reverted me at multiple pages on the same day, as if to send a message that I cannot edit pages he watches. Harmelodix (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But he didn't revert you on multiple pages on the same day, per the diffs you've provided. He reverted you seven times over the course of nine days. The most he reverted you on one day was twice. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Dan56 has a long history of edit-warring over tiny details on music-related articles. I had hoped this editor was maturing. This looks like a fight over commas. This revert suggests that they don't see any actual difference between versions. The editor says their own edit is unnecessary, while making it. Why change it back if it doesn't make a difference?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see hounding. The edit you made on June 12 he reverted here is one that made no sense. From that, it's reasonable to assume he paid extra scrutiny to the edits you've been making. I may be wrong, but I don't see any attempt on your part to discuss this with him before taking it here. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been trying to understand his motivation, but he won't talk with me at any article stalk pages. Harmelodix (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hounding

On 12 June, Dan56 reverted me at two different pages in the same minute. @ Modern Vampires of the City and @ Heavy metal music. How much thought is he putting into reverting me if he can make two reverts on two different pages in the same minute? Harmelodix (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this Calidum? Harmelodix (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

He reverted those edits five hours after you made them. That gives him plenty of time to do review them, especially when both reverts seem perfectly reasonable. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 19:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

But its still reverting me at two different pages on the same day, right, and above you said: "But he didn't revert you on multiple pages on the same day". Harmelodix (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, regardless of Dan56's behavior, these need to be looked at: [84] and [85].__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not me, but take a good look at Dan56's edit history and you'll see him accusing anyone who makes the mistake of editing his pages. Harmelodix (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, the point was that this all happens after Dan56 accused you of being a sockpuppet, and you weren't found to be one on technical grounds.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Here is Dan56 reverting me at two different pages within 13 minutes on June 9: @ Dark Magus, @ Free jazz. Harmelodix (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Dan56 did the exact same thing to me the very next day at 02:07: @ Heavy metal music and @ The Genius Sings the Blues. What's interesting about this double revert on two different pages, is that Dan56 made two edits the minute earlier at another page, then an edit at 02:09 at yet another page for 5 edits in three minutes, which means he could not have possibly had the time to take a look at these before reverting me. He reverted me, not the edit, and that's what makes this hounding. Harmelodix (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Mindless reversions

Look at Dan56's edit history. On June 6, starting at 01:37, Dan56 makes 10 reverts in 3 minutes! He reverted Jedi94 four times at four different articles in one minute! Do you really think that he is taking the time to look at these edits, or is he just reverting anyone who edits pages on his watch list? Harmelodix (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So wait, you're saying that it is hounding because he also reverted someone else's edits? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

He's hounding not just me but others as well. The community should be concerned about this pattern. Harmelodix (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor interaction tool shows that Dan56 was already editing every article where you two interacted, save for the Free jazz article where you were first. This means that Dan56 is not hounding you; rather, you are showing up at articles he's already interested in. You added a musician image to Free jazz which Dan56 did not remove. You had already been reverted by Sabred at Heavy metal music before Dan56 reverted your change. At Master of Reality, both of you contributed to the article without reverting the other. So it appears to me that Dan56 is carefully assessing the changes you have made to articles he watches, and then he reverts the parts he thinks are not good. I think there's no need for action from administrators here. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

How can he make 10 reverts in 3 minutes if he "is carefully assessing the changes ... made to articles he watches"? Harmelodix (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that if you edited the page first you can't be said to hound anyone there ever? So, whoever is there first is immune to hounding blocks? Says who, Binksternet? Harmelodix (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• On June 17, Dan56 reverted BritishInvader on two different pages: @ And Your Bird Can Sing and @ Sticky Fingers within three minutes. Harmelodix (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• As Binksternet pointed out above, Dan56's first and only edit to Free jazz was to revert me. So why did Dan revert this edit at an article he had never edited before? Did he follow me there to revert me, because that's hounding! Harmelodix (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, let's assume Dan actually clicked on "User Contributions" and started checking your edits, and then reverted your edit. That is not necessarily hounding, and in fact may be wholly appropriate. I urge you to read WP:HOUNDING, and after doing so either provide clear evidence that Dan's behavior matches that definition of hounding, or give up on this report. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • He's trying to run me off articles and Wikipedia, and that's hounding. He followed me to a page that he never edited before or since and reverted a perfectly good contribution in an effort to make me feel unwelcome. That's hounding. Harmelodix (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not only did he follow me to an article that he had never edited before, but that was the second article that he had reverted me at within 13 minutes. Harmelodix (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• On June 18, Dan56 reverted me at two different pages: @ Get Rich or Die Tryin' (album) and @ Modern Vampires of the City. This makes the fourth such day in a week where he reverted me at two different pages in the same day - most of these are consecutive edits. Please see: June 9, 10, 12 and 18. Harmelodix (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Boy, I'm afraid of what it would look like if someone started picking through my contribs with the intensity you seem to be picking through Dan's. Having someone go through my contribs with such a fine-toothed comb in response to my reverting a few of their edits might have a chilling effect on my editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Now you're just trolling, IMO. Just above you said: "I urge you to read WP:HOUNDING, and after doing so either provide clear evidence that Dan's behavior matches that definition of hounding, or give up on this report." Nice try! Harmelodix (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I did no such thing. I advised you to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that Dan is hounding you. This shouldn't require you to go through his contribs like you're dissecting a frog. If he's been hounding you this should be obvious without having to do the kind of forensic accounting you're attempting to do here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢ /_Δ's/ 21:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC) (partly stricken due to Harmelodix's modifications to the comment to which I replied)
        • So, "either provide clear evidence that Dan's behavior matches that definition of hounding, or give up on this report", but do so without looking at his contributions? Can you please provide an example of "evidence" that does not require a diff? Harmelodix (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm just doing my best here. Calidum said that two reverts on two pages in a short span is frowned upon, so I provided 4 examples of Dan56 doing that to me in one week and 2 examples of Dan56 doing that others. He hounds everybody off his articles, its not just me. How can he make 10 reverts in 3 minutes unless he is reverting editors when he should be reverting bad contributions. This is a widespread problem with this editor and I don't think I am wrong to bring this to the community's attention. Harmelodix (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some conclusions: Having discussed this briefly with Harmelodix at my user talk, I took another, closer look at this on my own. I am not comfortable saying there's hounding, though if Dan had a similar series of reverts within the next couple weeks, or if the series of reverts continued for a few more days, and there was an indication that Dan's behavior (see below) were targeted specifically at Harmelodix, I'd feel his behavior was at least questionable.
  All that said, I do not think Dan's hands are clean here. Some of his reverts are questionable: Reverting here to revert Harmelodix's "unexplained removal", for instance struck me as odd; it's not an "unexplained removal" in the content blanking sense. Harmelodix merely restructured the first two sentences. If Dan's intent was to invoke WP:BRD, he should have explained it and started a discussion. This revert, which the edit summary says was in order to revert an unexplained reversion... is just weird. I believe that Dan's behavior in these articles is a bit controlling; I'm not prepared to invoke WP:OWN just yet, but it's what I'd call petty. Wikipedia doesn't need to have the exact verbiage that Dan prefers.
  Moreover, given Harmelodix is a relatively new user (less than two weeks and 200 edits), I think Dan's inscrutable edit summaries, picky reasons for reverting, and curious unwillingness to engage in discussion at article talk pages serve to violate WP:BITE. While I don't think a sanction is needed at this point, Dan needs to try to work with Harmelodix rather than revert when he sees something he disagrees. Wikipedia is a group project, not an adversarial proceeding; work needs to take the form of a collaboration, not a negotiation with offers and counter-offers.
  Finally, I would formally warn Dan that WP:TEDIOUS is a redirect for "tendentious editing": if his intent is to suggest that another editor's edits are tedious, he should not be putting that link in his edit summaries (I would also argue that calling another editor's edits "tedious" is not particularly friendly). If, however, his intent is to argue that Harmelodix is engaged in tendentious editing, he would be well advised to make a showing of proof. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughtful and well-reasoned comments, Medaliv. I think its important to note that, while Dan56 has decided to not discuss this issue with us here, he has continued his mindless reverting at articles that he edits. Just an hour ago, starting at 16:18, 22 June 2014, Dan56 reverted Joe Vitale 5 FIVE TIMES in 2 minutes! Can someone please address his disruptive and alienating behavior of mindlessly reverting editors that contribute to Wikipedia. Dan56 is all but killing WP:BOLD at any article that he edits. Harmelodix (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Abusive user

The following IP address 89.205.38.27, has been writing abusive edit summaries to me and others (in the past) [[86]] a quick look down this will show it. (Sorry if this is the wrong way to do this.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring and abusive edit summaries, not to mention removal of this report. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry if I filled this in wrong, it's my first time. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the combination of nasty edit summaries and edit-warring, this was probably the best place to mention it. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another grossly offensive DYK on the main page

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

---

Did you know... that 3500 Jews from the Pińsk Ghetto and nearby Kobryn were "processed" at Bronna Góra in June 1942?

'Processed' meaning mass murder, though you'd have to read the article to find that out. I'm sure I'm not alone in finding the use of an unexplained and ambiguous euphemism in this context deeply offensive. Industrialised mass murder needs to be described as such, not hidden behind euphemisms clearly chosen for effect, just to provide a 'hook'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And before anybody suggests that it should be obvious it means mass murder given the context (the terms "Jews" and "ghetto" along with any time during the Holocaust implying it), there was quite a lot of actual processing/routing of people done as they were moved to concentration and death camps. So it might not be clear even to those of us who have had an education in world history. Also, using scare quotes around processed could be seen as making light of the whole situation rather than casting doubt on the euphemism. I generally concur that this is not a DYK that should have been published. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The scare quotes around "processed" is very sketchy and inflammatory. A truly bad example of a DYK. Doc talk 02:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with all 3 editors above, however the positive value of getting the most evil act of living history on the DYK instead of trivia about a manga character or a sportsperson probably outweighs the damage done. Personally I would like to see an admin quickly intervene and edit the DYK with were murdered at Bronna Góra over execution pits which is what the lead actually says rather than pull such a necessary reminder of our world. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I like IIO's proposed solution. Of course this DYK is disgusting and inflammatory, but until I read that far I wasn't entirely clear what was being requested of the admins -- is there not going to be an investigation as to what exactly went wrong here? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm good with the proposal. As to what went wrong... meh. I don't think it's going to be anything remarkable. Just something that should have been considered more carefully than it was. Suggestion for the future? Perhaps DYKs for topic areas like the Holocaust (and topic areas/articles subject to any general sanctions) should require an arbitrary number of extra approves prior to publication. But even if you design a ship with sixteen watertight compartments, she can still sink. Perhaps we could go a bit further in vetting what gets pushed to the main page, but in a necessarily high-speed/high-volume process like DYK, things like this happen. And in case it needed saying, I don't blame the individuals responsible for this DYK; I'm not only assuming good faith, I'm certain of it. It's just one of those things that seemed okay when it was written; we've all done it before. The process just didn't catch it this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, I seem to recall an atheist user (might have been User:HiLo48, can't remember) getting called out and damned-near being sanctioned for saying "Did you know that Jesus Christ is Lord? HALLELUJAH!" should not have appeared on the Main Page, and "religion" doesn't seem to fall into your suggested category of general sanctions. Perhaps a bare minimum number of supports should be required for all DYK nominations? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That would cover religion without unfairly singling it out, and cut off arguments as to whether a particular DYK was unfairly subjected to heightened scrutiny. Anyway I have other concerns but this isn't really the place to hash it out now that the problem at hand has been taken care of. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It has been more than an hour since this thread was started. The ghastly and grotesque statement has yet to be changed. As this is the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents it would be nice if an admin or two could acknowledge that they have read this thread and will start to address the concerns raised. MarnetteD|Talk 04:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've changed "'processed'" to "murdered". Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you NYB. My post was being typed while you were acting. Your response is much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That term was taken directly from the linked article where "murder" (no quotes) was part of the same sentence. It appears to have been put there in the first version of the article by User:Poeticbent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have no doubt that editor's intentions were good: based on their contribs, they've made an evident extensive effort into improving en wp coverage of Nazi crimes in Poland. It appears to have been a simple error in formulating the DYN short text.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This can be closed then? No harm, no foul. Doc talk 04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Juzumaru continuing personal attacks and disruptive editing

Juzumaru (talk · contribs) is a SPA whose every single edit has been to remove references to South Korea from articles on Japan, or to push an anti-Korean POV. He almost never cites sources. Most of his edits have simply removed text, but when he writes his own text the English is laughable at best and barely intelligible at worst. On at least one occasion he has used translation software to post almost completely incomprehensibly on talk pages.[87] When I called him out on his disruptive edits to the Yamanoue no Okura article, in which he flagrantly rejected the overwhelming consensus of Japanese scholarship, he engaged me in a months-long dispute (see Talk:Yamanoue no Okura/Archive 1 for a small taste) in which he was told by several users including User:Ross Hill[88] that since his English is so poor he should probably be editing Japanese Wikipedia instead. His immediate response was to go to Japanese Wikipedia and essentially say "Come at me bro. Discuss English Wikipedia problems with me here in Japanese." When I rejected that ridiculous request, he came right back here to continue his previous behaviour.

Now he's reemerged after more than a month of inactivity, and posted a personal attack against me in Japanese ("I actually check reliable sources while you just post what you saw on YouTube ... while I actually have a life, you seem to devote all your time during Christmas and New Year to Wikipedia"), and again requested that I refrain from reverting him on English Wikipedia if I am unwilling to discuss with him on Japanese Wikipedia. (His "reliable sources" are fringe books and/or old works that don't actually contradict me, while "what you saw on YouTube" is a reference to a scholarly lecture on Japanese literature uploaded on Stanford University's official channel.)

Since he is WP:NOTHERE and has never actually contributed anything to Wikipedia I'm beginning to think the only reasonable solution would be a block. I outright refuse to use Japanese Wikipedia to discuss problems on English Wikipedia, and while I'm capable of using Japanese to discuss with him on talk pages here, he simply refuses to listen even when I do. After 6 months I've had enough of it.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And so no one thinks this is just a content dispute on the Okura article flaring up again, User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Shii can back me up that that dispute was resolved months ago and there is literally no chance of JZ getting his way on that page. The problem is WP:NOTHERE, personal attacks, baiting and inability to communicate in English. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Just giving what I think, so sorry if I have any bias: This issue should not need to involve multiple Wikipedia's for the incident. Also, it does not look good on Juzumaru's part to have said "But Juzumaru not interested in Hijiri." in the below section. This makes it appear that Juzumaru does not want to try to cooperate. On the other side, the user editing as 126.0.96.220 should not have acted a bit insulting towards Juzumaru in the below section, although that is not so important here. Dustin (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic content dispute.

Juzumaru's Talk Hijiri insisted that well-known Japanese poet Yamanoue-Okura was a Korean (Hijiri's source was Youtube). I pointed out his mistake using Journal of Aoki Kazuo and Saeki Arikiyo. ((My source "Research of Shinsen-Shojiroku"（新撰姓氏録の基礎的研究）was awarded the Japan Academy Prize (academics) in 1984. [89].) He has insulted me in Japanese. Because Hijiri can not understand the class system of ancient Japan(Kabane system), this controversy has been dismissed Hijiri's claim. By This incident of about 7 months ago, Hijiri came to demand my death penalty many times. (For me, this incident is past.) I graduated from University in March of this year. And greatly reduced my Wikipedia edits[90]. However, Hijiri will not end this war until he makes me death penalty.... --Juzumaru (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC) No. The scholarly consensus is that Okura was originally an immigrant from the kingdom of Baekje (not, as Juzumaru has consistently accused me of claiming "South Korea"). I cited literally dozens of sources over the two-month dispute, almost all written by specialists in the field. But the worst part about this is that the dispute was literally solved months ago, and Juzumaru has ginned it back up in the last two days just to spite me. @User:Sturmgewehr88, User:Shii & User:Cuchullain (the other users who commented in the debate): Can you set this person straight? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC) This war is also initiated by Hijiri 88. Juzumaruさん、どうか私の活動をじっと見ているのをご遠慮ください。続けていたらまたANIになりますよ。あなたもDwyさんと同じように仲間がいなくて、ウィキペディアのコミュニティにあなたの活動を公開したらきっとブロックになってしまいますよ。[91] I appreciated him and ignored the personal remarks by him. すいません。私は実生活の仲間との交流が忙しくて、あなたのことは忘れていました。とりあえず、お疲れ様。[92] And I explained that I could hardly participate in Wikipedia for the Busyness. And I broke off this conversation. とりあえず、しばらくは実生活が忙しいので、よきにはからっておいてください。 [93] However, he kept abusing me in Japanese afterwards. Therefore, I answered in Japanese Wikipedia. Hijiri deleted my remark and appealed to a admin-board.[94] Hijiri made the same act Juzumaru in Japanese edition Wikipedia. Currently, Hijiri is rated extremely malicious users in Japanese edition Wikipedia.[[95]]. In the end, Hijiri can use Juzumaru's talkpage of Japanese version Wikipedia.[96] If Hijiri observes the rule, the Japanese manager will do appropriate measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juzumaru (talk • contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC) See? The above nonsense comment is exactly what has been annoying me since December. The latter part of his comment is a reference to how over the last couple of days he (and one other good-faith user who doesn't know the background of the dispute, and apparently has even less English than Juzumaru) has been harassing me on ja.wiki. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Hijiri, I am sorry that I hurt your pride a half year ago. Your claim "Japan a famous poet Yamanoue-Okura is Korean" was an inadequate article. Once again, please read carefully my report.[97] There written contradiction of your argument.（It is cited from the journal's authoritative history scholars.) --Juzumaru (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC) JZ, just shut the hell up. I NEVER claimed "Japan a famous poet Yamanoue-Okura is Korean" or whatever other Korean-nationalist bullshit you want to accuse me of. You are, and always have been, WRONG, as every other good-faith user involved in the dispute observed. That is why this problem was solve 4 months ago, and now we are here to discuss your behaviour in the intervening time. STOP bringing up old content disputes on ANI. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Hijiri. Please do not excited. About Japanese history, you were not able to argue against me at all. and in order to make the death penalty Juzumaru, every war was started by Hijiri. You can write both Japanese[98] and English [99]. But Juzumaru not interested in Hijiri. And the Juzumaru are busy. The reply is delayed --Juzumaru (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC) It seems English isn't working so I'm gonna post this in Japanese. Basically this thread is not about the content of the Okura article. Furthermore, discussion of article content is generally frowned upon on ANI. The content dispute in question was resolved 4 months ago with the input of a large number of users. If you have a problem with the consensus decision, please go to the article talk page and ask User:Shii and User:Sturmgewehr88 about changing the prior consensus. This discussion of article content is inappropriate for ANI, so I'm collapsing it. Please do not revert me. 英語で伝わっていないようなのでこれだけ日本語で書かせていただきます。このスレッドは、憶良の記事と関係がありません。それにANIで記事の内容について論争するのは基本的に許されません。記事の内容に関しては、もう４ヶ月前にたくさんの利用者からのインプットで解決ができました。その解決方法に問題がありましたら、User:ShiiやUser:Sturmgewehr88の意見を記事のノートページで求めてください。この、ANIには不適切な話はcollapseさせていただきます。取り消さないでください。 126.0.96.220 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:VERIFY

126.0.96.220, It would be helpful if you and Juzumaru could contrast the claims you've made and the WP:RS you've used. Please state claims as concisely as possible and provide links to sources. Otherwise, it will be difficult to adjudicate this dispute on any basis other than behavior, regardless of whether it was provoked by passive-aggressive WP:PUSH tactics.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

126.0.96.220 claim 1:

• sources

Juzumaru counterclaim 1:

• sources

126.0.96.220 claim 2:

• sources

Juzumaru counterclaim 2:

• sources

126.0.96.220 claim 3:

• sources

Juzumaru counterclaim 3:

• sources

Edit-warring editor cursing at me

User:Winkelvi, in his very first comments to me, has began cursing at me and otherwise making accusations and uncivil comments: He says here: "As far as removing comments from MY talk page, I remove stuff as I see fit and it has nothing to do with what you are implying (as if it's any of your fucking business). And if you keep this bullshit up on my talk page, I'll remove your comments as well."

As I subsequently pointed out, he is edit-warring on pages including Josh Dallas. And he's removing another editor's talk-page comments at Talk:Josh Dallas, Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin and elsewhere. This combination of behaviors is troubling and aggressive --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's continued to curse at me in an edit summary here, telling me to "fuck off".--Tenebrae (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And he removed the ANI notice that we're required to give, and cursed at me a third time here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I used profanity. Several times. Big fucking deal. It's not against policy to do so and it's certainly not uncivil when it's warranted. Tenabrae has been nothing but a dick since I first communicated with him at his talk page regarding reversions he made [100]. Rather than answer me there, he came to my talk page using intimidation and threats [101],[102]. Both unwarranted, all of it uncivil and lacking in good faith. He then proceeded to engage in more dickery and what I see as harassment by copying and pasting the comments he left at my talk page on the talk pages of three articles ([103], [104], [105]. Yes, I removed those out-of-place comments from said talk pages as they weren't germane to any article talk page discussion and only carried the lack of good faith he was already demonstrating into any discussion to be had there.

As far as the edits to the three BLPs he's referencing, all three of them are including the names of non-notable minor children of celebrities. As I stated at Tenebrae's talk page in my first communication with him (and now at the article talk pages): While not a specific policy, it's always been understood (by me and several long-time editors I've come across) that the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles for reasons of privacy. Nonetheless, the following (found at WP:BLPNAME) is policy: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." is clear. The name of a non-notable minor child that doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. It should be left out on this premise alone. While some might argue that the names of celebrity children are announced publicly all the time, therefore, their names should be included in Wikipedia articles, this is true and not true. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's child, North, falls into this category. We are all aware of how over publicized the couple is. The same would be true with Michael Jackson's children when they were born and growing up. Siri Cruise's name would also apply here. These children, however, attained notability because of the amount of publicity their parents/families allowed prior to and after their births as well as during their growing up years. The children of Ginnifer Goodwin/Josh Dallas and Kelly Clarkson do not fall into this category. Their minor children remain non-notable. When they become notable (whether as minor children or as adults upon reaching age 18), then it would be appropriate to name them in the articles on their parents. At this point in time, knowing the names of these children do not enhance the article nor does it assist in the reader's complete understanding of the article subject. That is how the policy reads. I maintain that leaving these names out of the respective articles is the correct action in accordance with policy.

Tenebrae is clearly pissed that his edits have not been taken on their face and I've challenged him on them. I tried to resolve this on his talk page, he took it several unproductive steps further with his WP:DICK and WP:POKE behavior at the article talk pages as well as my talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've indicated, in my posts at his page and on discussions I began on the article pages, the four-point reasons why the widely disseminated names are biographically significant. The notion that Wikipedia is forbidden to say that Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have a daughter named North when virtually every popular publication in the world has reported their announcement of this is absurd.

But that's a separate issue entirely from his behavior. And I don't think I could make the case that he's being uncivil, insulting and aggressive in defense of his edit-warring than he does himself in his own post above. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

However, he continued to remove my posts from the article talk pages [106] so as to create a one-sided argument. Removing another editor's comments so that only your own comments appear on a talk-page discussion is completely beyond the pale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, "I don't like his attitude so it's OK to curse him and there's no policy against it" is a remarkable argument in favor of incivility, and also demonstrates that his understanding of Wikipedia policy is flawed. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi - It is easy to overlook the occassional "fuck off", but I think you've done more than enough here. Furthermore, calling someone a dick pushed what was simple and unnecessary profanity into WP:NPA territory. Stop it.

Tenebrae, you probably don't need to tell someone that they removed something from their own talk page, they already know it. More importantly, the comments that he reverted off article talk pages ([107], [108] and [109]) were comments you really didn't need to put there. You had already placed that on his talk page here [110], but you put them on the article pages AFTER he revert them off his talk page [111], which means you had to know that he already had seen them. Copying them over to three article talk pages is soapboxing, pushing WP:POINT and frankly explains why he told you to fuck off and called you a dick. You instigated the very thing you are complaining about. Civility isn't about avoiding the word "fuck", it is about treating others with respect, and frankly, your incivility is just as bad as his reaction to it. Passive-aggressive incivility is no less offensive than calling someone a dick. You also need to stop it.

All that said, I'm not inclined to take action, but if I were, both would get blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User refusing to notify authors when tagging their articles for speedy

69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of patrolling new pages - yet as far as I can tell, they have never notified an author of the fact that one of their articles has been nominated for speedy deletion. (Anyone who wants to can feel free to check.) I've left them a number of template messages about it (probably too many, but I was hoping they would get the point), then an actual note about it [112], and finally, about a month ago, a warning that I would feel compelled to bring it up here if they didn't stop [113]. They then stopped altogether for quite a while, but today I was going through the new pages log and ran across a few articles they had tagged (most now deleted). I feel bad bringing this to ANI, since they contribute good work in other areas, but their continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as well as responses like this (repeated a number of times) shows that they don't have any plan to change. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:CSD, a Wikipedia policy, states, "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion...should notify the page creator and any major contributors." It's puzzling why the user is reticent to do this. Moreover, they were previously asked to notify article creators, and the IP received two suggestions to consider creating an account so that they could use Twinkle, which would have nipped the "notify page creator" issue in the bud. The corresponding conversation is confusing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification isn't mandatory or the policy would say "must" instead of "should". If this was part of a pattern of other behaviors, you might have a case, but if this is the only problem, I can't see a basis for admin action. It has been debated over the years, but suffice it to say that policy will likely never say "must". As Cyphiodbomb points out, notification is easier with Twinkle, but even Twinkle has the option to not notify the article creator, and in Twinkle preferences you can change the default to NOT notify. But yes, I think it is kind of rude to not notify, there just isn't anything in the admin tool kit I can use to "fix" it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)