Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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. 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

Abusive and disruptive static IP needs blocking

Can someone block 76.94.140.31 please to put a lid on their abuse and disruption. The IP appears to be static. The block should probably be indefinite. For evidence, pick pretty much any of their edit summaries or talk page soapboxing from Special:Contributions/76.94.140.31. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a (wo)man with a worldhistorical mission to save us from ourselves, and see 'Islamic' 'antisemitic' cockroaches everywhere on wikipedia and just needlessly coerces editors to waste time reverting the nonsense, or replying to vile innuendoes. Worst of all, (s)he has zero knowledge of wikipedia policies and the subject matter, and there is no sign (to the contrary) that tolerance will eventually lead to some change in attitude.

• 'Sorry I forgot that only Musoims ar e allowed to improve aricles'
• 'Sean hoyland anisemite who thinks he rules wiki' WP:AGF
• 'far-left nutjob' WP:BLP
• 'Police confirmed it was a jihadi cockroach'
• The most distressing thing is that the editor's fingers have an aleatory relationship to the characters on the keyboard, and those of us who suffer from apoplexy at orthographical lapses are sorely tried while most editors have to google desperately to figure out who 'anisemites' and 'Musoims' might be. Nishidani (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you two be banned for your anti-Jewish propaganda. You have no knowledge of Jewish history. Talkpage soap boxing, I asssume you mean responding to and countering anti-Jewish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.140.31 (talk) 09:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The above message suggests an imminent change in behaviour is unlikely; blocked for one week. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI

 – This comment on 76.94.140.31's talk page seems to have been missed: Let it be known that legal action will be taken soon.--Auric talk 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep that's an unequivocal legal threat.(see below) A longer block would be warranted, though likely not indefinite: according to the geolocation tool the IP is at least part of a dynamic pool. I also think we're close to where revocation of talk page use would also be warranted (diff, diff, and maybe this diff which refers to an editor's religion, evidently as a factor in declaring his edit to be vandalism). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, look at the block log. That legal threat already netted the IP a week-long NLT block. Anyway, I think revocation of talk page access (which also happened with the last block) is still warranted. Possibly consider extending it to a month in light of the other diffs I presented above? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've revoked talk page access due to the continued racist attacks and extended the block (hope that's ok Yunshui) to one month as the IP appears static and there is zero collateral.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections here; good call. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• In case anyone was wondering, this IP is User:JarlaxleArtemis. I've extended the block. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:, are you able to have a look at Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:1968:5CD3:258F:1558 and Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:819A:D74A:3062:DBE6 who appeared just after 76.94.140.31's block to see whether they are also JarlaxleArtemis ? I'm not sure whether the use of html encoding (e.g. [1]) is a clue. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• They are, and it is. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki:. He's back, Special:Contributions/2606:6000:F241:7A00:14EE:70C7:8203:47DC Sean.hoyland - talk 11:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming in from multiple IPs.... Zero^talk 13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He's back again, check my contributes for a list of IPs to block. Sepsis II (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Would a range-block work? Sairp (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Czechia dispute

(Non-administrator comment) This was 2 seperate threads originally. I've unified them under a larger dispute so that editors see both sides Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Askave

User:Askave has been making protracted controversial POV-pushing WP:SOAP statements regarding the name Czechia for a number of months against consensus and peppering this behaviour with personal attacks against other editors, particularly User:Yopie, e.g. [2] [3] and making threats [4]. Askave has a real problem with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to promote Czechia over the Czech Republic as the main means of referring to the country. Previous requests to adhere to WP:A [5] [6]have been unsuccessful. I haven't had the time to see whether his latest edits [7] are in accordance with policy, but fear not, considering the above. C679 08:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further to the above, the user has accused me of sockpuppetry and resorted to name-calling on my talk page. C679 09:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have to categorically reject all accusations, incl.personal attacks. I am constantly accused of sockpuppetry by User:Yopie, all of my edits and articles, regarding or simply only containing informal (geographic name) of the Czech Republic have been deleting without any discussion (also User:Mewulwe), with any counterargument (it is comprehensible, because some rational reason does not exist at all - only subjective "I don't like it: and it is really very little argument). So, it is not personal attack of those people? From those reasons, that kind of behaviour can be understood from my side only as vandalic and rude. My reactions to such a kind of acting was emmotional, but directly proportional to the ostentative hostility, suspections and accusations from POV, however e.g. in the article "Czechia - the name dispute" I compared reasons for and against using the word and the dispute cannot be (from the natural character of the sense of the word) other, than controversial. In addition, I was absurdly accused from violation of copyright, however I was the founder of the article. User:Yopie focuses attention on my personal attacks, but they are nothing more than only way how to openly defend myself against coward and hypocritic behaviour of him. I have not met at least one argument from his side, I meet only quiet deletion of all I create with some general and nothing saying announcing of POV, if there was mentioned the name "Czechia". He obviously does not read the text, only searches for the name. In that case, he erases all the text. He is "active" in deletion of informal name also in other languages Wikipedia, where is one-word name commonly used. As is mentioned below, his POV direction is obvious in his Czech Wikipedia personal page (https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Yopie) declaring his biased beliefs by his own charakteristic of himself, writing: Tento uživatel nežije v Česku ale v České republice. ("This user does not live in Czechia, but in the Czech Republic"). After all quiet counteractions, he usually complains about my "not polite" behaviour. I would never know about some Yopie, if that guy has not proved his self-inflicted attitude to my edits.

I refuse to be persecuted here as a renegade or invader ! I am a researcher and in science is totally impossible and absurd to accept a rejection of personally uncomfortable opinion without serious discussion or more, to make apparent the reason of adversary is obviously subjective, without sufficient education in the issue. Many non-Czech admins do not realize it, but this is the fight between Czechs about aged burning issue and the dispute (however the article was deleted) has been existed for more than 20 years of existence of modern Czech state.

I am foprced to announce I proceed in accordance with official recommendations of Czech foreign ministry and Ministry of Education and Sports from 1993 and 1997 to use the name Czechia in all cases, except official documents, which are in force; they have not been ever cancelled. Esentially, I respect official recommendation and acting of Yopie and comp.is in conflict with them. In addition, the statement of English speaking countries representatives (e.g.UK ambasador in the Czech Republic) was always unambiguous, proclaiming willingness of English speaking countries to accept the name Czechia as a direct, an English language equivalent to Czech one-word name of the country "Česko", if the initiative will come from Czechs. It was done by above mentioned official documents of Czech govermenment. There are also another - essential, logical and practical - reasons for using informal name in Wikipedia instead of conventional political name:

(1) the translation of "Česká republika" into English is "the Czech Republic", the claim that translation of "Česko" is "the Czech Republic" too is simply false and absurd.
(2) if an informal name of the country in Czech (Česko) has its equivelents in all other languages (which was mentioned in the survey of my articles), there is not any rational reason for some stubborn resistance and rejection of using it in only language - in English.
(3) one of the main reason for using an informal name is basic need to assign the country by politically neutral name, which can serve for denomination of the country without any limitations and in time and space consequence, as is usual in every country with longer history with changes of political formations in the area. The country with more than 1100 years long history cannot be assigned by transient political name with limited action radius, containing only last 20 years of the existence of the Czech state. One of the main reasons is to prevent nonsenses, malignantly rampant here, where also Czech Kingdom is assigned as Czech Republic etc., etc., but the absolutely main reason is to unify and make clear and transparent view of our country for common reader of encyclopedy (as is usual worldwide), who cannot logically be oriented in the issue and his knowledge ends in ruins in that mess (categories as "...... of the Czech lands" and "..... of the Czech Republic") - Kingdom of Bohemia, Czech lands or Czech Republic, this is simply Czechia.A lot of examples, one close to us: Upper Hungary, western part of Czechoslovak republic or Slovak republic - simply Slovakia or Swedish Estonia, Livonian War Duchy of Estonia, Polish Estonia, Swedish Livonia, Estonian Republic - simply Estonia,etc., etc...... I promote common sense, nothing more.
(4) The rejection of informal name arises from strictly personal, subjective and predominatly emmotionally conditioned "reasons".

That sneak character of behaviour of some users seems to me really infantile. It is sad, I am forced to participate this childish rule here. [User:Askave] Askave (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie

User:Yopie has been deleting all references to the informal name of the Czech Republic - Czechia for years. He has not used any arguments and together with User:Mewulwe deletes without reasons or with wildcard reasons destroys all articles and mentions about that name, however they are complex and supported by many references. It already has happened to several contributors many times. He also initiates blocking and reporting of persons, contributing to the issue. The articles were always deleted, one of them also after suspect voting process, though voting ended with the victory of his opponents. Those articles (remain on personla pages of contributors and also there was was even recorded his activity towards their elimination. The last example is the page Civic initiative Czechia. I ask Wikipedia for stopping that behaviour. He is "active" in deletion of informal name also in other languages Wikipedia, where is one-word name commonly used. This can be considered almost psychotic obsession. To show POV interests of User:Yopie see his Czech Wikipedia page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Yopie where he obviously shows his biased beliefs by his own charakteristic of himself, writing: Tento uživatel nežije v Česku ale v České republice. ( "This user does not live in Czechia, but in the Czech Republic"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askave (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only confirm this, it takes few minutes and word Czechia is deleted. The dispute about the logical geographic name Czechia is ongoing since 1993 and has been discussed in the public hearing of Senate, Yopie's opinion is that this can be deleted because it is of no importance! So I can not imagine a public hearing of Senate for an issue of no importance! Yopie claims to be a monarchist, his thinking is totaly communist, he supresses any opinion which is not in line with his own belief.He is neglecting established facts, like Cesko, short name of The Czech Republic, which is the offical registered short name in the UNO UNGEGN list! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helveticus96 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Askave and Heleticus96, please desist from making personal attacks - talking about "almost psychotic obsession" (Askave) or stating that a user's thinking is "totally communist" (Helvitcus96) is definitely in personal attack territory and doesn't aid resolution of the dispute (and in fact makes it less likely that your views will be taken seriously). Please provide diffs of any alleged wrongdoing, noting that ANI is not for resolution of content disputes.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I presume, that behaviour of Askave/ Helveticus is self- explaning. Namecalling and personal attacks of others, even here. --Yopie (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban

After having a few unpleasant exchanges with user:Askave about Czechia, I think that the only solution is a topic ban that covers the naming of the Czech Republic and predecessors, including naming people of being from Czechia. The Banner talk 11:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, Yopie, you do not have one single argument, you just do not like it! Czechia will make it, even if you keep deleting as it is a logical and correct short name of our country! Czechia will make it in the same way, as the so hated Česko has made it. We have a long breath and even if it takes another twenty years! If Tschechien works in German, Czechia will work in English! Helveticus96 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A ban for sockpuppetry might have an even longer breath... The Banner talk 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations ! This is really response to my long and detailed explanation ?! This is really democratic conclusion ! Instead of thinking about the problem, the best way is to prohibit it ! User:The Banner - Nomen omen. User:Askave No more comments Askave (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your "long and detailed explanation" was hardly more than a statement that you are right and the world is wrong. And could you please stop the personal attacks? The Banner talk 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that there is off-Wiki canvassing going on regarding the whole matter [8]. C679 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see Parliament of the Czech Republic in Collection in laws: http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/s444/Helveticus1/Czechia_Sbzaacutekon16F01998_zps167be47b.jpgHelveticus96 (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a topic ban against Askave is now moot, after Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blanicky that got him banned as sockpuppet. I hope this will bring this wildfire to a standstill. The Banner talk 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers The Clown

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

---

Bonkers The Clown (talk · contribs) has had quite a turbulent history on Wikipedia, culminating in being blocked twice last year. [9] After carrying on socking as Nelson Mandela was not Batman (and others), he eventually stopped just before new year. He requested an unblock per the standard offer last week, which was accepted by The Bushranger. [10] However, he immediately fell into controversial areas and was swiftly reblocked by Floquenbeam. [11] I don't see any evidence he is entertaining serious unblock requests on his talk page now, and would like to ask the floor what we do next. This could be anything from a sixth (or seventh?) chance, turning talk page access off, or a full blown community ban to drill home the message that our patience is generally worn out. What would people suggest? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - I suggest we remove talk page access and initiate a formal community ban. GiantSnowman 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need a site ban here. The editor is quite hopelessly incompetent and too big for his britches; but he can simply just remain indeffed. I do not see the need for a site ban, and would oppose one unless some major socking/bad faith evidence were put forth. Doc talk 12:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Doc. A ban seems way premature. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not particularly suggesting any sort of ban (indeed, if you read what I've written on Bonkers' talk page and elsewhere, you should come away with the impression I've been quite defensive and supportive of him), rather thinking that we need more admin eyes on this right now. He's got a pattern of repeatedly being disruptive and subsequently showing remorse again and again. He only apologised for the sockpuppetry after I bought it up, which does suggest he was hoping the unblocking admin wouldn't pick up on it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then we should just be ready to remove talk page access in case he spams unblocks. The Depressed Loser (I am not here) 13:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should just unwatch his talk page, in case we're tempted to read spam unblocks. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's much need to do anything at this point. The user was just indef'ed, he's not going to be unblocked anytime soon but a site ban seems of no real use here. Talk page access can be removed by any administrators if the talk page access is abused. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a formal community ban for a period of no less than 1 year (with an appeal option after six months). He was unblocked on the basis he was topic banned from the DYK project, but has already submitted and successfully obtained a DYK credit, he was topic banned from creating articles in mainspace but thought it acceptable to work with the AfC project, which requires him to assess and then move new articles created by other editors into the mainspace. That breaches the spirit if not the precise letter of the topic ban, he cannot be trusted to add new material to the mainspace, it should be obvious that applies not just to his own work but that of others. The damage he has done at the AfC project is impossible to estimate but it could well have discouraged new editors. The behaviour he now shows on his talk page is again unacceptable (misogynistic in nature - see [12]) and in combination with the breaches of the DYK topic ban and disaster at AfC, I think he needs to spend a great deal of time away from the community, given time to mature and reflect on his behaviour now, prior to his previous ban and the socking that occurred after it. The enforcement of a community ban will also require Bonkers to think about how the community will have perceived his behaviour, and has the benefit of preventing any administrator thinking of unblocking to do so without input from the community, be it in six months or a year. Nick (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with Nick, he got too many second chances already and has a history of socking. Endorse ban Secret ^account 14:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Not entirely sure it will help much, as I don't think any admin should go and unblock this person without community consensus anyway, given the result of the latest unblock attempt, but I see no reason not to endorse this ban proposal if others feel it can have some positive effect. It surely cannot be of harm. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Given the contempt Bonkers showed for WP:BLP policy in the incident that led to the previous ban, [13], his continuing reluctance to admit to doing anything wrong, and his immediate return to disruptive behaviour as soon as he was unblocked, it seems self-evident that he cannot be trusted, and is an ongoing liability to the project. We will manage fine without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - Bonkers' immediate return to his previous behavior and attempts to hide his past behind supposed ignorance and sweet words clearly shows that the interests of Wikipedia are not what is in his mind when he is editing. Ansh666 15:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Guess people just can't see a troll when he's done any bit of good. Anyways, I'd support an AfC ban for Bonkers if he comes back. Ansh666 07:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • No, per WP:OWN. The community as a whole decides. If regulars at AFC wanted an unblocked editor to NOT be at AFC, they could go to WP:AN and likely get a topic ban rather easily. The ONLY public area of Wikipedia (that I'm aware of) where "membership" is decided by a closed panel is in clerking, just as SPI or at Arb, as there are privacy and other issues at stake. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I would tend to agree with Dennis Brown here: the community as a general principle abhors processes and procedures that are decided by some "sekrit klub"/cabal/walled garden, and AfC does not qualify as an exception. While I don't personally have a problem with a ban discussion taking place in a less-prominent (read: less edit conflict-prone) zone, but there would need to be a very prominent announcement on AN/ANI. And even then, I suspect some editors would object, arguing that holding the discussion in a different place removes the benefit of blowing up people's watchlists with every comment, and thus (hopefully) attract more attention, and thus involvement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - after his latest endeavors I think it's time we close the door on second chances. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I don't see anything misogynistic in that diff, and don't think 'misogynistic' is a word we should toss around lightly without very strong proof. That said, this is a user who came back from a long block with promises of reform and got himself reblocked almost immediately, so I endorse ban to prevent further waste of the community's time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking as the target of the diff, I didn't interpret it as misogyny either—simply his habitual sarcastic obfuscation when he has been caught out being economical with the truth. And where did this idea come from that he is a simply a very young editor who needs to mature? To those here who assume he's a naive teenager, I have a bridge to sell you. Voceditenore (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• support indef block, with WP:OFFER available in time. I had only a vague knowledge of Bonkers until this week. I saw one positive article and DYK (Eat Frozen Pork), although I then discovered these were strictly against their topic ban. Then I saw the past history, then I saw the issues leading to the latest block. Let's just say that I wouldn't be so positive to him if I'd known this beforehand. Give it time, maybe he'll grow up. Maybe he won't, hence the block. I don't care in the slightest, it's all up to him. Certainly a block today is entirely justified as preventative. Too much dramah otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eight years ago, Wikipedia welcomed another Singaporean editor around the same age as Bonkers. Although he could contribute quality content, he could not handle stressful situations and eventually developed a very effective method of vandalism. He was almost community-banned, but an admin decided to block him for a week instead and since then, he has written thirteen Singapore-related GAs. In case you have not already realised, that editor was myself and Bonkers reminds me of what I was like back then. Of course, I do not condone his actions, but are they so severe that they warrant a community ban? I doubt so. What Wikipedia needs is more contributors of quality articles about poorly represented topics. With over a hundred (mostly Singapore-related) DYKs to his name and potential GAs (such as Ah Boys to Men), Bonkers is certainly among them. If he simply focuses on article writing and is given sufficient guidance (from me, for example), he could be one of our most valuable editors. Perhaps the community could allow Bonkers to develop articles offwiki and email them to another editor (such as me), who would check the articles and post them to mainspace (if they are of high quality). --Hildanknight (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree your goals and also oppose such a ban. However take a look at what has happened this week. We don't want to re-run that, so how can we avoid it? Bonkers just doesn't seem to see that his behaviour is a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the AfC disruption? Then we can ban him from AfC. We don't need to siteban at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The AfC disruption, the breach of the DYK topic ban, the breach of article creation and claiming that he had conveniently forgotten being topic banned. That's just the stuff I saw. Clearly topic bans are simply ignored. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In the unblock, I didn't see any mention of a DYK ban - it looked unconditional to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Oppose siteban, consider AfC ban if the conduct that led to the most recent block is really that troublesome. There are some indecorous comments at the Bonkers' user talk that did lead to revocation of talk page access, but I think some leniency is in order given the circumstances. As another editor has pointed out, Bonkers has a good history of content creation on Singapore topics. Given Wikipedia is starting to operate a bit leaner in terms of good content creators, we should trim the rotten parts rather than pitch the entire roast in the garbage. Perhaps it's a sign of the economy getting better that people have less spare time to spend editing Wikipedia. This of course should not serve to abrogate the prior standard offer that resulted in the last unblock. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support indefinite ban with option to appeal in either one or two years and every six months thereafter. Bonkers has caused a months-long trail of disruption and proven himself incompetent, immature, and uncivil. --Jakob (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinite ban – Seriously? Why should we go around banning editors like Bonkers, when such editors consistently expand the quality of articles? However, Bonkers may be a little naive and misguided to be editing Wikipedia at this time, so I suggest leaving the indefinite block, with an WP:OFFER applicable in one year this time. I'll also choose Support one-year ban. (On further thought, I won't support any ban. Bonkers might be a clown, as implied by his username, but he isn't a long-term disruptive user; he is only misguided. Modified 17:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)) Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indefinite Block extended to talk page with no appeal for at least a year. I intensely dislike outright bans except as a truly last resort. That said, this is clearly a hardcore recidivist. I like Snowolf's point that little will be gained by an outright ban that cannot be accomplished by an indefinite block. I would add a strongly worded warning that if/when the block is ever lifted (or if there is any further attempt at evasion) that any further trouble from him and the next stop is the full blown ban/excommunication/anathema. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban if we must do this exercise. This has yet to reach the level one would normally associate with banning. I have no issue with the indef block, but he hasn't been shown to be so problematic that we need the formal act of banishing him out to the wilderness yet. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban Eric Cartman amuses but doesn't convince. "Formal communitah ban!" "Too big for his britches!" "Repeatedlah disruptive!" "Needs time away from teh communitah!" "Too manah second chances!" "Liabilitah to teh project!" Puh-lease. Just block Bonkers (excellent user name btw, Bonkers) when he's naughty, unblock when he promises to be good, proceed with blocks and unblocks as required. Playing with their little blockhammers is what sysops become sysops for. Maybe give the Bonkers job to the diligent Beebelbrox, whose tally currently stands well north of 2500. Bonkers could help him to the magic 3000. All this Down With The Clown! dramah is totallah unnecessarah! Writegeist (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, and any block that might be seen as punitive. When Bonkers work is good, it is very, very good. When it is "bad" it is always reversible even when it may raise the hackles of his detractors. Send him to counseling. Encourage his adoption. Perhaps limit him to 1RR. Ask him to self-limit actions that may cause angst to his many watchers. We have many far better solutions that build the encyclopedia and this editor's skills that do not require a ban. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• What evidence do you have that this person is a "young Singaporean?" I strongly suspect he's lying to you. Adopting a persona designed to appeal to the weak-minded and naive is a popular tactic of online trolls. Have fun playing encyclopedia folks.Dan Murphy (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Why would young Singaporeans especially appeal to the weak-minded and naive? Anyway, I reviewed his fish soup bee hoon and found it quite plausible as the work of a native Singaporean. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Andrew (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think Dan Murphy is probably right. The "young Singaporean" schtick does not ring true. I looked at the article you linked to and see nothing "plausible" about his claim. The entire account reeks of role playing and trolling. Why this editor isn't banned speaks volumes about the poor judgement of the community. The editor is taking advantage of the known weakness of the members of the community, and he's doing it in such a deliberate way that it has the feel of professionalism about it. Very odd. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. The actual unblock appeared to be unconditional, and there was no obvious DYK prohibition at the time it was made. The AfC mess was problematic, but stopped when the warning was given. I'd support some way back, possibly with clear and specific restrictions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose long-term ban of people who are here with a genuine desire to contribute to the encyclopedia (e.g. vandals, trolls, and advertisers be gone!). Endorse 5-year (see below for why not "indef") block with a custom-tailored version of WP:STANDARD OFFER or similar available any time after 7 months (his last block was 6 1/2 months, obviously not long enough). Strongly endorse post-block heavy editing restrictions including continued an additional 6-month ban on any WikiProjects in which he was disruptive since his first unblock on 10:37, 26 September 2013 and, if he has been disruptive in any particular article or that article's talk page since 10:37, 26 September 2013, an additional 6-month ban on that article and talk page and any "successor" article or talk page (e.g. if an article split, both articles would be covered, if it was merged or redirected, the target would be covered, if it was deleted and re-created under a different but obviously-the-same-topic title, the new article would be covered). I qualify all of the above by saying the long-term block and bans mentioned above should all expire 5 years after the most recent block. Any violation or evasion (e.g. WP:SOCK) of these blocks or bans would result in, at a minimum, a reset of all clocks. After 5 years, we can assume that if he comes back, he will have changed at least a little (I can't think of anyone who is the same person now as they were 5 years ago). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban The article which is currently showing on the main page seems fine and that is our main business here. This editor seems to have an abundance of youthful high spirits but short blocks and warnings will suffice to keep these in check. A ban seems too draconian. Wikipedia is not the government of Singapore and so should not demand placid conformity from every foreign visitor. Andrew (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In an international project, a contributor from Singapore is no more 'foreign' than anyone else, and as for 'youthful high spirits', I see no reason to accept that Bonkers is the youth he claims to be - though it makes no difference, since policy applies regardless of age. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I think you misunderstood Andrew; in my eyes, he's talking about the Singaporean government's position toward non-Singaporeans in Singapore and saying that we should be different. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Meh, support, for lack of a better label, I guess, ish. Community bans are generally brought down on people who have a severe, long-term history of disruption. Bonkers' disruption has been annoying, yes, even "very annoying". But it doesn't quite rise, at least as of now, to the level of malice and determined hellraising that would typically cause me to support a flat-out, "don't come back until we say you can" ban. All that said, however, it's clear that Bonkers, at least at this point, can't or won't edit in a non-disruptive manner. So while a "ban" seems like overkill, I also see no reason why he should be editing this project unless and until he can make a persuasive, coherent statement about how his behavior will change, and I would prefer that his eventual return be decided by community discussion and not by whatever admin, who may or may not know the history, happens along to an unblock request. And, well, that ends up sounding a whole lot like a ban in function, despite my reluctance to call it that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block with first appeal not allowed until one year has passed, and any unblock must specify the areas that remains off-limits from the original block: discussing or editing any race-related content (and no racial epithets allowed), creating mainspace articles directly (or moving articles there), DYK, and recommend that AfC be added to this list. Could appeal these limitations six months after editing resumes if all goes well. If the above restrictions aren't possible with a block, then support a ban with a one-year first appeal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to DYK andAfC to decide as communities respectively? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as redundant. He was just indefinitely reblocked. Now he could easily be unblocked but I can't see that happening in the present climate. As for those of you who criticize him for making excessive drama, look no further than the supporters of this ban, repeatedly beating the proverbial horse. KonveyorBelt 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• The supporters of this ban are trying to prevent any future drama, so your statement makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are they really? Because it seems after countless AN and ANI threads they are creating more drama than they are "preventing". KonveyorBelt 04:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban or indef, but support topic ban for race-related topics. Bonkers is a prolific contributor to Wikipedia. He created hundreds of new articles, including almost 200 that appeared on DYK, in merely two years. He has an irreverent attitude which rubs the wrong way with some people, but nothing truly disruptive. This whole drama is basically continued punishment for his "original sin" of creating and bringing this article to the main page, after which he has been indef'ed repeatedly for relatively minor offences. -Zanhe (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban or indef. Basically agreeing to what Zanhe said. You pick on somebody enough, and it takes a very strong, confident and disciplined individual not to crack under the strain. Let's be clear Bonkers didn't write "that article", which merely timestamps the racist attitudes then within the USA. Are things much improved these days? -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a consensus at this point to community site ban Bonkers, and my prediction is that a consensus isn't going to be achieved in this thread even if we leave it open for an unusually long time. We shouldn't be speculating or commenting on the motivations of his supporters or detractors here, as it's just not relevant. We can't keep this open forever. The editor is indeffed and isn't going to be unblocked easily. This is supposed to be about a community ban, and overturning the indef isn't really on the table. Doc talk 05:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. How much time do we collectively have to waste on a drama generator before we decide enough is enough? How much race trolling has to end up on the front page before we decide we don't want to take that chance anymore? Gamaliel (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You've apparently got some diffs of "race trolling" on the "front page" from this particular editor? Please put them here for analysis. Doc talk 06:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the article linked above or are you just challenging my assessment of it? That's just the beginning of the drama he's caused at DYK. Gamaliel (talk)

We follow consensus, as a policy, when determining a site ban. There is no consensus to site ban this editor. It's not going to form. Let's just stop wasting time on this. Doc talk 07:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Bonkers used to have a swastika in his signature. It is an important symbol in Indian religions. When he was informed that Westerners find it offensive, he removed it from his signature. Then he wrote an article about a racial slur and used that racial slur on its talk page. In Singapore, such words are not as offensive and are often used jokingly. To clarify, Singaporeans do care about racial harmony and have little tolerance for racism, However, what we deem racist (such as criticism of cultural traditions) is very different from what Westerners deem racist. For example, I do not understand why Westerners would defend the Muhammad cartoons as free speech. --Hildanknight (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty convenient excuse to have, isn't it? I'm not buying any of it. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You aren't from Singapore, and Hildanknight is. Wikipedia's systemic bias has spiralled way out of control on this one. Seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever decision is reached here, Bonkers is not welcome at AFC. The damage he did there is the type that chases potential new editors away. So he's written a few acceptable article about Singapore related topics - but don't forget that he isn't the only Singaporean with access to the interwebz. "The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with Bonkers..." (Apologies to W.S.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, you would really stoop so low? I am very disappointed in you, Roger, seriously. The clown has a huge number of problems with how he expresses himself, and how he behaves on Wikipedia, but those of us still interested in supporting an inclusive Wikipedia have noted that the other Singaporeans do not see his banter as hopelessly disruptive, even if there are problems. It is very sad that the English Wikipedia community is so low in the gutter now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reply It is indeed my sincere opinion that the damage Bonkers has done to WP (not only during the last few days) far outweighs any good he might have done. I am entitled to express this opinion without being attacked for it. (BTW I'm really surprised that you describe his disruptive behavior as mere "banter", it seems to me you are genuinely unaware of the full extent of what Bonkers has done here.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am very well aware of the clown's disruptive behaviour over the last year, quite frankly I consider your behaviour to be far more disruptive in targeting people of a particular nationality - "he isn't the only Singaporean with access to the interwebz", what on earth? The only thing I don't understand is why you are not ashamed of yourself and your behaviour. Perhaps that will come with time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some people have motivated unblocking him because he has written acceptable articles about Singaporean topics - I was simply pointing out that he is not the only person capable of writing about the place - your attempt to twist that into me attacking an entire nationality is you descending into personal attacks against me - you should be ashamed of yourself. That Bonkers is from Singapore isn't even relevant at all - there is no requirement that editor need to be citizens of the country they write about on WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, except if they're "not welcome", right? Ever seen a teenager banned from making any edits or writing any article about any town or village in the local place where they live? I have. Do you think that is a good idea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - we do not site ban people for having "had a turbulent history", nor for being from Singapore and writing like someone from there, nor even for being a damn nuisance in a minor way. Please grow up and spend your "proposal" time on better things. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse ban based on the evidence collected by Anthonyhcole offline, including the following 1) Listed "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" as one of his "Top ten favourite people" on his user page[14] 2) Wore a swastika in his signature while greeting newbies at the tea house. When confronted, he said, "The truth is, the swastika is an innocuous symbol. It is a symbol of peace and harmony. It is one of the main symbols used in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. It is just that this dictator called Hitler perverted this symbol of peace and harmony. I advocate peace, not fascism. But in any case, I have removed it, lest ignorant ones blatantly criticize me for being a fan of the Nazis."[15] 3) Wrote Niggers in the White House[16] and nominated it for a "Did you know?" slot on Wikipedia's main page with the tag line, "Did you know that "Niggers in the White House" (1902) was written after the President invited a nigger to the White House?"[17] 4) Wrote Bigger Hair and proposed the DYK, "that Nigger Hair is sold at auctions?" which was changed to "that the smoking tobacco brand Bigger Hair was originally named Nigger Hair?"[18] 5) Wrote No Niggers, No Jews, No Dogs.[19] 6) Unblocked 2 days later after apologising and agreeing to avoid race topics and racist language.[20] 7) Next month created We should kill everyone in China with stuff scraped from the Jimmy Kimmel Live article.[21] Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that the location that all those things were posted, was the exact same location where everyone was encouraged to "search Demiurge1000 pedophile" on Google, with the obvious intention that it should become the searched-for string? Are you really incapable of imagining that your "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" arrangement wasn't the same deal? It becomes hard to assume good faith sometimes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies are a dime a dozen. The site of origin is irrelevant. Are these seven points false? It really does appear that Wikipedia is being deliberately trolled by Bonkers. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Or rather, it seems so to you. How it looks to me is something I won't say right now for fear of WP:NPA... but I do think Wikipedia and ANI in particular is now fast headed into the "Western World and its way of doing things OK, outsiders not welcome" territory. That is a really bad place to be. Maybe you don't see it the same way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of who came up with the evidence or where it was posted, it exists. Again, are the seven points false? And, is there any evidence that the user is from Singapore? Someone said an SPI was done, did it trace to that country? I don't get why this person is continually having their bad behavior excused because of where they claim to come from. It's ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll provide public proof of his place of residence just as soon as you provide public proof of yours. Actually, no, get lost, I will do no such thing. You don't get to demand people are checkusered just because you don't like them or their edits or where they claim to be from. You are a disgrace. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The disgrace here, is that you and others are using a purported place of origin as an excuse for the bad behavior of the user. That's the disgrace. Many of us simply don't believe what the user has said, and there's good reason for that. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, so after you just finished edit-warring for the umpteenth time to remove my responses to your points above, which apparently I'm not allowed to make (so much for "free speech"), please could you tell us what the "good reasons" are? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, please provide a justification for the "top google search result" bullshit while you're at it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

In September 2013, Bonkers' user page was the 2nd result for "Barack Magic Nigga Obama" because he had it listed on his talk page as one of his "Top ten favourite people"[22] He has since removed the "Magic Nigga" part. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Frankly, for all those diffs and various gripes with Bonkers, everything seems to have taken place prior to the last unblock. I don't think it's quite right to go hammering on stuff that happened in the past—though pretty clearly stuff meriting some sanction—without explaining why that last chance has to be revoked. I think it's kind of presumed at this point that Bonkers has a history that includes disruption, but the fact that he was unblocked in the past is a clear indication that he's been seen as producing enough useful content to retain in the past, and the community has not apparently objected (or at least not loudly enough). In short, what you post is all well and good... but what does that have to do with the conduct since the last unblock? Bonkers got another chance: are you suggesting we siteban him and ignore that chance? Or do you have something to say about the current episode? If you want to get into "What Bonkers Did Wrong", you might be better off doing a WP:RfC/U than rehashing stuff on ANI that has little to nothing to do with the present incident. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've endorsed the ban based on the concerns raised by the OP, including the past history, the blocks, the sockpuppetry, and the recent unblock and disruption of AfC. There's no need for an RfC/U here at all, just a community ban. I find it highly unlikely that a young kid from Singapore would know all the esoteric catchphrases such as "Magical Negro", an old American term that only received recent currency on the fringes of the conservative American right back in 2008-2009. This is clearly a returning user who is not a young kid and is very familiar with the complex intricacies of racism in America and knows just how to push the right buttons. He has apparently fooled quite a number of Wikipedians. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who's visited /b/, /pol/ or [s4s] more than a couple times should know that and far worse; and even if that's not the case, I think it's downright offensive to declare someone a liar because they might be well read in an esoteric topic. I see no reason to doubt this person's claims to be who he is, and respectfully advise you to redact your accusations unless you have some real evidence. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If BTC is blocked, any passing admin can unblock at any time, as happened recently. If BTC is banned, a community discussion would be required for an unblock. Therefore it is reasonable to discuss whether any past behavior merits the extra protection provided by a ban. Who cares whether Viriditas is correct (and BTC is a troll), or whether Viriditas is wrong (and BTC is merely indistinguishable from a troll)? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the very recent behaviour of one of the editors you mention, those do not seem to be all of the alternatives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Then do a RfC/U and organize your thoughts, allow other to respond, and keep ridiculous things at bay (like the revert war earlier this morning over something so trifling as how responses to an argument should be formatted). This is the wrong place to hash out this kind of discussion. It's already abundantly clear that a community ban will not achieve consensus based on the discussion that's happened here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) I'd first like to say in regards to whether or not Bonker's should be banned from contributing at AfC, shouldn't that be up to AfC to decide as a community? See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Discussions at ANI and on Bonkers' talk page. I'll go on to say, that determination of whether or not he is welcome to contribute to DYK should be up to that project and any participation in any project should be up to the project and whatever rules they decide to set in place for him (for example, he very well may decide to try his hand at NPP or CVU next for all we know). As to what my thoughts on his unblock and what kinds of hoops he'll have to jump through to accomplish that; I firstly don't think it is fair to indefinitely block anyone for infinity, and this discussion reads as though some here think that is the only course of action here. Others are say five+ years, and for someone that is 15-20, that is 25-33% of the life they have already lived. I don't think that is entirely fair and I think it is discouraging to other new editors trying to do right. I agree, life isn't always fair, but this is only Wikipedia for heaven's sake.

What I would personally like to see offered is in three months, an administrator offer to unblock Bonkers, preferably an administrator in Bonker's timezone that has some free availability during the day. Someone that can watch Bonker's contributions and check, at their discretion, that Bonker's isn't making mistakes that he shouldn't be making. The reason I say administrator, is they are the only ones that would be able to set a short term block "until the issue can be discussed" if needed for Bonkers preventing too much damage. Once Bonker's has done this for 3-6 months and proven some ability to be a constructive editor that is here to build an encyclopedia, then things like his interest to contribute to wikiprojects such as AfC, DYK, NPP, CVU, or whatever can be addressed. I don't think this is unfair at all, and I think it is the best solution to have the highest net gain for the encyclopedia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

He was already blocked for six months, extended WP:ROPE, and promptly hung himself. He has been offered the chance to prove that he could be a productive member of the community - and blew it, grandly. AGF is not a suicide pact. He is already topic-banned from DYK, after a discussion here (and I confess it was my error not to note this at the time of unblock, but was corrected later); we don't have topic bans (such as from DYK, or AfC) decided by local consensus, but by the community as a whole, and we certainly do not let bans decided by the community as a whole be lifted by a local consensus. We do not "indefinitely block anyone for infinity"; indefinite is not infinite, as the saying goes. However when an editor has repeatedly proven themselves incapable of editing within Wikipedia's framework - which Bonkers, sadly, has - then they must be shown the door. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• (non-Admin 2 cents) I concur with the point made by Mendaliv. It is fairly clearly that no consensus exists in favor of a site ban. So perhaps the conversation should move forward with that in mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support continued indef. As the unblocking admin, I was happy to extend both WP:AGF and WP:ROPE in hopes of the editor returning per the WP:STANDARDOFFER. However, as I mentioned above, the WP:ROPE was promptly used. There is no evidence provided that Bonkers is a teen, and none that he is really from Singapore - and as noted, these are irrelevant, as there is plenty of evidence that he is either a troll or indistinguishable from one. He was indef'd for six months, offered a return, and blew it - in spades; speaking frankly, the belief that he can reform in any set period of time has to be regarded as wishful thinking. I am neutral on the subject of a ban, however I will note that I find "he's indefed so we don't need a ban" arguments dissapointing, as if nothing else they keep other well-meaning admins from falling into the trap like I did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a ban from any and all contests (broadly construed) and any other activities that lead to promised "shiny". He has proven he is willing to be dishonest and even destructive in the name of collecting awards/points. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support continued indef (Non-administrator comment) for the reasons I stated, what, Thursday? at WP:AN. Assuming good faith & intentions by nominator here but the previous discussions already smelled of forum shopping. The editing restrictions imposed were an appropriate sanction for this user's conduct, and they broke them within a day or two (as I recall) from being unblocked, having not been told the restrictions were lifted. Also evaded the block by engaging in sockpuppetry. Ivanvector (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. He'll just edit under another name. But this will send a message - not just to Bonkers but to anyone reading - that racist jokes, misogyny and hoovering up AFC reviews for faux prestige aren't tolerated here. Or are they? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose siteban per Zanhe; no opinion regarding indef blocks or lesser bans. I knew what the "this article" link was, even before looking at the URL, because it's so often brought up; he's not been the best-behaved (I note the failure to heed the don't-edit-DYK requirement), but this seems ultimately to be persecution for perceived racism, rather than a proper response to a genuinely disruptive person. Nyttend (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. Support fast close I don't participate here often, but the username was too intriguing. If drama is what Bonkers seek, then stop paying him any attention. Kill the oxygen, snuff the fire.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban - Long-term content contributors deserve respect. If there is problematic behavior, specific sanctions should be targeted to that behavior. This is an editor coming off a 6-month ban being immediately dealt with by use of a metaphorical 12 gauge shotgun... Carrite (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I put a great deal of weight that was done by this editor at AfC, I personally rolled back the better part of 100 reviews, my spot checks of those reviews revealed quite a number of acceptable articles that were declined with implausible reasoning to new editors. We have almost certainly lost new editors to this editor's "work", and whatever is done, if anything, should honor the principle of protecting the encyclopedia first. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support total indef ban - no more drama, please. Bearian (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• For now, support continuing indefinite block. In all honesty, I find the relatively thin block log and the one sockpuppetry episode insufficient to warrant banning. A full six months to a year without sockpuppetry and I may be tempted to support unblocking, subject to strict, indefinite topic bans for WP:AfC and WP:DYK. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Uncivil editor needs to be told to back off

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reacted to a disagreement over two ways of interpreting policies and guidelines (essentially boiling down to m:Inclusionism and m:Exclusionism) by chiding me like a childish vandal, reacting to other's policy based reasonings with insulting dismissal or even outright ignoring it while hypocritically and baselessly claiming that others are ignoring policy based reasonings (the implication being that it's only policy based if he agrees with it). He has gone so far as to assert that adding content doesn't count as a bold edit. When it was explained to him how his conduct and attitude were inappropriate for a cooperative discussion (note the heated but civil discussion among everyone else), and that his claims regarding bold edits were against the letter and the spirit of WP:BRD, he responded by just calling me incompetent.

Is there anyone who can explain how his behavior is not in complete violation of m:Dick, if not WP:CIVIL, here? Heck, he doesn't try to defend his behavior.

He's behaving this way toward editors who doesn't give him exactly what he wants when it comes to the issue behind the contested edits. He does not have a cool head in this.

This is a clear indication that he needs to back off either from the article or from me (and probably Kevin Gorman), at a minimum, until he learns to behave WP:CIVILy. I'll leave it to everyone else to determine how this is to be accomplished. There are plenty of other people to make the inclusionist arguments at that, so there's no way this can be seen as a content dispute. Heck, as a good faith measure, if he's pulled away from that article, I'll stay away as well to even out the numbers. And if anyone wants to try to boomerang m:Dick at me, please explain how I addressed him instead of his behavior, and note that I know that an IBAN goes both ways. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ian, I'm not sure but I think you were the first one to wave your manhood around on that talk page. Either way, of course citing WP:DICK can be DICKISH. It seems to me that there is a pretty heated argument here, but I haven't seen anything blockable yet. Yet. Now, disclaimer: I have worked with Alf in the past and find them to be knowledgeable and reasonable, and usually when they have something to say I try to listen. But that's just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Do not understand this report but those massive long opinionated comments used as links are a great way to add weight to comments, makes them really stand out Mosfetfaser (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• I would suggest closing this section, protecting the page for a week to make people work out appropriate inclusion criteria on talk since the page has seen more editwarring since I went to freaking dinner, and not bothering to block anyone unless they do something momentously stupid. It's one line in one article sourced to one line in one source. Whichever way it ends up falling, it can wait a while to fall. (At least people are engaging on the talk page now, which is different than how it started.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You are edit-warring, Kevin. Don't talk about page protection when *you* are the main problem (see [23]). And your nonsense about people "now" engaging on the talk page is also disingenuous. You engaged on the talk page briefly but now that you've got your preferred version edit-warred into place you want to lock it down with page protection? You're the one who went right to 3 reversions and then stopped like every other POV warrior with barely sufficient impulse control around here. You set the tone, Kevin. You're the administrator. Act like one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, if you keep posting like this, the section started to discuss civility issues with you might end up remaining open, lol. I engaged on the talk page from my very first revert, which I performed after the content was added. I then reverted two Wikipediocracy mods whose sole argument as to why the inclusion of the content in question was necessary was to do not do so would be censorship. I have a book that tells me what color suit Truman was ordering three days after he ordered the US drop an atomic bomb; nothing anyone could do would convince me that that was encyclopedic information. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information; removing information isn't censorship. When I put in an RFPP request, I had no idea what version of the article was going to end up protected (it flipflopped between me making the request and the request being fulfilled,) and frankly, I don't care what version got protected. Something that involves one line of content in one article sourced to one line in one source can take a week to figure out whether to leave in or take out, and nothing is going to be damaged by leaving it out or leaving it in for that week. Second off, as a minor point, if I have such exceedingly poor impulse control as to be worth attacking about it, certainly I would've been blocked for that impulse control snapping and exceeding 3rr at least once in my time here? I'd invite you to take a look at my block log and see if that's the case. 3rr says that reverting more than three times is always a problem and that reverting less than three times can be but is not always a problem. I do not consider one initial revert and then two further reverts of a Wikipediocracy mod as a problem. I also have no idea why it would be disingenuous to point out that there is meaningful engagement on the talk page currently, when there wasn't to begin with (except by me and Wllm.) To paraphrase yourself, you're supposed to be a contributor to a collaborative encyclopedia that assumes good faith and works out issues on talk pages without attacking anyone. Remember that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your explicit defense for edit-warring is that you were reverting "Wikipediocracy mods"? You "do not consider one initial revert and then two further reverts of a Wikipediocracy mod as a problem"? You need to review the policies on edit-warring. Furthermore, you should read what I wrote before you accuse me of attacking you. I said that you stopped at 3 reverts, just like POV warriors with "barely sufficient impulse control" do. Obviously I didn't say you have " have such exceedingly poor impulse control as to be worth attacking about it." And don't defend yourself by saying you engaged on the talk page from the beginning. You were still edit-warring and you stopped engaging on the talk page around the time you filed your RfPP which, to the everlasting shame of Wikipedia, you got, hours after anyone had made an edit to the article. Ridiculous.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"you stopped engaging on the talk page around the time you filed your RfPP which" - this is a blatantly false statement, please retract it. I engaged after I filed the RfPP, and have continually engaged on the page as I have had internet access. And yes, I do not consider one initial revert followed by two reverts of a particular Wikipediocracy mod whose only defense was that removing any sourced information amounted to censorship to be terribly inapprpriate behavior. The number of edit requests you made on that page just to make a WP:POINT was ridiculous, and though stale now, does suggest that the originator of this section had a point... I'd also love an explanation of how a page being protected to stop an ongoing editwar *many hours after I filed the RfPP* is something that shame Wikipedia everlastingly. I had no idea what state the page would be protected in when I filed the RFPP, and you're quite aware of that. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

← For the record, I fully protected the page as per the request at a very backlogged RFPP, as there was an ongoing edit war. This is not an endorsement of any version of the page, I just protected whatever version was current. I have no horse in the race, so if someone feels the need to reverse my protection or whatever, it's all good by me. I know there was a delay between the last reversions and the protection. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit-war was long over. You ought to reverse your own protection.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Alf, there was plenty of warring still, and a potential of it continuing, so I think protection was fair. BTW, I agree with your note on the talk page about the "Easter egg pipe linking" or whatever you called it--Ian, this strikes me as a bit patronizing. There is no need for all that linkage. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The request was made by one of the edit warriors and the protection locked down his favored version of the page. Interesting how that works. It's all just a game to some people... Carrite (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I have found the editor raising this complaint to be very quick to turn combative and argumentative. He accused me of not providing links for an argument I was making, but I did and he just hadn't read carefully. He quietly changed the subject after that. Conversely the editor being accused was polite when I dealt with them once. Useitorloseit (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that experience has anything to do with this situation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would request both the participation of more uninvolved editors on the page, and the eyes of a few uninvolved admins. Alf's behavior has made me think that the original post in this section may have actually held some merit, and for reasons I can't quite fathom, Alf has launched an "informal RfC" that seems to me to bypass one of the major intended purposes of RfC's to begin with - attracting uninvolved editors for. I can't entirely fathom why he did so, and suspect the page will devolve in to an incomprehensible wall as it is currently set up. He's also made half a dozen protected edit requests with no apparent point but to demonstrate that he doesn't think the page should be protected in a pretty damn WP:POINTy way that has also spammed the page a respectable amount. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• To provide a direct example of Alf's disruptive behavior: they have now started 26 of the sections on the entire page, including 6 meaningless edit requests that split up meaningful discussion of the issue at hand. By starting such a ridiculous number of sections, they are severely limiting the ability for useful discussion to easily occur on the page. If Alf starts another bunch of sections, I would request an uninvolved admin step in and either block Alf or simply delete the sections. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's shut this specious complaint down here and then maybe one of the POV warriors can run to ArbCom and see if they want to deal with the bad behavior of some interested parties in this content dispute. Hint: boomerangs can inflict nasty damage. Best to just hat the mess and move along. P.S. There should be no protection on that article. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5

Repeated addition of WP:COPYVIO links to Youtube (22 May 2014, 6 June 2014) and unsourced, WP:EDITORIAL content (22 May 2014, 22 May 2014). Level 3 warning added to user page 18 May and final warning added 27 May. AldezD (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There's an issue at hand here, certainly, but I think that it has more to do with the user's overreaction to an edit he doesn't like. While I understand his point, the reason why I added the information is because it contradicts information that had already been there. It claimed that champions were never retired during that period and for the most part, that was true. This, however, proved an exception to the rule and because of that, I felt it necessary to include it because it was important to note it and that it was the only time after the show left CBS that a contestant was forced into retirement. It is not my intent to vandalize the page and because AldezD didn't appreciate the edit, he accused me of vandalizing the page (which, as you can plainly see by looking at the edits, it isn't). While I know that using Youtube as a source is generally frowned upon, I cannot track down the episode's actual airdate or the production number or code and was left with having to provide an external link to show that, in fact, my edit was based on legitimate data. It may not follow guidelines to the T but it certainly doesn't fully disqualify the entry as nonverifiable because it proves that A (Dunn's end) happened because of B (unnamed network practice) and thus C (the aftermath of the decision). In this case I feel an exception needs to be made and that by choosing not to allow the info to stand the information in the article doesn't seem complete because the policy of the production company was not to limit contestants' potential winnings and that this flew in the face of that idea and must therefore be mentioned- if not in the form I put it in then in some addendum to the prior material. We note rule changes on pages like these when necessary, and this is one of those instances. While I'll admit perhaps I got a little heavyhanded in commenting and apologize, I don't feel it takes away from the fact that the info presented is notable and needs to be considered when discussing the whole subject. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The allegation (which I haven't investigated) is that you repeatedly added links to videos whose hosting by Youtube violated copyright. Your longish comment ignores this allegation. What's your response to it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's one link (not multiple links). The reason why it appears I'm ignoring the allegation is because the dispute is over the inclusion of the information in general- although certainly if it was a violation of any copyright I didn't intend to do so. The point is that as the article is written, it doesn't include every complete detail and if you strip away any perceived violations on my part (I'll freely admit I could've handled things differently), that still remains. If there's an instance where someone/something had to do something because of a rule and evidence exists of the rule's application, I don't see why it can't be included. To me special circumstances are applicable. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So, now that you're not going to add the copyvio link again, just go discuss the content issue on the article talk page and seek consensus - how does that sound? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do.--ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Mild threat left by ChrisP2K5 at Talk:The Joker's Wild following suggestions in discussion above. [24] User was previously blocked indefinitely and before being unblocked, was denied an unblock multiple times for WP:BATTLE mentality. AldezD (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't threaten anything. What I said was that I was considering exercising discretion and putting the information in some form back into the article. I've been trying to explain to you that even if you discount any editorializing, perceived or otherwise, the facts are still the facts: there was an exception to the rule in place regarding there being no limit to contestants' winnings or length of time on the show and it has to be noted somehow. I still contend there needs to be some leeway given considering that even though the source I have isn't considered the most reliable by Wiki standards, short of eyewitness accounts or the actual airdate of the episode being catalogued somewhere, this is the only format in which an account of the disputed fact known to exist. I also submit that I'm not the one guilty of the WP:Battle mentality here. I also suggested a compromise which AldezD wasn't interested in, which is making me believe he isn't acting in good faith. I understand his position and in 99% of cases I wouldn't argue it. But this is an issue of having every possible bit of accurate information on the page. Mentioning prior actions isn't fair because it detracts from the argument. Since AldezD and I are the only people concerned and consensus seems impossible, I would move that the admins rule on the inclusion of the info one way or another and that whatever the decision is, both parties agree to be bound by it with no further dispute. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: although it might be very difficult to prove CBS was the network in dispute, various pages on the Wiki have noted that only they and ABC had imposed limits at the time and ABC's was significantly lower than CBS' at the time ($20K, $5k less). Don't know if that relieves anything but still. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'm starting to notice an alarming lack of good faith on your part and am considering acting as such" are your words. Additionally, you've made multiple statements on the talk page for which citations or evidence has been requested in order to include them in the article. Instead, you simply re-state your argument that this information should be included rather than addressing WP:V and providing an acceptable source for your statements. You did not suggest a compromise; you again made unsourced editorial comments based upon your own unverified assumptions, re-linking copyvio video that does not provide the requested proof. Mentioning prior actions is wholly fair in that you're continuing an evidenced pattern of disruptive behavior. AldezD (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

But I'm not. I'm trying to include a piece of information in the article that directly contradicts a key piece of information already included in it. I've mentioned several times that a secondary source has been difficult to find, and I have tried. I don't like the fact that I can only come up with a video clip, but that's the way it is. Mentioning my prior actions takes away from the whole basis of the discussion, which I continue to stress is based on the information and the consideration by the admins than an exception be made based on the fact that even though YouTube isn't considered an RS, in this case there isn't much other evidence (if any) that exists to verify that this happened. I keep restating the argument because I don't feel you're understanding it. I also restate that if you strip away any perceived editorializing, you're still left with the fact at hand: not every Joker's Wild champion's reign came to an end by defeat, and that Jack Barry's on air statement about it is, as of this moment, the only record of it and has to be considered. If I had something else, I would show it, but I don't. But I wouldn't be arguing special circumstances if they didn't exist, and here they do. And because I don't feel you're seeing this, I feel you aren't showing me any good faith. I understand your concern and respect for guidelines and if it was any other case I wouldn't argue. But as I have said, there's something else at work here. Something that needs to be noted in some way. Again I move for a decision as a stalemate is evident. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 has also just instigated a WP:Move war of the Bernie Robbins Stadium article. After being politely informed that the user's undiscussed move of the article was against the consensus established in two recent WP:RMs recorded at Talk:Bernie Robbins Stadium and given the instructions for submitting a formal WP:Requested move, the user just repeated the undiscussed move again while insisting that their point of view should prevail. This is contrary to appropriate behavior. If the user wants to propose a move of the article, there is a process for that (although I do not personally detect any change of the facts of the situation since the last two RMs for that article were closed). Before moving an article, people should check for prior recent RM records. Whether that occurs or not, if an undiscussed move is reverted and contested, discussion should take place using the WP:RM process to determine consensus – before repeating a move attempt again – regardless of what they think are the merits of the article naming situation. Before the user's second move, they were clearly told "Please do not repeat this action without submitting a formal move request to determine whether there is a consensus to make those changes" and given instructions about how to submit a formal move request. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The stadium's name changed. That's why I moved it, and told BarrelProof that I wasn't moving it without merit as an article in the Atlantic City Press concerning the change is cited within the opening paragraph. As far as I saw, once he re-reverted the move the matter ceased to be an issue. I'll leave it be. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I consider that matter closed. You are still welcome to submit a formal move request for community consideration, of course. It is certainly possible that the consensus has changed about that topic. I am only saying that unilateral undiscussed moves, in the absence of any new developments reflected by reliable sources (especially after highly explicit notification), are not appropriate. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

After this morning, after yet another attempt to try and convince AldezD to see things my way, I've decided that any further attempts to discuss this with him are futile. I don't know what else I can do to convince him that there's an inaccurate piece of information in the article that needs correcting. He simply won't consider my position no matter how many times I explain it. I'm not sure what else can be done here. I apologize for wasting the wiki's time. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"...To see things my way"—yet another example of WP:BATTLE. You provided additional comments at Talk:The Joker's Wild, to which I provided a reply, again requesting proof to your repetition of unsourced claims. You claim there is inaccurate information, yet after multiple requests for evidence that meets WP:V, you simply restate your original argument without providing a source, then accuse others of being difficult or lacking good faith. AldezD (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we agree on a few basic principles here and try to move on:

1. We should be careful about linking to a potential copyvio video.
2. A (widely rerun) nationally syndicated U.S. broadcast television show is an adequately reliable source for information about what happened on the television show itself (whether we have a direct link to the content of the show or not – just as an article or book that is not published on the internet can also be an adequately reliable source of information – especially about the content of the book or article itself).
3. We should sort out the details by discussions on the article's Talk page, and try to be polite while doing so. (I haven't really noticed any terrible problem in regard to the politeness issue thus far.)
4. Complete removal of all information about what happened to Joe Dunn, the most exceptionally successful contestant in the history of the show (aside from "tournament of champions" contests), who was forcibly "retired" as a result of being too successful (with the television show itself as evidence of those facts), is unlikely to be the appropriate end result.

—BarrelProof (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We have apparently resolved this situation...if the admins could close this, it would be appreciated. --03:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

We have a number of examples of this user personalizing discussions and attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps. They were also made aware of behavioral expectations on May 8th,2014 [25]

In this edit from May 13th, 2014 they state

1. "your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [26]" were the page linked to is "Profile of the Sociopath"
2. "you again point to Ernst, which is outlandish behaviour as you admitted to being in contact with him (COI and meat puppetry, possibly) but he is representing the fringe opinion" however speaking with an expert is neither a COI nor meat puppetry. And Ernst is a well known and well published expert with much mainstream support.
3. "You, and other enablers, including an admin, have deliberately stymied any discussion that centres on the current practice characteristics of the profession". Those of us who disagree with some of his positions are not "enablers" and there is no evidence we have "deliberately stymied" anything. I have mentioned that he should try a RfC to get broader input on some of the questions at hand.

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

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

These are ongoing issues with this users editing. They were indefinitely blocked on May 24th,2014 by User:Kww for the continuation of previous issues and were unblocked by User:Adjwilley on June 2nd,2014. A previous block in April of 2013 was for sock puppetry.[27] and the one before that was for edit warring. Please note that I edit in this topic area as it falls partly under medicine and thus would be involved. In light of this I am of the opinion that a indefinate topic ban of User:Neuraxis is warranted. User was informed of the ANI discussion here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am away for the evening for a family engagement. Although I don't currently have the time for a proper rebuttal, I would like to present some contextual evidence. My discussions were with QuackGuru who is a long known problem editor. He was blocked last week [29] and there has been ensuing conversations about potentially topic banning QG [30]. I wrote a min-essay about my experience [31]. Doc James seemingly gives QG unconditional support which may or not be related to a conflict of interest [32]. QuackGuru has edited Doc James' biography and removed any content related to his real life controversies. I was concerned about a retaliatory measures by a high powered admin, so I began collecting diffs [33] about questionable edits with Doc James' with respect to Chiropractic and related subjects. What I see is a basic misunderstanding of the fundamental issues regarding in how the page is edited [34]. I am also presenting evidence that supports the notion of 'scientific chiropractic exists and is the mainstream within the profession [35] , [36]. You can see from my contributions that I am in no way destabilizing any article relating to the topic in question. A topic ban is basically an attempt to censor a conversation that has been occurring elsewhere [37] surrounding the debate of mainstream vs. fringe. In short, this is who I am [38]. Dogmatic skepticism here at WP always tries to polarize the debate. At the top of this ANI, Doc James asserts that I am 'attempting to divide the editors in this topic area into two camps." That is not true. I am asking simply "Are the use of manual and manipulative therapies for MSK disorders fringe or mainstream". I have provided evidence to support such a view, and there seems to be some cognitive dissonance and conflation going on with some editors who have a radicalized stance on this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

• primary agenda, to advance "scientific chiropractic"[39] (the same agenda advocated by the indef blocked User:CorticoSpinal, also a Canadian chiropractor editing from the same area).

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Actually, no. You're telling half truths. See the discussion at the talk page [40]. I'm asking whether or not it's an over-reach as seen in this discussion here [41]. Not providing context and outright lying about removing things entirely vs. over-reach are apples and oranges. Neuraxis (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters being moved

Look at the history of Carla Connor, for instance, or Gail Platt--and the associated articles. I can't really figure out what's going on or who is doing what wrong, but it seems to me that the boldness is getting out of hand. So, without incriminating anyone, I'll just state that Bitbopbo is moving stuff around, ThisIsDanny follows on their heels, and Fortdj33 is involved as well (and should be banned, ahem, according to Danny). I don't know if these moves broke the GDFL, or who did what appropriately or inappropriately--I'd like someone smarter than me to look into it. Will notify. There may be more editors involved, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's perfectly possible that Bitbopdo doesn't know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In hidden messages on List of Coronation Street characters it says the link must match the article, and he keeps changing the link so I keep reverting it. He has now changed the name of the article to prove that what he is doing is right, but now the whole thing is wrong as the page names don't show the character's most common name. And when I revert them back to what they originally were other people keep reverting my edits as if I'm the one who's doing the disruptive editing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Side note: I have no opinion or knowledge of or on anything. What I'm saying is let the moving and the copying and pasting stop, and let this be figured out before some poor admin has to unfuck things up. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've tried to fix the various mad moves and double/triple redirects, please someone let me know if there's anything more that needs my "fixing". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Bitbopdo made a mess of things when he moved those articles, but ThisIsDanny doesn't seem to know what he's doing either. According to him, Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor are the proper names for those characters. I'm not doubting that, but any changes should be made to the original articles, and not to the redirects. Therefore, we should be dealing with moving the articles Rita Tanner (Coronation Street), Fiona 'Fiz' Stape, Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street), Leanne Tilsley (Coronation Street) and Carla Barlow to the proper titles, because that's where the edit history for those articles is. I only used the "Coronation Street" disambiguation, because I couldn't move the articles back to the original names, but ThisIsDanny only made things worse, by trying to redirect everything back to the cut and paste versions. I don't claim to know anything about those characters either, but in order to sort things out now, a history merge will need to be made for all of them. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I only cut and pasted everything and changed the redirects to get the original page back. I didn't know how to merge articles or delete the ones that Bitbopdo created. The names of the articles should be Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor. Which is what they've always been and don't need changing. I agree it's gone out of hand, I was just trying to get things back to normal. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. Please now don't "copy and paste" any article from one to another. There's going to be some issues to be resolved around the licensing arrangements we have when we submit stuff to Wikipedia (even this post I'm writing now) so someone clever is going to need to find out exactly what's happened to what articles and fix it. Can you help with that, can you describe exactly what's happened? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I just had a look at all the articles/moves/redirects in question and it looks like this is sorted out from an attribution/history perspective. The only thing I would suggest is moving disambiguated names to non-disambiguated names where they are the only topic (I see at least two), but that isn't a discussion for AN/I --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

They look right to me too. User:Anthony Appleyard histmerged three of them (contribs, logs), requested by {{histmerge}}. Fortdj33 and Drmies reverted the other two. I added {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User is continuing with lots of page moves Special:Contributions/Bitbopbo. No response to comments on their talk page or here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seconding that this is still a concern. I don't know enough about the topic to revert the most recent moves; is Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street) under discussion somewhere? but have added a further note to Bitbopbo's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User is still moving pages and refusing to discuss changes. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bitbopbo has been indeffed for sockpuppetry - this can be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Accidental editing

Hi, I've accidentally edited with my Wikimedia Commons account on English Wikipedia, which has a username which is prohibited according to the English Wikipedia username policy (but not on Wikimedia Commons) - I keep a separate account on Wikimedia because that's how I want my photos attributed. I obviously don't want the account removed from Commons, but is it possible to remove it from enwiki only? Or should I just let things be? JPNEX (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you'd like I can block it, if it would simplify matters for you. There is no real way to 'remove' accounts though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't be possible to link the accounts, so I don't have to log in and log out when I switch? Also what does blocking entail, exactly? Would there be a big "this user is blocked" thing on the userpage? THanks JPNEX (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You might wish to check at WP:BN, but I think due to WP:SUL issues that's not possible, unfortunately. I would block you, but you could simply make a blank userpage, and it wouldn't appear. I would make the block reason something explanatory. I certainly dont' need to block it though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! So it'd be enough if I were more careful not to edit under that account in the future?JPNEX (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be fine. If you know you should avoid editing with it that should be enough, per common sense. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, then I know! I'll be careful. Thank you. JPNEX (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related

Neither Theopolisme or Wolfgang42 have responded to my concerns with WP 1.0 bot. Please either block WP 1.0 bot or protect User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a nobots template to the page. Let's see if that works. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That did not work, so I have deleted this as a useless redirect. Let me know if this causes any unexpected problems. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot recreates the page. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor Neutralhomer - Purge deletion and protection abuse.

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

---

Pauley Perrette article is being sanitized her her publicity agents. Though the article cites a Fox News Article, an apparently negative article from Newscorp's other entity The New York Post is not a "reliable" source.

Any reference to the cigarette advertising campaign Pauly Perrete did for Virginia Slims is removed and purged.

Is this proper behaviour for a Wiki editor?

I'm not even saying add the info to the article, just putting it up on the talk page to discuss it being added to the article. Neutralhomer has acted as gatekeeper only allowing positive material to make it onto this page. 50.12.11.152 (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have informed Neutralhomer of this thread. Reyk _YO! 05:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 50.12. et. al. is an IP hopper who has long been vandalizing the Pauley Perrette article among others. The user has been warned by everyone from myself to Jimbo himself. The anon's actions have caused the Pauley Perrette page to be semi-protected, as well as the talk page. Jimbo himself has done this in the past because of the same edits by the same anon using the same ISP. Now, because the anon's favorite article has been locked down, he has come here to whine. I suggest we dismiss this thread and the anon, and put down some rangeblocks to prevent further annoyance. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

- Obviously Publicists are using Wikipedia as their preferred forum to only disseminate certain information for their clients. "Pauly P, It's a Women's thing" Virginia Slims Advert, is relevant info. Furthermore only Parette's side of a contentious divorce is being heard. Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, and not used for personal press releases.

50.12.11.152 (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User 50.79.182.145 Vandalism

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

---

I discovered a case of blanking by this user and when I checked their contribution history it was full of blanking and inappropriate vandalism. Since this is an IP, I am not aware of how to leave a notice for them.

here

here

here

full contributionsScoobydunk (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong venue. WP:AIV is what you're looking for. Doc talk 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User_talk:Russavia#Unblock_request

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.[42] 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[43] 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'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)

User:Ana Xsosta: uncommunicative and competence issues

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

---

Ana Xsosta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new user (about two weeks old) who has thus far caused nothing but issues with her editing. Examples include mutliple copyvio file uploads (see User talk:Ana Xsosta) and more recently changing of wikilinks. These change result in links to disambiguation pages, redlinks, etc, etc, where previously the linkwere valid, working ones. Examples include [44] (F5 is a dab page), [45] (Dirty Deeds is a dab page), [46] (a leglock is not the same thing as cloverleaf), and [47] (killswitch is an article on safety mechanisms, and nothing to do with pro wrestling). Multiple editors can attempted to communicate with this user, but she has zero user talk or talk page comments. Can she be blocked or something until she starts explaining herself please? NiciVampireHeart 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

All I am seeing is a whole lot of templated warnings - I would not blame them for simply ignoring them all as it is quite overwhelming. I have removed them. I'd like to note that when you are accusing new editors of being incompetent, it may not lead to a positive response (or any response at all in this case). I think a block is premature at this stage, but if they still fail to communicate then action may be taken. —Dark 15:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The templated warnings to which you refer were -- with the exception of an invitation to the teahouse, a disambiguation link notification and one on using reliable sources -- due to problems with files that the user uploaded. They have uploaded 17 so far, 16 of which have been deleted; the remaining one looks set to go the same way in seven days time. The attempts to discuss Ana's problematic linking have been done via written messages; I had a go myself today, but, in repeating problem edits, they have shown no sign that they've understood the objections to their edits, or even read them. --VeryCrocker (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that after I have cleared the templated messages on the talk page that Ana would proceed to read the comments. If she does and stops making the edits, then I see no reason to take further action. However if she continues to edit rashly and fails to communicate, a block would be in order. —Dark 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Although the user is new, I'd say that 16 or 17 template warnings should be enough to show them that they're not doing something right. Template warnings aside, we've reached out to discuss these issues with Ana but never received any response. In case that isn't enough, Peripitus has written a warning out for them already. I just tagged a new photo of theirs for copyright violations a few minutes ago meaning that none of these warnings registered. They show no signs of cooperating, at what point do we take action so we don't have to cleanup more of this users' unconstructive edits?LM2000 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've applied a 3-days block for copyright violations. Let's hope Ana takes this time to educate herself on how Wikipedia works. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable block. I was unaware that the user had continued to edit after I cleared the talk page. —Dark 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, quite reasonable. Hopefully now Ana can take the time to smell the roses.LM2000 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I just extended the block to indefinite on the basis of at least 3 sock accounts (see the list on the user's talk page). Same accounts have been blocked on Commons (see here)- Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Seems like I'm late to the party due to Wiki-break. NiciVampireHeart, thanks for informing me. VeryCrocker, good work on the research on Commons. Peripitus, M7md eltb3y is a known sock puppet of User:7alawa el3antbly, actually. starship.paint "YES!" 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Smallbones continues to make claims, that I am a banned editor, and to delete my talk comments, despite warnings, a claim based solely in my interest in, and admitted slight bias in favor of, the subject of an article, that was originally created by Wiki-PR (that is, it's bias, at least compared to the editing by HistorianofRecenttimes). Historian, a happy SPA [see contribs anywhere], echoed the claim that I am banned, and reverted me on that basis; and, Historian's 20 edits yesterday evince a significant lack of interest in improving Wikipedia. It may be relevant that, in October, while Historian was getting autoconfirmed, Historian called another editor a criminal, to his wikiface, without conviction or proof, which is about the worst BLP violation one can think of (the other editor self-identified as the principal of the subject company). My pretty thorough spot-check review of all edits by Historian did not show any exceptions to the general principle of not improving the cyclopaedia; Historian typically engages in broad OR in talk for the whole last 9 months, which has a wearing effect on other editors, who begin to believe the randomly chosen, industry-specific negative statements, made about the article subject.

I have tried several other methods of dealing with this, but today there was another deletion of my comments on Historian's talk page by Smallbones on the same rationale [already linked], without asking Historian if the comments should be deleted (Historian has not told me to stay off his talk; Smallbones claimed to do so for himself or herself, but the claim itself was the only place I saw where I could possibly have been notified of Smallbones's desire.) I welcomed both editors, and thanked Smallbones for asking [see Jimbo's talk archive] whether I was a paid editor, to which I responded at length; seeing that, I have received information from the article subject that could be used to improve the article, I decided in the hostile environment to let myself be treated as a COI, "just to make it fair", and, thereby, decided not to disclose or reveal personal details further than that statement. (The logic could be inferred that, to Smallbones, because I know who Morning277 is, my denial of being him or connected with him, proves I am him.) I told Smallbones that such desire to revert project and talkpages should compel Smallbones to start a community ban proposal on me, and, if I am approved to do so by this thread, I will start such a proposal myself, if it would not be dramatic. I think, the community would recognize that, without evidence, to ban a person solely for interest and favor toward one topic, is complete chilling of speech, rather than good additional Wiki-PR bounty hunting. (Did I mention, I despise Wiki-PR, if that is not a biased statement?) Please give advice to this situation, unique to English Wikipedia, as to how I should interact with these editors to improve the full-protected article. I have asked admins for advice but have met silence.

I have an appointment today, because I am trying to make my vacation time, which is ending soon, only 90% Wikidrama instead of 100%. I have a moment to respond right now, and I will be adding links to the above. Okteriel (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC) In reply, Smallbones just repeated himself not recognizing that my putting ANI notice on his talkpage is required. Also please note significant canvassing issues by Historian. GTG, please handle in my absence. Okteriel (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at your editing history, I can see why others might be concerned. As someone who has blocked over 300 sockpuppets/meatpuppets for User:Morning277 in just one sitting, I can see several familiar patterns. That alone isn't a guarantee you are him but I can see why they are suspicious. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dennis Brown! Sure. How can I distinguish myself from those familiar patterns and do the task I set out to do, improve the article? You would probably have good advice. All I can guess is that improving other parts of the cyclopaedia would give me a little credit to fix this God-forsaken (?) mess of an article. Anything else? Okteriel (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your editing history indicates that your account was dormant for three years and then was reactivated. You have a COI disclosure that beats around the bush. Yes, you do seem to be a sockpuppet and yes, it was justified to delete your comments. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm a user accepting being treated as a managed COI. If you're saying my account is indistinguishable from a sleeper, how should I distinguish it? Should new editors be prohibited from improving important topics? How should my disclosure read in general terms? Isn't socking judged on edit quality and not interests alone? Okteriel (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Your account is indistinguishable from a sleeper (your term, and accurate). No, you can only distinguish it from a sleeper by going back in time and not acting like one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, again. I'm back now. OK, good, so I really am a WP:SLEEPER, good, because I thought it was a negative term. But, then, why can any random user or two delete my comments completely, and charge me as an agent of a company, that, it is widely known, had the means, motive, and opportunity to break undisclosed advertising law, solely because of my topic interests? Is it because I asked the company for information to complete their article with? I know some topics are more sensitive, but none are regulated beyond autoconfirmation and protection, unless, subject to, e.g., ArbCom proceedings. And, I know the Community may make judgments about all people involved in the thread, and, I only ask that they make judgments about all people involved. It's mystifying to me that Historian's behavior has not been objected to, before, not with more than templates. Okteriel (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You had only three edits in 2011 and then reactivated the account for the purposes of COI editing. You are knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and are obviously abusing multiple accounts. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, that's it? What abuse of multiple accounts means is, if I'm abusing this account, or another one that ties to it, or the combination thereof. Why is it so obvious, what is your evidence? The only evidence I can see is interests. Should I back off from the page for a little while maybe? I have other ideas for Wikipedia, it's just that this keeps coming up on my watchlist and notifications.

Also, I really did mean it, what should I disclose? I started to edit my disclosure, but would it help me any? Does my knowledge of another language's Wikipedia rules get me in trouble? I guess I do have a second account, in another language, I wasn't even thinking of that as a second account, but wouldn't that just be a legitimate alternate account? I don't mind being in the hotseat, but just don't make me guess what you want, and make sure all the editors are in the hotseat in turn. I came here to voice my suspicions about unannounced COI SPA behavior, and I sure don't want to project same myself. Okteriel (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Other language versions guidelines and policies are irrelevant here. Socking is not judged on quality of edits. I'm as concerned about Historian as I am about you. One word of advice - don't even hint at a real person's name, see WP:OUTING. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As a bit more context, Banc de Binary came up on WP:COIN a few months ago as promotional, and I did some work on it. The article has one self-identified COI editor, BDBJack (talk · contribs), and a long history of SPAs and anons making edits to remove negative information (typical example [48]). The negative information comes from the the US SEC and CFTC (Banc de Binary operating illegally in the US), Canadian securities regulators (same thing in Canada), the Better Business Bureau, Forbes, the Financial Times, the London Daily Mail... The COI editors generally remove that negative information and prefer sources from BdB itself or generated by BdB's extensive PR and affiliate operation. Banc de Binary is actually one of 200 brands connected to a company called Softoption, in Cyprus. Those brands in turn recruit affiliates by paying them for new account signups. So there are a large number of web sites devoted to making BdB/Softoption/related binary option companies look good. Because the COI push has a lot of effort behind it, we're now at full protection. We now have extensive wikilawyering in response to that. The last time full protection was released, the article was rapidly changed to something much more favorable to BdB. This is starting to look like an effort to wear down editors trying to stop promotional editing. Full protection is a good temporary measure, but a long term solution will be tougher. Anyway, that's why we're in this mess. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you were to differentiate between the behavior of COI-declared editors, lest it seem like an accusation of Sock-puppeting / Meat-puppeting. BDBJack (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@DougWeller, thanks. Reading the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okteriel (talk • contribs) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a very different summary of the situation. The article relies heavily on extremely low-quality sources like court documents, press releases from the SEC, and Investopedia, but efforts to focus on reliable secondary sources have largely been thwarted. We have two COIs that are both disclosed and both mostly sticking to the Talk page, but exaggerated claims of poor COI conduct have been effective as a POV railroading tactic to protect an attack page on a marginally notable organization. You have an involved admin that seems to have negative personal opinions about the company adding article-protection to preserve an article written by an SPA who engages in personal attacks against the company and its reps and who is canvassing editors with a non neutral notification.

However, given that there is emerging consensus to keep the version of the article that is filled with junk sources, I don't think there is anything anyone can do... CorporateM (Talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM, didn't see that consensus yet, just a protection on the "wrong" copy after 3RR and nearly 4RR by Historian. Others, note, both CorporateM and BDBJack favor shorter versions, but I understand if you discount my or their views. Black Kite has been very involved, and I don't think he's trying to protect any particular version, but again this thread is partly about the various behaviors. Uh-oh, who do I need to notify of this discussion now? Anyway, Black Kite said, focus on resolving both behaviors and content. I think if the community has input here on behaviors and at article talk on content, we will make progress. Okteriel (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could someone explain why the obvious paid-editor sock is being allowed to drive this process, please? Hipocrite (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The answer appears to be "because nobody has stopped him." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite and Figureofnine, if you have any evidence of socking beyond what's hinted at in this thread please let me know. I'm actively investigating but not coming up with anything convincing yet. I also don't have the experience with this farm that Dennis Brown has, but I've been going by what I see here for now. If you want to email me rather than posting something here or on my talk page feel free. The same goes for anyone else who has concerns. -- Atama頭 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I, unlike the editors in question, am not being paid for my time, so I'll decline your gracious offer to waste time picking through account histories to prove that an account that registered in 2011 to edit basically nothing, than disappeared for three fucking years, till they showed up to fake-edit their way to autoconfirmed and then jump headlong into an article plagued by paid editors to advance the cause of said paid editors, with massively advanced understanding of the structural and cultural nuances of wikipedia is obviously a sock of a paid editor. SHIT! I just spent the time I promised not to spend! Ahh well! Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I concur at least that Okteriel isn't a newbie, though that doesn't preclude some previous editing as an IP, or that they had a previous clean account that was abandoned. I can't block someone because I have inconclusive suspicions. -- Atama頭 21:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's a more tangible problem. BDBJack (talk · contribs) proposed some changes to the article on the talk page, and invited discussion. Various people put up "support" or "oppose" notes. When the results were not favoring BDBJack's position, he refactored the talk page so as to close the old discussion, effectively throwing out all the old votes, and started a new vote, with his vote first.[49] This is an attempt to manipulate the process and wear down other editors for whom this isn't their day job. John Nagle (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nagle: I'm sorry if my "reorganization for clarity" is not viewed as appropriate. However with all of the concurrent separate discussion threads, even I (as someone who is active in the discussion) am having a hard time understanding the difference between positions and unrelated chatter. This was not meant as an attempt to manipulate the process, and in fact I have been doing my best to clarify the user's positions by placing them in easily read tables, segregated between "neutral" and "biased" users. BDBJack (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As an involved editor with a declared COI, it looks really bad. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Noted. I will refrain from making such edits in the future. I would like to note though that the section in question is at least 2800px high (on my 1920 x 1080px screen). This action was meant (on my part) to help focus the discussion, not to make any unintended changes. If someone thinks that the edit that I made does not accomplish this, I will be more than happy to assist in reverting back to a previous state. BDBJack (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for you and the other COI/SPA editors to bow out of the discussion on that talk page. You've made your point. You've done your work. You can report to your bosses that you gave it the old college try. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: I will gladly "step out" for the time being, however I request that you hold other SPA/COI editors of the opposing bias to the same standards that you are holding me to. BDBJack (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I said all SPA editors regardless of inclination. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we've found something we can all agree on: the 3 SPAs all stay off the article and talk page forever. That's 1) Okteriel, who's getting off damn easy, but blocking or banning him in general doesn't make that big of a difference, because he's already been banned and blocked many times. 2) BDBJack, who is an admitted employee who has been blocked before for the same stuff he's doing now - major disruptions and putting in promotional material, and 3) Historyofrecenttimes, who is an SPA, but as far as I can tell has only made a few newbie mistakes. Yes, this is unfair to History, but I'll just encourage him to accept this because without the 2 others we'll be able to get a fair article. If BDBJack and History accept this (indicate below) we're on. If Okteriel doesn't accept it, I don't care, I'm sure the community will stop the disruption. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the last few minutes we have BDBJack trying again to introduce three sources, two of which are explicitly BdB press releases, and the third, while in a nominally unaffiliated publication, reads like one.[50] (This is from someone who previously insisted that the financial section of the London Daily Mail isn't a reliable source.) If there is not to be a block, could we have something comparable to 1RR, limiting the usual suspects to one edit a day? Watching an article being edited by a full-time COI editor is a full time job. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel and BDBJack are gaming the system blatantly and need to be off that article pronto. BDBJack claims that there is another SPA that is a thorn in his shoe, but only these two are creating difficulties at present. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is enough to tell who is arguing for discipline based on behavior, and who is arguing for discipline based on content. Figureofnine's adoption of a position is also rather sudden. The content discussion block is not due to content disagreement but to behavioral challenges with setting up harmonious discussion. In most articles the various views on a segment can be easily separated and resolved (as BDBJack is attempting). In this one it took several days even to obtain agreement as to the correct name of the subject company and of its CEO due to (government-sponsored) misconceptions, and now people can't even come out and have a friendly discussion about whether we should build from a short article or trim from a long article. Aside from BDBJack's work, there's no agreement about how to even decide the question. Please help us out, thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The two editors I wanted input about have both been quiet now, which might mean no result arises from here, but I'd really appreciate advice as to what to do if the problem recurs. But maybe I should AGF. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary proposal

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

---

• Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BDBJack (talk · contribs)
• Okteriel (talk · contribs)
• HistorianofRecenttimes (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia's open-door procedures can be exploited when there is sufficient motivation. Rather than requiring volunteers to spend hours debating with SPAs, why not decide that this case warrants an unusual resolution? How about a topic ban for the known SPAs which I believe I have listed above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban for BDBJack, a BDB employee, and for Okteriel, who has in effect admitted his COI and is trying to dominate the talk page. Though HistorianofRecenttimes is an SPA and a newbie, I don't see anything serious enough for a topic ban. I'll suggest he voluntarily step aside however, just to make things easier. Given the $10,000 bounty offered by the BDB owners (apparently documented by admin @Bilby:, with Okteriel stating that he has had an email conversation with the owner about it (see User:Okteriel/Five figures), something has to be done. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This is hardly a valid proposal, especially when modified by the idea, that Historian has done nothing serious. Historian is the one who called the CEO of BDB a criminal, in article talk, an outright BLP violation, and whose talk and editing is full of OR (do you need links?), for nearly a year. I can understand asking me and BDBJack for a topic ban, but neither of us have been accused of behavioral issues. But, in theory, if some topics are just so sensitive that a new user who edits on one side of them is automatically topic-banned, then this is no longer a forum for free discourse in the area of those topics. I am trying hard not to be a SPA. The case warrants a usual resolution, namely stubbing. Historian is the one who has prevented stubbing all along and has continued BLPGROUP violations by edit-warring as per his talk. Smallbones is the one who has been deleting my comments prematurely (which he should not do unless I were separately community-banned, so, topic ban would mean nothing to resolve what may be a personal attack on me).

I'm not sure it would even help to answer the question, now. At first, I said it would make a difference if I stood on my honor and personal privacy, to not answer. But it would hardly make any difference to certain editors if I said either "yes" or "no" now, because, e.g., Smallbones has already denied the validity of my earlier denials. I was told to fill out a SPI on Historian and Smallbones, and the fact that only one of them is very active at a time might warrant my doing so, but that would hardly help either. I came here for advice. I can hardly believe that the Community has topic-banned new compliant editors solely because the topic area is a spur of a previous problem. Okteriel (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Look, isn't this the kind of thing ANI deals with? Did I come here to get more of the same? Is that how WP works today? Is there an uninvolved editor who is willing to deal with the BLP, or will the BLP remain because the only people, who care about BLP, anyway, end up disqualifying themselves by getting info from the subject? The article is a WP:ATTACK and should be stubbed and rebuilt by consensus. Okteriel (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I just removed a BLP violation by Nagle. This is essentially identical to the BLP violation by Historian some months back. Should I include Nagle in a SPI? It makes no sense that we should go to SPI over this. Okteriel (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I really didn't want to check but forced myself to. I know this kind of analysis suffers from imagined patterns, but here it is. Lately Historian only edits on weekends. On the 8th, between the two, we have H 11:30-11:50 (5); S 12:52; then H 15:14-15:15 (2), S 15:37-18:12 (10), H 18:47-20:22 (7), S 20:32. After that we have a lot more alternation such as would be normal for unconnected editors. But it's those two long edit runs of 10 and 7 that are very interesting because they each overlap with a long break in the other account. I told you I didn't want to do it, because I might just be imagining something. Can anyone comment? Okteriel (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your refactoring the talk page comment by Nagle was for no valid reason, no BLP violation whatsoever, and is one of the reasons why you have to stay off the talk page and leave it to editors not paid by the company. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support with ammendment - While I do not think that a blanket "ban" is either required or necessary, a block requiring us ( the mentioned SPA's as well as any others ) to use the Talk page to gain consensus and edit requests to implement those changes would (in my opinion) bring order back to the page. It will allow the process of editing to include the opinions of editors who have both experience and information on the subject to contribute without fear of their biases "taking over" the article. On a personal note, I am sorry that if my presence on the talk page for the article about the company that I helped to build has offended anyone. I have endeavored to the best of my ability to follow WP:COI policy, and any breach was not intended, but instead just a misunderstanding on my part. That being said, I would like to ask the following questions:

* smallbones (talk · contribs) is it possible that you too have COI due to your involvement in a financial investment scheme? ( See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernard_Madoff#JPMorgan_settlement )

* historianofrecenttimes (talk · contribs) can you please elaborate on your connection to Banc De Binary, professionally and personally

[[User: |BDBJack]] (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Re:the questioning of my motives by Okteriel and BDBJack above. Okteriel is accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Please check my user page for details on my long history of contributions to Wikipedia. Then if you want to go to SPI, be prepared for the rebound.

BDBJack mentioned something on Talk:Bernard Madoff - it's a stray footnote from somebody else of the type that shows up when you try to document something on a talk page. I can assure you that me or my family never had any investments with Madoff or related companies. I will say that when I created the Madoff article, I did have some (distant) professional knowledge of his previous non-criminal ethical challenges, the same as I have some professional knowledge of the type of operation BDB conducts. Including that material without standard RS would however be considered WP:OR here so I didn't include them in either case. I do think though that editors do not fully understand the seriousness of BDB's legal situation and what the continuing legal complaints entail (e.g. 3x return of the proceeds in the CFTC complaint). If for no other reason than the continuing legal situation, BDB representatives must be excluded from any influence on the article. As far as some other editors referring to BDB as "crooks", it is completely understandable, but not in Wikipedia's tradition. "Legally challenged individuals" might be better - and do note that when they were challenged legally, they appear to have waived their day in court by not showing up. If BDB wanted to sue for defamation in the US on this, they would be laughed out of court. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Thank you for clarifying the nature of the statment from the Talk:Bernard Madoff page. It makes more sense now in context. I cannot speak for Okteriel (talk · contribs)'s actions, in refactoring another user's comments, but as stated above, my "refactoring" was not meant to disturb the nature of the conversation, but instead to focus it. The previous thread had (in my opinion) gone out of control, with a thread that was over 2800 pixels long. Please note that I did not move / change any user's comments (with the exeception of Mike V, who I had received permission to do so from him), nor did I edit the tables of "positions". Please remember that I am NOT paid to edit Wikipedia, I am paid to do my job ( I am a programmer ). I have very little previous experience with Wikipedia policies, and I would appreciate if you were to treat this lapse as a "newbie" mistake (see: WP:DNB). In most cases, I've asked for others with less interest in the subject and more experience in Wikipedia policy (such as Huon (talk · contribs), Pinkbeast (talk · contribs), and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) ) for guidance and direction. In any case, were all things equal here, I would have received a warning for re-factoring the talk page, and allowed to continue contributing my opinion (without making any direct changes to the article) on the talk page. (Such as in the case of HistorianOfRecentTimes (talk · contribs)). I don't expect a level playing field especially since I am both a COI editor and an SPA, however I did not willingly make any changes that were in violation of Wikipedia policy knowingly, and I would appreciate guidance and assistance in continuing to do so. Blocking me from allowing to contribute my opinion (as long as I do not violate Wiki policies) would be (in my opinion) counter productive to Wikipedia in general, since I have considerable resources available to me in providing relevant encyclopedic information. The fact that I have chosen to attempt to debunk myths and reduce the negative bias of the article is both a "rookie" mistake, and an "ego" issue. I realize that it does not excuse my behavior, however I do not believe that it makes my point(s) any less relevant. BDBJack (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Restrict SPAs to talk page in the first instance. Tis is our recommended mechanism for conflicted parties to interact with the project. There may be valid complaints or the concerns may be querulous; if they are, then we can record the fact that they have been reviewed and rejected and then we can restrict further. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, including the talk page, for Okteriel and BDBJack. The problem with Guy's suggestion is that that these two COI editors behave tendentiously on the talk page. Okteriel just refactored another editor's comment as a supposed "BLP violation," when it simply states in plain language what regulators on two continents have said about this company. BDBJack, an employee of the company, has also refactored the talk page, as described above, just a few hours ago. It's inappropriate for paid editors/employees to so completely dominate the talk page of the article of their employer. Okteriel is an undisclosed secondary account and apparent WP:SLEEPER based on his behavior and contribution history (three edits in 2011 and the rest in the past few days). Historyofrecenttimes is an SPA but doesn't hold a candle to these two in aggressiveness, tendentiousness and WP:OWN talk page behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban with sam reasoning as Figureofnine, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban I for one am glad they brought this attack page to the community's attention and at least one of the three sources provided recently are useful. But overall History has engaged in some pretty awful personal attacks, edit-warring, canvassing and POV railroading. The paid editors are pouncing on every comment everywhere, voting in discussions and filling the Talk page with too much "stuff" that causes disruption because nobody can have a discussion with walls of text from them jumping at every corner. A permanent ban would prevent them from speaking up about being treated unfairly and irresponsibly on Wikipedia, but a temporary (say 3 months) would allow disinterested editors to discuss and wait for their input after things have settled. I do see that the article has attracted quite a few editors now that have strong negative views towards corporations in general and PR participation in particular and by being so aggressive they are only digging themselves a bigger hole anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll request that this be closed - the outcome is clear.

Failing that I'll request that any admin can take the bull by the horns here and end this right now under the terms of WP:COI

Legal

If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case.

and from the introduction (2nd paragraph)

"if it (COI editing) causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use."

Note that the terms of use are automatically WP policy and this refers to the current TOU, not to the upcoming change which will almost certainly be stricter.

There is certainly COI editing from folks with a close relation to a litigant (a BDB employee and another who admits to contacting the owner about the $10,000 bounty on the article). I included the last sentence in the quote because User:Okteriel has an editing history that cries out "misrepresentation" and at User:Okteriel/Five figures addresses the question of him being paid with misdirection piled on top of confusion piled on top of plain old BS. "Misrepresentation" would be a nice word for what he states there.

One way or the other, it's time for an admin to step up to the plate and enforce the rules. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I can close this, but do you mind waiting another day for more opinions? These discussions should take at least 24 hours for a conclusion anyway.

I also agree that the refactoring of Nagle's comment by Okteriel was wrong. Suggesting that an organization has violated US law is not a BLP violation (see WP:BLPGROUP) and even if it were, completely redacting another editor's comment is a pretty extreme measure. If someone else hadn't undone that redaction, I would have. We can argue about the accuracy of Nagle's statement, but it does not have to be removed. -- Atama頭 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If waiting for 24 hours is what you need, then go for it. But from Coretheapple's comment below and his link to the SPI, I don't think you need to wait. Note the same modus operandi there that Okteriel used. You can block him as a sock, you can close this topic ban, or you can enforce WP:COI (somebody needs to!). All the same to me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Smallbones, and join him in urging immediate administrative action, which is overdue, to put in place appropriate blocks and permanent topic bans on all of the COI, paid editors and SPAs. Just to recapitulate: this article originally received attention on Jimbo's talk page when an uninvolved user discovered that this company was offering a five-figure payment in return for reverting to an earlier, whitewashed version of the article. At the time, people said "Gee, that's ridiculous. Obviously this is an outlier, a company that will stop at nothing to push its POV." That's precisely what it is. The talk page is the worst paid-editing fiasco that I have ever seen, both in the sheer brazenness of the paid/COI editing behavior, the sleaziness of the subject of the article, and the lengths to which the editors employed by this company have gone to get their way. This company has tried literally everything. They've unleashed sockpuppets on the page. They have an employee acting like a discussion moderator. And then they have this latest user account, who seems to be following from "the best defense is a good offense" sock playbook, who responds with wall-o-text rants and open contempt when asked simple questions like "are you paid by the company?"

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Notsosoros/Archive, which is the relevant sockpuppeting case. Seriously, guys. Look at all those socks! I counted 38, but admittedly I may have miscounted. This company and all of its representatives should be permanently blocked as meatpuppets and, at the very least, topic banned, permanently and forever and until hell freezes over. Talk page too. No, talk page especially. If they have a beef, they can write to the OTRS system. The bans should relate to all COI editors and all SPAs, including any and all anti-Banc de Binary IPs and socks. While anti-BdB socks and IPs are not the nexus of the problem, that is necessary in fairness and because we don't know if they may be bad-hand socks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: THANK YOU. No, nobody has yet brought up that sockpuppet case. The only sockmaster that anyone mentioned that I've seen was Morning277, but I couldn't find any connection. I think I'm going to take this to SPI after I do a little checking to see if the evidence is there. But I suspect that there's enough to justify CU, and given that the last CU was about 3 months ago the info should be fresh enough for a check. -- Atama頭 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly welcome. I would be surprised that they won't pass a CU with flying colors, given the resources the company has delployed to own their article, and I believe BDBJack was explicitly exonerated by CU. I was putting it out there just to illustrate the utter unscrupulousness of this company in its Wikipedia image-management. In my opinion there is already ample evidence to take action based purely upon behavior, with the SPI factored in of course. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to block Okteriel. I believe that this editor is Notsosoros. What I find to be the most damning evidence is how Okteriel made 12 edits to articles that had nothing to do with BDB, then jumped right into it. That is exactly what the other Notsosoros socks did (either 11 or 12 edits, then right into BDB articles). I also notice some linguistic similarities between the way Okteriel speaks and the way the previous socks spoke, I don't want to get into it with too much detail but if you look at how the other socks spoke on article talk pages and user talk pages (including a fondness for "quoting" particular words, rapid-fire short sentences one after another, and so on) it feels like the same editor. The motives are the same also (whitewashing BDB).

I don't get the same feeling about BDBJack. Jack was open from the start about his affiliation with the company, and he doesn't communicate the same way, nor is his editing pattern similar.

I'm not going to bring this to SPI. The evidence is strong enough for me to block Okteriel. This discussion would then concern what restrictions BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes should be subject to. -- Atama頭 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about the "$10,000 bounty" until today. That helps to explain the level of effort being devoted to this issue. As for my comment on the talk page, about BdB being crooks, while I would't be that informal in article space, it's not wrong. The US SEC and the US CFTC got injunctions against BdB operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to get out of the US rather than be prosecuted. Although BdB claimed to be located in the US, they didn't really have any staff in Chicago or New York as BdB had claimed, so the US regulators lacked a US target for criminal prosecution and had to settle for barring BdB from selling remotely into the US. Coverage in The Wall Street Journal [51], and a more colorful article in the London Daily Mail [52]. I recommend the Daily Mail article for a good overview on BdB. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate Atama's swift action, and I just wanted to address the remaining two editors. As was just pointed out to me, the declared corporate employee User:BDBJack has been "SPA tagging" User:HistorianofRecenttimes, a corporate critic who has been frequently and negatively editing that page. Apart from the propriety of the subject of the article making edits like that, we also have the WP:BATTLEFIELD issue. That's why I think that it is incumbent that all SPAs, both for and against the company, be topic-banned from the article and its talk page permanently. I think this also is a very good illustration of how paid editing can result in battlefield situations such as this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for being late in... I wanted to make a few points, firstly it is true that I have mainly if not completely always edited Banc de Binary, but mainly for time reasons and it's now based on stuff I can find good links to online. I focused on a page I learnt about as it developed. There's nothing good you can say about Banc de Binary and the comparison to Bernie Madoff is fair, it's just a giant scam. I'd love to write something nice, but with thousands of victims it's a bit hard. Just because I added negative aspects doesn't mean I have COI, that's just a reflection of the facts about them, try finding something positive about the company in any serious newspaper or in the long US charge sheet and I'd the first to stick it in the article.

The company has tried everything to attack my writing and research, including opening two investigations into my writing, which you can see online, both went wrong as various editors came in and pointed out my links were all good. The company then tried twice to delete their own page, that failed. They then offered $10k to anyone to edit it, quite clever really. Wikipedia is a money making thing to lots of paid editors and CorporateM duly popped up almost immediately. It must be obvious to anyone that CorporateM is a paid editor, they even write about doing work for various companies on their own wall. Look at the companies that CorporateM have written about, not exactly the most thrilling list of jobs, but I admire their business sense. My edits were piece meal and over months, I'd like to add more when it is possible. For example, I added the very recent fine by Cysec, hardly controversial, but CorporateM removed it, why? They've even suggested today that the amusing European CEO article about Oren Laurent is 'tall, dark and handsome' could be anything else but a shameless paid for advert. Either CorporateM is terribly naive or it is their job to be so and they are more than a COI, but a professional one.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

CorporateM is paid to edit certain articles, but he has a history of being very transparent about it. He maintains a list at his user page of articles that he has a COI at (and it's a large list). He's also a frequent contributor to WP:COIN, both in disclosing his own COI at particular articles, and in assisting other cases where an editor has a COI. He knows how an editor with a COI should behave, he has been at Wikipedia for over 5 years, with over 25,000 edits, and yet has a clean block log. Throwing around accusations like that look like an attempt to deflect criticism away from you, and it does you a disservice. -- Atama頭 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Atama, one interim step that would be useful, and I was going to raise this at RPP but I guess I should here, is to semiprotect the talk page indefinitely. I see that IPs have arisen very recently,since you blocked Okteriel, for the purpose of screaming "Criminal!" and they stink of "bad hand" "Joe job" socks. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

An admin has applied semi-protection to stop that. Thanks. That IP spamming, with different IP addresses in the same IP block, was just lame. It looked like a toddler having a temper tantrum. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really participate at COIN that much, but I do spend a lot of time removing weak or primary sources from company articles, where editors tend to find weak sources that support their views (mostly cleaning up promotion though). I find it unlikely that the article you're referring to is sponsored, considering publications are required by law to disclose when/if content is sponsored and there is no reason to believe that this is the case here. Using primary sources editors can make a company look like a saint or a villain. Company articles tend to be a magnet for weak sources used by the company for promotion and by brand antagonists for attacks. Often the two are trying to balance each other out and it results in poor articles like this that are half-promotion and half-attack and all poor-quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This really belongs on the article talk page, and it's been raised there twice already by BDBJack. The source CorporateM is supporting here is European CEO magazine, which has a laudatory article on BdB's CEO, starting by calling him "tall, dark, and handsome".[53] (For comparison, Google image search for pictures of CEO: [54].) It also has the claim that Banc de Binary was "headquartered at 40 Wall Street", which the SEC later discovered to be false when they went after Banc de Binary.[55]. European CEO seems to have a mix of well-written neutral articles and obviously promotional ones, not distinguished in any clear way. The current issue [56] has a promotional article for Jet Logic private jet rental on page 50, and a full page ad for them on page 65. We are not in reliable source territory here. Tag-team editing? John Nagle (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agree that this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Also agree that the articles stink of sponsored content. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this [[57]] is relevant to the discussion specifically, but since it's related to me, BDB etc. I think i'll put it here. I don't know who's idea it was to post that, but neither funny, nor does it really help at the end of the day. I've "abstained" from making edits even to the talk page (despite even being baited to reply). I've tried ( previously ) to gain consensus on a page that the only other "contributing" editor is an SPA, I've turned to admins seeking assistance and guidance, and I've tried to be as civil as possible while doing so. What have I gotten in return? I've been chased off, ignored, and called a crook. Not by all. That's for sure. There have been some notable exceptions. However I have found it VERY hard to "play by the rules". Based on what I saw here: [[58]], and in the previous edit on my talk page, and on the IP Vandalism, someone has a bias against BDB. I don't know who. I don't know why. You can say that we're scams, frauds, crooks etc., but if your only evidence is a single case from the SEC and the CFTC, then we're actually cleaner than most of your local banks. That being said, I don't want to know who did it. I don't care. Whom ever it is should be ashamed of themselves. BDBJack (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh please. Those vandals have "Joe job" written all over them. First you guys deploy sockpuppets as if they were going out of style, then your employers try to corrupt Wikipedia by offering a five-figure bounty for whitewashing the article. Now this. I think you guys have wasted the time of the unpaid volunteers of this project more than enough. Time for blocks/topic bans/whatever is necessary to deal with this situation once and for all. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, you say you "play by the rules." That is debatable. Your behavior on the talk of the article is the worst I've seen of any declared corporate editor, tag-teaming with a sockpuppet and using every trick in the book to get your way. I just noticed this: In this edit at 21:44 8 June, NeilN correctly deactivated your request to revert back to a whitewashed version, saying "First get consensus, then make the request." 25 minutes later you reverted that deactivation, saying there was "evidence of consensus." At that time there was not even discussion of your request, much less "consensus." You call this "playing by the rules" but I call it gaming the system. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I'm going to close this discussion. I've already blocked one of the editors originally covered by this proposal for being a sockpuppet, so this proposal now only covers BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes now. Nobody in this discussion objected to at least having some restrictions, even the editors who would be subject to them. I see a few suggestions to extend the ban to the talk page, and suggestions that the ban should be temporary, but what I see an overall consensus on is an indefinite topic ban for matters related to Banc De Binary for both editors in the proposal (not to extend to discussion space).

If more sockpuppets appear at the article, they should be blocked when identified. The talk page is semi-protected for another couple of days, if IPs resume disruptive editing there after it expires then the semi-protection can be reinstated for a longer time. There is still an unresolved debate about the content of the main page, and until that is resolved nobody should be editing the article directly, so the full protection should not be lifted until a consensus is reached there.

@BDBJack: For the moment, this means that you will continue to have input at the article via the talk page. Please don't misuse that privilege. You've been open about your COI and I believe that the community has really given you the benefit of the doubt, considering that you initially came to the project using an IP address previously used by a large sockpuppet farm (which was blocked about a week before your arrival). In the short term I'm going to try to keep a close eye on the talk page of that article, and if there are any personal attacks against you, or unwarranted disparaging remarks about individuals who work at BDB then I'll enforce our policies. But remember that you work for a company that is embroiled in controversy, and so it is inevitable that there will be negative aspects of your company in discussion. Your continued involvement at the article will require you to do your best to remain objective, and try not to take such discussions personally. That may be difficult but you'll need to make your best effort.

@HistorianofRecenttimes: You said before that your narrow focus on this article has been "mainly for time reasons". The ban that is in place only restricts you from this topic, if there is anything else that holds your interest or where you feel you can contribute you are free to do so. You also have the ability to contribute to the discussion page for the article, but I'm going to give you the same caution I gave BDBJack about objectivity. You feel that Banc De Binary is "a giant scam", and you have a passion to reflect that in the article. Passion can be a good thing if used constructively, but not when it leads to attacking other editors. Collaboration is necessary for establishing consensus. Try to stay calm, if you can back up criticisms of the company's practices with reliable sources, then that's all you need. Let that speak for you. An even, rationale, and concise argument is a hundred times more effective than the most vitriolic statement you can make.

I'm going to work on the formality of implementing the topic ban and archiving this section, and I'll see if I can find the time to also help moderate the current dispute at the article talk page so that development of main article space can resume. -- Atama頭 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible Personal attack

Can someone please review [59], i am unsure if this post constitutes a personal attack but it reads like one to me. Amortias (T)(C) 16:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like one to me, too Kosh Vorlon    16:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Racist comments are violations of WP:NPA. if you spot any in the future, feel free to revert, warn and report to WP:AIV. —Dark 16:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And a second identical themed post [60], I've blanked one section and another editor has blanked this one. Amortias (T)(C) 16:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

After his third (which was after his second warning), I gave him 31h. DMacks (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Said IP is a very obvious sock of User:Obelixobelix, who was blocked a couple of days ago for being a vandal-only account. Has since popped up here, here, here, and here. At least, those are the ones I am aware of. Some of them have been blocked, the others are only a matter of time. Rather obvious ducks; they are all making the same edits as the master to multiple paegs, and using identical abusive language. Unfortunately they seem to have access to very many IPs, and a range block will not sort them out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks on an article about personal attacks is a definite WP:SHOT Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And after reading abuot the WP:SOCK issue I smell a duck Amortias (T)(C) 18:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit has to be struck

This is the edit [61] and it violates several policies and guidelines. The content added to the article is fine but I would revert it as it translates to "Crystal Myers Japan", but it's the user "outing" and legal statement made in the edit summary that are the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• RevDel'ed, warned, reported to OS, and oversighted. Normally, it is much better to report direct to oversight WP:OS, as too many eyes are here at ANI. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor has subsequently requested that [62] be RevDel'ed as well, and the subsequent revert of that content. While we've got the big eraser out, [63] is probably a good candidate as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: I've passed the edits on to the oversight team. Please, please, please send any similar edits to the oversight team directly via this this page. It ensures that it's handled as privately as possible. Thanks! Mike V • Talk 00:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Question: I see he has had three more edits oversighted after he was given a clear final warning. I don't have access to oversight, and no warning was given afterwards. Can an oversighter review this for a possible block? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd support a block. [64] and plenty of other edits by the same editor at the time has some serious but wacky (wacky enough that I'm not going to bother to request suppression but anyone else is welcome to) accusations. The editor seems to self identify as the person making the accusations via this upload File:Krystal+Meyers+Norman.jpg (incidentally the details in the accusations strongly suggest the editor isn't the copyright holder so I'll be nominating it for deletion if someone doesn't get to it first). I don't know what precisely was in the new edits but the target's suggest to me it's more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Image listed at PUF Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#June 12. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Shashini12311 redux

Shashini12311 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First reported here. Given final warning for blatantly violating WP:BLPPRIMARY here by me. Re-inserted same material today [65]. Seems to be here for only one thing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for a host of violations. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Gbold1

Gbold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He is obviously continuing to vandalize articles, but in a lesser extent, removing or changing content of articles without providing reliable sources. This one is an example. The Ranoclue (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC) -- last edited by The Ranoclue (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC) (reason: capitalization)

User:Blackhawks88wwe

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

---

Blackhawks88wwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, after multiple reverts, continues to vandalize articles. For instance, here (which has been made a couple of times) and here. APerson (talk!) 03:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

These may in fact be inept but good faith edits, especially the second one, since according to this, "Follow the Buzzards" is a song associated with the Wyatt family. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User also made this edit, which was clearly not blatant vandalism. It was reverted by ClueBot NG for some reason, though. I'm not sure if the PPV has a tagline, but if that was not correct, it still looks like it was made in somewhat good-faith. These cases are tricky sometimes. Try to work with the editor, and if he/she doesn't cooperate, then you have your answer about the type of user he/she is and further action can be taken on the matter. United States Man (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It actually seems he was a vandal; I failed to look at the contribs page the first time. He even vandalized this section before Anne Delong's comment. User was blocked indefintely by Discospinster. United States Man (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Genre warring & disruptive editing by User:Lukejordan02

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

---

User:Lukejordan02 has been genre warring on over twenty albums on Wikipedia. When I reverted his edits and urged him to discuss his actions [66], he started reverting me on every single page by using insults and profanity. For example, he said it's "pathetic and annoying" to revert the vandalism he has made. When warned him at his talk page about his unconstructive actions, he removed them by claiming "to remove shit" and that I should "go fuck myself". Furthermore, he spents 99% of his time deleting content at band's discographies (by looking at his user contributions) and edit warring with everyone that disagrees with him.--Retrohead (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is spending all his time to try and get me blocked, we were blocked due to edit warring we are now bon been unblocked but this editor thinks it is ok to carry on edit warring and reverted multiple changes, furthermore he falsified a claim against me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring claiming an edit war when it was removing vandalism this is about the 3rd or 4th attempt to get me blocked this user is using all for the same cases and if they weren't excepted before what makes them ok now, there must be a limit to all these claims this user is doing, I asked for him to be invicta gated on the other page but nothing has been done. He spends nearly all his time on wiki simply reverted my edits no matter what and is now trying to rally people against me such as his message at mrmoustache, further more he has called me names before such as troll and an uneducated person, this needs to stop now. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "editor" spends all his time changing genres, reverting users who disagree with him, calling them names, and deleting content. I coincidentally saw him when he tried to ruin a list I brought to FA, and then I saw what he has been doing since April.--Retrohead (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Problem with User:AHLM13

Hi. I believe we have a problem with User:AHLM13, who appears to have decided to persistently remove contributions from unregistered/IP editors without regard for their content or usefulness. I first noticed this earlier this morning with one article, and on checking the user's contributions realised that this was a consistent pattern of behaviour. I therefore left this comment on the user's talk page: label. At this stage I had some concerns, but noticed that this editor has only recently registered, so felt that expressing a concern would probably be enough to address the problem, and decided not to take the issue any further at that time.

Having left a message for this user, I was surprised to discover that a couple of hours later the user had (a) immediately deleted my comment from their talk page without trying to contact anyone to address the concerns raised, and (b) continued to delete useful content from articles where this content has been contributed by unregistered/anonymous IP editors. For example, the editor has recently removed useful content from Uhuru Kenyatta, Sand goanna, and Naracoorte, South Australia, and about 50 others. This seems to me to be disruptive behaviour. I've brought the matter to this noticeboard, rather than go through a slower discussion process with the editor in question, because the editor seems to be following a strategy of making a large number of unhelpful edits very quickly. It seemed sensible to escalate this promptly.

I notice that this editor signed up on 27 May 2014. I was struck by how quickly the editor started making edits to a large number of pages, and how they had set up a nicely laid out user page within 45 minutes, and started using Twinkle with great efficiency within a couple of weeks of signing up. (For comparison, it took me years to discover that Twinkle existed, and my user page has yet to reach tidiness!) I suspect that this editor is therefore an experienced editor under another name. A particular concern is that this indiscriminate removal of contributions from unregistered/anonymous editors may be due to some particular stance, and that this user has unilaterally decided to implement an "all editors must be registered" policy, or some variant thereof. Whatever the reason, though, this editor seems to be running a one-person crusade.

I'd be very grateful if an administrator or two could take a look into this, and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not my problem if you took years to discover this Twinkle. I do not know what you want to do. AHLM13 ✉ 11:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Clear abuse of Twinkle and disruptive editing, reverting clearly good-faith edits without a proper edit summary [67], [68] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily an issue with you having discovered Twinkle (though it being an automated tool works in as a way to quickly do many edits). The concern expressed is that you are wholesale reverting several IP edits which have been made in good faith without explaining why. This is a misuse of an automated tool—it's just as bad as using WP:Rollback for the same thing. - Purplewowies (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• There is a serious problem. In addition to the three "removed useful content" diffs above, I did a quick check of some recent activity:
  • diff revert a September 2012 comment claiming there is a problem with an image
  • diff revert August 2013 edit which simplified a link
  • diff revert September 2013 edit which simplified a link and added some valid italics
  • diff revert two December 2013 unexplained edits—perhaps ok, hard to know
  • diff revert two good March 2014 edits
  • diff revert removal of [...] around bare URLs in refs—revert is not an improvement
• None of the above are big content problems, but biting IPs is a big problem, and the pointless nature of some of the above reverts is a concern. I think mentoring would be a minimum requirement. It is unacceptable to rapidly revert any edits with no explanation unless the edits are clear vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. IP-biting is not remotely acceptable, and the user has been impervious to warnings and advice. As John and Neil have showed, they're reverting edits that are not merely good-faith but good. And just see how lightning fast they're editing, obviously not allowing any time to apply any consideration to the edits themselves before reverting them. That does look like a crusade, and it needs to be stopped now. Mentoring can be considered at more leisure, if the user shows any interest in that. Thank you for sounding the alarm, RomanSpa. Bishonen | talk 13:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

You're welcome, and thank you all for your swift response. RomanSpa (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Just because they know what WP:TW was within days of signing up, and just because they are able to make a good user page, doesn't necessarily mean that the user assumes bad faith. Their edits, however, are indicative of this assumption of bad faith, and I agree that their IP-biting was unacceptable. Epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm working my way through their edits from the most recent backwards, reverting the unproductive ones. If someone wants to work backwards, it would be appreciated. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to start with this editor's earliest stuff, and work forward. For the first week or two I think things were broadly unproblematic, so this should be manageable. RomanSpa (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many edits reverting in content like this. Opinions from editors please? Leave in or remove again? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In the diff shown, the IP removed unreferenced text, but with no edit summary. If I ha that page watchlisted, I would have reverted the deletion with an edit summary of "undo unexplained deletion". If I had time, I would have left the level-1 deletion template on the IP's talk page. I'd leave the text in. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Freaking mess. Some reverts enforce WP:MOS, others break the same rule. Some edits revert vandalism, others put it back in. I've gotten to Walther Stampfli. Weirdest article so far: 10-minute haircut. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari/ Trepča Stadium

The Article Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari was moved to Trepča Stadium unilaterally by User:Nado158 without the Wikipedia:Requested moves process. I for one contest User:Nado158's reasoning. It is important that we move pages via the proper processes with a consensus. I am now unable to restore the status quo as it says "You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: A page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name". Can someone please sort this out? Kind regards IJA (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@IJA: This is not an appropriate place for discussing such page moves. If Nado158 had moved something per WP:BOLD, you can discuss with the user about the move. Have you tried? First reach to the agreement that why user has moved the page, once you would know the reason, you should evaluate that whether his decision was correct or incorrect. If the user disagrees, you can open a page-move request. If Nado158 reverts against the consensus, then you may inform. But at least for now, there's long way to go. OccultZone (Talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not just a one-off; there's this move too, where Nado158 disagreed with the closure of a requested move, and simply moved the page back to their preferred title. To go back to disruptive moves so soon after coming off a block for editwarring is not a good omen. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: I agree that his behavior has not been changed. In my opinion he should be given another chance. You can check here, consensus is going against his change already. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is a good rule. "Another chance" is all very well for some new editor making changes which we think are misguided, but when somebody makes disruptive changes again, the next step is to undo it, not to let them have their way in article-space have another ineffectual talkpage conversation which they have already said they will ignore. Sairp (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be a pattern of disruption from Nado158 where he is going against the more common Albanian language names of football articles in Kosovo across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

IP: 109.127.224.148 Vandalism and Potential sockpuppet

The IP possibly related blocked user User:Epoxyorlyx. He/she always vandalising and POV pushing specific articles. another related IP:93.103.68.73

such as: Chuvash people Volga Tatars Finnish Tatars

Seems, he/she is trying to break up the block. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting, Yagmurlukorfez. Epoxyorlyx was recently checkuserblocked by Salvio giuliano, so I'm pinging him in case he wants to take a look at these IPs as well. Hello there, Salvio. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

That would be good. Thank you too.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I see Salvio isn't editing very frequently right now. Might another checkuser please step up? Jpgordon? Materialscientist? Bishonen | talk 23:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Range block applied. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Intelligent design Talk page

There is an IP user who has lingered on the Talk:Intelligent design page for years now, contributing only long, POV posts that claim a cabal of editors WP:OWN that article ([69], [70]). I've generally ignored this user, but he has recently taken to trolling my User page, as evidenced by his edit to that page and his mention of the content I have there (notice his questioning of the term physicalism). I also can't help thinking that this user is hiding behind an IP to avoid sanctions, and therefore conclude that a block of this user's IP addresses would probably be the most appropriate course of action, given the above. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see anything very recent on your pages, but I don't doubt that this is a returning banned user. 71.169.180.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked for a whole year by User:KillerChihuahua just over a year ago, as being banned editor Rbj.[71] Unfortunately, the individual is not hiding behind one IP but a whole flock of them: I see 71.169.179.28, 71.161.192.138, and 70.109.182.148 in there. Several of them are dynamic, and it's an unblockably huge range. Blocking dynamic IPs as they pop up is a mug's game, so I don't quite know if there's anything that can be done. Anybody? Ping, all techies? Bishonen | talk 21:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC).

Page protection until he appears to give up? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bishonen, I am a DBA myself and can't think of a viable way for WP admins to block this user's multiple IPs. Also, I fear protecting the page will only annoy other editors who are participating in good faith. If there is no effective means to accomplish this, I will withdraw my request for a block and put up with the recurring, but not overly frequent, behavior. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bullying editor

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

---

User Retrohead, is edit warring, bullying and article owning, not assuming good faith, I don't no if I have filled this out right but I need help. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This user has been in disagreement over Megadeth discography page I tried a discussion at first he was having none of it, in the end we were both blocked, after the block he continue until Ritchie333 came along and tried to start a reasonable conversation it kind of worked and we talked over all the things all of which ended up with Retrohead getting his own way but I am not going to do that on this he is trying to make out I have been vandalising pages which Rich agrees I haven't and has taken the piss out of my speech along with loads of other things. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see neither of you appears to be looking aprticually good on this one. youve reported USER:Retrohead here, hes reported you to WP:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. Prehaps you could both leave it well alone for a day or two and see if a break from what appears to just be an escalating argument.

Theres evidence of both of you being WP:Uncivil in the edit summaries shortly after being unblocked which isnt really helping either of your cases.Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Edgar181 has blocked the OP and after reading the diffs, I concur. Luke Jordan is the cause of his own mess.--v/r - TP 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Good block. Current unblock request ought to be declined for not addressing the reason behind the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see this report before acting on a WP:AIV report for Lukejordan02. Lukejordan02 has been clearly disruptive and I blocked him for inappropriate and disruptive behavior similar to what led to his two other recent blocks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I had informed MrMoustacheMM, Bretonbanquet, Discographer, and Piriczki, who had also clashes with this user about the discography pages. I left a list of the pages he has been editing at his talk page, demanding answer what he has been doing there.--Retrohead (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame it had to come to this. I was hoping that dragging the pair of you onto talk and thrashing your issues out there would avoid any blocks for anyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I also regret for taking this to here, but it seems that the editor needs to read the policies and act according to them. I remember when I started editing, I was on the brink on getting blocked for life after a dispute with Dan56 at ...And Justice for All. Since then, I learnt to think twice before getting into an argument. However, here we had "it is either my way or nothing" behavior, and what I hate the most, behavior like "who the f... do you think you are?" from his side, which I can not tolerate.--Retrohead (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another spurious unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't see why both editors weren't blocked. Both edit warred. Both used problematic edit summaries. The editor not blocked also attempted to get others to intervene on his behalf. (See this for example.) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 20:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have informed all four editors to weigh in because they had similar problem with that user. The only inappropriate summary used by me was when a called that user an "immature fool" because he was pretending that certain edits weren't conducted by him. Given value what he had called me before and since, that seems like a mild qualification. 1, 2, 3, 4--Retrohead (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly inappropriate in that diff, Calidum. I have seen some similar inappropriate actions from other editors, but in those cases I think you have to take it with the totality of the circumstances. Anyway, I think the blocking in this case is more administrative discretion. Unless Retrohead was still editwarring, we're at the maximum level of prevention right now; to go and block Retrohead would be approaching punitive. While I have seen cases where blocking both editors is fine, I don't think this is one of those cases. So long as Retrohead understands why his/her reverts were not exempted from 3RR/etc., there's no purpose in blocking now. Lukejordan02, on the other hand... In short, I'm fine with Retrohead not being blocked, while Lukejordan02 is blocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think this editor, Lukejordan, is more trouble than he's worth. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The real problem here is "expert vs randy", where two editors bang heads over content, but no-one else seems to care. It is frustrating to have to deal with the latest sword-wielding skeleton theory du jour on talk, DRV, ANI etc, all of which is time that could be spent on something else. Although the actual content under dispute by yesterday evening was pretty trivial stuff IMHO and this sums up my thoughts well. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Wigmore, Herefordshire

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

---

I came across an edit war on this page regarding a school in this district, between an editor who identified as an employee of the school (I think, wasn't clear from comments on my talk page and didn't confirm when asked) and an IP editor who it seems may be affiliated with a selfpub'd site posting disparaging information about the school. The IP is adding info to the page suggesting that test scores at the school have declined (based on WP:OR from government data) and posting allegations about management misconduct sourced to the attack site. It appears they may also be using some kind of software to automatically revert the page, based on always reverting within minutes and adding an accurate timestamp with every revert.

I had posted this to WP:RFPP after warning both editors failed to stop the war (a third editor has got in on it now, not counting myself) and I would just request that the IP be blocked, but I've become involved by reverting some edits myself and am therefore requesting admin assistance. I think the RFPP is moot at this point anyway, this is obviously an SPA issue. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've notified all three users: Seades (talk · contribs), 87.113.177.226 (talk · contribs), and Wigmore7 (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, I forgot that step. I'm also notifying StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  

My apologies I was not using any automated update software, I was just adding the line at the bottom every time he updated in the hope he'd get bored if he thought it was a bot auto-reverting the page...I was just trying to stop the edit war by dissuading Mr Shaw/SEADES from the continual unreasonable reversions. I've posted full details openly at Ivanvector's talk page (talk), but have just noticed he's on a wikibreak, apologies for any errors in approaching the matter, but please be assured wigmoreschool.com is NOT a attack site. I have made the school aware of the site and asked for any comment regarding the content.StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk · contribs).

Edit war, help?! and apologies

My name is Nick Covill. I believe I have by ignorance become involved in an editing war. I have now set up a wiki account and happily give my name as I am happy to be held responsible for the content I am creating as this schools failings need exposing.
[REDACTED]. Apart from being libellous, this section contained a BLP violation against a specified identifiable living person. Black Kite kite (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note: I have combined this section with the above section, Wigmore, Herefordshire, since they are obviously on the same topic. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• @StopTheRot-Wigmore: don't worry about it: they've already been notified. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• @G S Palmer: Many thanks. Let me know if there is anything else I can do and once again apologies for my newbie wiki skills StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• You should probably read WP:OUTING, because your speculation as to the identity of Seades is almost certainly in violation of that policy. It would probably be a good idead to strike or remove those parts of your comments. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
• Read and understood. Outing rules make total sense when viewed from a systems perspective - Man I feel like I'm wandering around a minefield in a blindfold. Creating and maintaining a fair forum for disseminating information is not as simple a thing as I'd naively thought. The simplest of ideals spawns the the most complex of questions and responsibilities. All I wanted was to provide information to prospective and current parents to share our families very real concerns about what has transpired at the school as there is very little real ability to hold an Academy School to account in the UK sadly...Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StopTheRot-Wigmore (talk • contribs) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "Stop the rot", Wikipedia is not a forum for activism, and you're linking to a website containing some serious allegations of named individuals. This website is not a reliable source (see WP:RS), your pointing at numbers constitutes original research (loosely) based on primary data (see WP:OR), but, and this is the biggest problem (besides the edit warring), on that website individuals are named and accused. So whatever problems there are, Wikipedia is not the solution. You may not be pleased with that, but consider what would happen if we did allow what I'll conveniently call "activism"--there would be no reason to not let the school edit the article as well. And then we'd all be up shit creek, as an American might put it.

  GB fan has reverted; please don't reinstate it. All the best to you and your family. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

The Buneary Show

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

---

Hi, I've already nominated the obvious hoax article The Buneary Show for speedy deletion (A11), but user Toothy7942 has removed the speedy delete template once via their account, then a second and third time via obvious sock/meatpuppetry from 70.50.211.67. Since I'm not interested in edit-warring, may I please request an admin please delete, then salt the account and consider blocking the user to prevent future disruptions? The bulk of their contributions have involved this article about a non-notable YouTube show, which they have clearly identified as "fanon" (fan canon). They've been at this since December 2013 and I think it's clear they are not here to contribute constructively. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Admin Sasquatch seems to have taken care of much of this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Indefinite block of User:Gregbard

• Gregbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm just stopping in to report that I have indefinitely blocked User:Gregbard pending any kind of credible assertion that he understands and will comply with our copyright policies or other community recommended handling. When Greg seemed to be unhappy that his CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330) was not complete after more than a year on the lists, I took a look and found some open issues. I thought to help knock it down more quickly, but as I often do did a check of more recent edits, only to find more blatant copy-pasting in just the last few months. Greg has been receiving warnings from both bots and humans since 2006 - two human warnings: 2006, 2010 - and should certainly understand that our copyright policies prohibit copying from external, copyrighted sources since the launch of his CCI. Two examples of copying are given here and here. I bring this here in case others would like to review. He indicates that he is being cooperative (and he certainly isn't being hostile), but in my opinion persisting in violating the same policy repeatedly after warning is not cooperation we can rely upon. I can certainly see that he's dedicated, and I'm sure that he's done a lot of good work, but I myself do not believe that we can trust his contributions until we understand why he continues to violate this policy and have some confidence that he will stop. So far, his response has not shown any awareness that his behavior is a problem; he simply indicates that we should come to him when there are issues, so he can fix them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My last comment on his talkpage sums up my opinion the panda ₯’ 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

His recent comments do seem to be of a "tell we what specific content I've erred at so I can fix it" nature, rather than of a more useful "tell me how I am violating policy and guidelines so I can not do so in the future" kind. Statements of the latter kind would definitely be more useful and a better indicator of Greg perhaps avoiding such problems in the future, and I regret to say that not seeing them until, perhaps, after this comment is made here is troubling. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Even worse, in my mind, is his most recent comment essentially saying "Yes, I thought about the copyright policy and found it wanting". You can obviously have a different opinion on how copyright should be enforced.. but what you can't do, after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia, is refuse to follow it. James of UR (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor problem, done repeatedly becomes a major problem. Being advised about copyright infringement as far back as 2006 and 8 years later there are still the same issues. His responses don't really suggest that he is contrite, only saying whatever is necessary to be unblocked. The accusation of bullying by the blocking admin is absurd. Based on the discussions at the talk page, I feel the indef block is warranted. Neuraxis (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've been poking around, as it is an established editor with 90k edits and no prior block for copyright, but after looking at the whole picture, I have to endorse the block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I am very troubled by the attitude which comes across as "I may actually know more about copyright than you". What he seems to be missing is that Wikipedia Copyright policy is different—deliberately different than copyright law. For example, I just reviewed Jachin Gregory, which had a number of issues.

Source	Source text	Article text
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=37663428	In 1697, he was part of a group of inhabitants who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation (north Redding).	In 1697, he was part of a group of settlers who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation in Redding

My guess is that a legal claim of copyright infringement would fail in the courts, for more than one reason. However, what he missed is that we tell our readers that editors create the content, using reliable sources. We tell them it will be written in the editor's own words, except when quoted exactly, in which case it will be in quotes, or when identified as coming from a suitably licensed source. Copy-pasting, and changing one or two words is not consistent with our mission. It is irrelevant that this editor may know enough about copyright law to know this close paraphrasing won't cause a legal problem, it is relevant that we have clear instructions not to do this type of thing, and it is being done, even after warnings.

(As more than a trivial aside, the article claims Jachin Gregory was a deputy to the General Assembly, but the cited reference is about James Olmsted. It appears that Gregory was a deputy to the Court, not the General Assembly.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Findagrave.com is a good source for locations of graves and pictures of tombstones. Even forgetting copyright issues, it is not a valid source for text, because it's based on user input and could come from anywhere (even from Wikipedia, for example). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, BB. I was focusing on the close paraphrasing, without even considering that the source is not valid for its use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Greg claims here that it is Findagrave.com which have copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. Would this be a valid defence? --John (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Findagrave page was created in 2008, and the Wikipedia page was created in 2014. Mogism (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Good enough. Endorse the block. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Assuming good faith, this user does not understand Wikipedia copyright policies. Until they demonstrate that they do understand them and will refrain from problematic editing, a block on "competence" grounds is needed. Sadly, the violation of free content principles and cleanup time cost outweigh the benefit to the project of the user's contributions. WJBscribe (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:GadgetsGuy

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

Involved in a conflict on LG G2 and LG G3, where he argued that we could not use CC-licensed images sourced from LG's Flickr account because there is a separate copyright for the contents of the screen contents depicted that are not part of the CC license grant. In turn, he replaced the images with self-made versions. Although a deletion request was closed as a Keep because "it is entirely safe to assume that the release covers both the copyright for the photograph of the device and the copyright for the image on the device", he still reverted the image on LG G2 back to his own version (and also restored an edit that changed a reference to link to a spam website) because of comments I made that only applied to the G3 image, and a continued assertion that there are two seperately copyrighted works in such images.

User has a history of misunderstanding and using strict interpretations of licensing policy, and when asked to provide references to the discussions where his alleged claims are sourced from, he did not. Presumed to be a disruptive editing practice. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and this is blockable? the panda ₯’ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Editing against consensus is disruptive and disruption is blockable.--v/r - TP 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one. Im not going against the consensus, and there is no consensus either that the old image is the one to be used for the article. The only consensus was for the item to be kept no more, no less. So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced? Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened? The item was closed without giving the slightest chance to hear the other side again. Plus about the spam link, that was an oversight and not intentional so dont make a big deal about it. Plus I think that a talk is not disruptive right? I presented an evidence but it seems that he does not simply like it.

So like what I did for the LG G3, I opened another talk page for the LG G2 to ask for a true consensus on what image is better to be used for the article and not merely use a "consensus" for keeping or deleting the image passed of as consensus to be the one used in the article. GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's your argument, then I support a block. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason to not follow WP:DR processes, and you simply blindly reverted to prove your personal WP:POINT. Now you have the guts to defend it. Does your explanation not look dumb now that you put it it writing? I would have thought a light would have turned on over your head once you typed that the panda ₯’ 09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it that doing a talk page is the right thing to do? I merely voiced out what I think also and I think that does not do a merit to block like what you say. Prove to me that asking a consensus for what image is to be used is blockable then. Also with such foul mouthing of another user, who do you think deserves to be blocked now? Im sorry but im doing such in a diplomatic manner so I guess you could also do it in the same light? Plus I did not say I did not like it and he was the one who did not like the initial source that I gave to him in which I clearly stated in our talks before it fell down so WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply to me as i did not state such but I just stated that if there is better image, why not allow it and to solve that problem or disputes, I chose to open a talk page heading so that it will be justified by a consensus which is also the way that WP:DR states to solve it correctly. Lastly, I just reverted the image once after he single handedly decided on such matter and I to adhere to the policies, I even stopped reverting and created a heading in the talk page to ask for a consensus, so again WP:POINT is not applicable to me. Respect a user please? Being a administrator does not merit you to foulmouth another user Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct so please tone down your arguments. GadgetsGuy (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one."

• Then try to convince others that it's better. Don't replace it because you think it's better.

"So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced?"

• Not if it's only better in your opinion. You don't have a super-opinion that trumps others' opinions.

"Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened?"

• It's considered polite to inform potentially-interested people in a neutral manner (in other words, not canvassing) but not required. The assumption on Wikipedia is that if you care about a page and want to keep track of it you'll add it to a whitelist and you'll be notified when the deletion template is added to it.

I'm not advocating a block here. There's a discussion here, why can't people just come to a consensus there and then settle it? It seems that if GadgetsGuy was once arguing that there was a licensing problem but isn't any longer, and is now only arguing that it's a more appropriate image. There's no current edit war, so I don't see what is actionable at this point. -- Atama頭 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please note that the deletion discussion he mentioned here was on Commons, not here. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Conduct of William Pina

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

---

William Pina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user originally added an external link with a personal opinion. It got reverted by Jeh. He then added it again, and it got reverted by Jeh again. He then posted an angry comment because he was reverted. He also posted an angry comment because Jeh edited his user page to reply to his comment.

This user also created many implausible redirects, all of which were deleted. One of them redirected to his user page. He removed many speedy deletion templates (sorry I cannot provide any links, but the pages are deleted). He then got angry at B because he deleted one of the redirects. Finally, he urged me to stop modifying his redirects without his permission (I simply restored a speedy deletion template)

He also got angry over edits made to the Black Screen of Death page and some of his images (which appeared to be copyright violations) getting removed.

Finally, it should be pointed out that while he asks us to be polite when we post on his "notification center", he isn't very polite himself.

--TheMillionRabbit 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to start this until a few more levels of template warnings had built up, but since we're here now:

I would note that my second "revert" to Blue Screen of Death was not exactly that. I originally deleted the link William Pina had added, as the page it links to is very amateurish and hasn't been updated in a long time. William Pina reverted that deletion, rather than raising the issue on the article talk page. As a compromise I then deleted only the highly unencyclopedic comment that went with the link.

William Pina's response is here. This and many of his other responses after being edited indicate that he has a clear feeling of article WP:OWNership. A message on his user page, " I don't like it when someone modifies the pages I edited", is consistent with this.

I answered but to my recollection he has never given any sign of having read any such answers to his bitter complaints about being edited.

William Pina added a re-creation of an NT4 BSOD to Commons, claiming it was his own work, and placed it on the Blue Screen of Death page. However this image was clearly a simple copy of one from the BSOD web page he'd linked to. I deleted the image from our BSOD page. I also put a copyvio notice on the file at Commons, with the URL of the original image. His response and my answer. Again he made no further comment.

I corrected a grammar error of his on Black Screen of Death. Again, his response was anger at having his work be changed.

As TheMillionRabbit states, William Pina has created a large number of redirects (and notices of redirects and DA pages), some of them bizarre. These include:

• ErrMsg: redir to Error message. CSD R3.
• ZSZ: original contents unknown; this was CSDd, he subsequently re-created it as a redirect to the Main page (wth?). CSD R3.
• V Inc: redir to Vizio. This one is at least defensible as Vizio Corp. indeed originally called itself "V Inc", but they changed their name many years ago, but today it is highly unlikely that anyone looking for Vizio would type in "V Inc" (exactly like that). He also placed a note on the Vizio page warning not to confuse it with Microsoft Visio. CSD R3.
• PPKA and EWQ: both redir to Xbox 360 technical problems. CSD R3.
• My first time: redirected to a section of his user page. That's right, a redir in mainspace with the target being his user page. CSD R2. His response and B's answers. Oh, hm, I see he did respond to a reply to him in that one case.

In at least two of these cases he attempted to stop the deletion by removing the speedy deletion tags from the redirect pages. One of these was to My first time. He was warned about this. He did it again to the EWQ CSD.

After encountering admin B (talk · contribs), who had deleted one of his redirects (and posting the usual "how dare you" notice to B's talk page), William Pina noticed that B had no user page other than a simple redir to B's talk page. William Pina decided to add a redirect/disambiguation notice template on B's talk page. B soon deleted it. William Pina added it again in a different form. TheMillionRabbit noticed it and deleted it. This resulted in a by-now-familiar response.

He wrote a section on his user page that mentioned me, and I wanted to respond (thinking that he might have a better chance of reading a response if it was on his talk page). At first I posted my answer on his user page, but thought better of that as he said he didn't want anyone editing it. So I copied his text and then added my answer onto his talk page. Again he was furious that I had dared to answer something in which he mentioned me.

In summary, William Pina (talk · contribs) seems to me to be:

• Completely unfamiliar with or unwilling to accept the notion that Wikipedia is edited collaboratively.
• Unwilling to participate in discussions regarding his edits. (He complains, someone responds, but he's only replied once to any such response (here), and that one wasn't particularly showing a willingness to learn.
• To have a very strong sense of article WP:OWNership.
• Unfamiliar with conventions of polite discourse.
• Unable or unwilling to learn from previous reverts, CSDs, and comments - he just keeps doing things in the same vein.
• Unable or unwilling to write at a high school competency level of English ("in saying" for "insane", "you didn't have your permission" instead of "you didn't have my permission", etc.)
• Perhaps eleven years old.

I think that covers the whole of my experience with this editor.

My opinion: his edits are disruptive, he doesn't seem to be here to participate collaboratively in building the encyclopedia, and even if he were, he doesn't seem to be competent to do so.

I was going to raise an RFC/U, but it says there that this should be reserved for those with at least a couple hundred edits; he has fewer than 100. I don't know what to suggest, but I do know I'm tired of seeing ridiculous edits and redirects from him in pages I watch and having to fix them up. It was a lot of time to gather this info, but perhaps it will save work in the long run. Jeh (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Three letters: C I R. Ansh666 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NOTHERE and best for all that he doesn't stay here. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked. I think they've been warned sufficiently. Yes, competence is required, and outrage when inappropriate actions are reverted won't fly. And look at this, just in, after the above posts, after the various warnings on William's page, and after the alert about this ANI discussion by TheMillionRabbit. At a guess, it was a sort of response to the alert (?); as you can see, there has been no other. The user may be well-meaning, but they're incompetent and huffy. At an admittedly cursory overview of their contributions, I can't find a single useful edit. Blocked indefinitely, encouraged to appeal. If they do, and are able to show some understanding of the problems with their editing, I'm all for an unblock. Thank you for the complete reports, MillionRabbit and Jeh. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

• Unfortunately an excellent block based on well-established evidence the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from one of the reporters: Most of his redirects were merely nonsensical (abbreviations for his personal use, maybe?), but redirecting another user's talk page to somewhere else is just malicious. I always groan when I see a new editor following the incompetent, WP:OWNership, not-WP:CIVIL, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT path. (Not to mention malicious.) Fortunately they are (in the very small set of pages I follow) not at all common, but when they do appear the result IME has always been the same: a progression of warnings on their talk page, culminating in a couple of people spending a significant chunk of time putting together ANI reports and a block. Nobody seems to have come up with warning templates or any other phraseology that helps. Thank you Bishonen, thank you to TheMillionRabbit for starting the ANI, and thanks for the support EatsShootsAndLeaves, Ansh666, and DeCausa. Jeh (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• The user hasn't requested unblock or otherwise edited their talkpage since the block so far. I hope that doesn't mean we're about to see an, uh, new user or IP making similar edits. If you should happen to see something like that at the pages you watch, TheMillionRabbit and Jeh, the simplest thing might be to alert me on my page, since I already know the case. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

All right, now he has edited his page. Still. Is it possible that he didn't even notice the block message? Bishonen | talk 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Citation bot - mass creation of sub-templates

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

---

Citation bot (talk · contribs) is creating a massive number of sub-templates which store citation data within the Template namespace. I have read thru the various past approval requests listed at User:Citation bot#Bot approval, but I can't find an explicit request where they ask for approval for the mass creation of pages (request #6 mentions creation of subtemplates, refering to request #2, but that request doesn't ask for that ability). This bot has been operating in this manner apparently for many years, and the result is about 49k of these templates within Category:Cite doi templates, as well as some other types of citations. There are over 67 million DOIs in existence, so this could continue to grow indefinitely if left unchecked.

I'd like to ask that this bot be blocked temporarily until the operator can explain where and when he got community approval for mass creation of pages, and until this function of his bot has had a proper discussion (and moreso, the general problem of external data being stored in the template namespace). -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with this. This is a very useful function that CitationBot's author clearly doesn't receive enough kudos for. It's not indiscriminately sucking up the entire DOI database, but just the information that is required to put properly formatted citations into articles. The exact same information would have needed to be put in the articles directly by hand, if CitationBot wasn't doing this. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Canback and Company spamming.

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

---

User:Coretheapple suggested this notice might be better suited to this noticeboard. It regards the additions of User:Zanabelles. I don't know where discussion should be centralized, but the suggestion that it requires admin involvement is not a bad one.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The user is persistently spamming, and edit-warred on multiple articles after being asked by two editors to desist. Coretheapple (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Account blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

We have a situation here

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

---

TranquilityTranquility (talk · contribs) is a likely sock of blocked editor CensoredScribe (talk · contribs). I apologize for not filing an SPI but I am heading out the door and this new user is already doing damage that will need fixing. Any help that any admin can give will be appreciated. MarnetteD | Talk 16:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not CensoredScribe. It's Dragonron, a.k.a. Wiki-star, who has taken to "impersonate" CensoredScribe as he used to impersonate Zarbon. An SPI has been open for weeks but it hasn't been touched for some reason, and there is a known IP range that he is operating from that has a block expired.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Ryulong. Looks like he has already been blocked. I wish that the SPI had been acted on and I am sorry that your page was redirected by this troll. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Nichiren Shōshū

Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could anyone PLEASE prevent Noisemonkey (talk · contribs) from continuously deleting an image relevant to the article? Also note the lengthy debate. Sick of it.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Noisemonkey notified of this thread. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And he has also been advised of edit warring over the article here, which he has now reverted twice in the past 24 hours. Y'know, considering this is now summer, and a lot of young very earnest adherents of various religious groups have more time to edit, and that so far as I can tell many of the Nichiren groups have made strong statements to the effect of their way being the only way, I wonder if it might not be a good idea to consider a quick-trigger on full protction for a few months on their main articles to prevent the young, earnest adherents from wasting our time and theirs with pointless edit warring on these topics. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections from me on that, especially if it will stop more messes like this one. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've repeatedly asked Catflap08 to post a neutral source to this picture but there isn't one. http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Gohonzon/DaiGohonzon.html is the only one available under which the commentary is by a Nichiren shu priest known to be critical of Nichiren Shoshu which contains original research as he signs the post: "My thanks to Senchu Murano, Jackie Stone, Bruce Maltz, and Chris Holte for providing all this information." Also see articles on his blog http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2012/09/28/three-divergent-doctrines-of-nichiren-shoshu/ and http://fraughtwithperil.com/ryuei/2012/09/28/the-fuji-lineage/ I have also requested that he show that that the depicted Gohonzon contains the following inscription which is mentioned on p116 on the Basics of Practice http://nst.org/Articles/BasicOfPractice.pdf which reads as follows : There is a supplementary inscription on the Dai-Gohonzon

− which reads: “... with great respect for the petitioner of the High

− Sanctuary of the Essential Teachings, Yashiro Kunishige and the

− people of the Hokkeko-shu.” but as yet have received no reply. All that can be verified is the picture is of a temple Gohonzon and that the book which it is allegedly from does exist but nobody seems to have a copy or translation of the page that this picture is from. Noisemonkey (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A free photograph does not need a reliable source or a "neutral source". If the image lacks a copyright that is all that matters for Wikipedia and the Commons. It seems you belong to a group of editors who have fervently attempted to get the image removed from Wikipedia pages on this topic as well as from hosting on the Wikimedia Commons. Twice. Drop the stick already.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Bandana_man95 and the philosophy meme

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

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

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania was disruptively edited by a number of sock or meatpuppets in April/May 2014. A brand new editor (created today), User:Factcheckll1, reverted the cleanup of the article by admin User:Eustress through a long series of reversions. I reverted back to the edits by Eustress, which were proper, and then Factcheckll1 reverted my edit here. A look at the content Factcheckll1 is adding is a lot of the same boosterism that was there when the article was disrupted earlier. I could not find an SPI case from the earlier issues, although all the users were blocked. I am concerned that the same disruptive activity will occur and ask that an admin block Factcheckll1 for inappropriately using multiple accounts and semi protect the article. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, along with a couple of others. No need to protect, I wouldn't think -- it's real obvious when this person is repeating their annoyance, and easy enough to RBI. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More possible sock puppetry related to Jazzerino

Based on similar types of edits (tedious grammatical changes), to same articles, and timing of account creations and activity (how they often parallel or follow after Jazzerino's block resulting from this ANI discussion a week ago where his attempt to evade a block with another account was detected... I suspect other socks of his to be:

• Harmelodix (talk, contributions)
• Jazzman49 (talk, contributions)

...the latter of whom might have been the original sock master of Jazzerino (talk, contributions). Jazzerino and Jazzman49 accounts were created and started editing between 23-24 March before they both entered a period of no edits. Jazzerino returned to edit on 6 June til his block on 8 June, when less than a few hours after the block Harmelodix was created and their first edit was to Ornette Coleman, the article that was the last edit of Jazzerino before he was blocked. Harmelodix also continued where Jazzerino left at Free jazz immediately after the block with this and subsequent edits to that article, as well as at Dark Magus ([72]) the day of. Jazzman49 resumed editing the following day. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The editing quacks a great deal, but respective geolocation of the two accounts (and Jazzerino's) make them  Unrelated on a technical basis. — Coren ^(talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Same obsession with pronouns ([73], [74], [75], [76]) Dan56 (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Resuming an old edit war at Satanic ritual abuse

IPs involved: 207.118.90.156, 174.125.115.111.

I originally came across the satanic ritual abuse article a year ago because of a dispute/edit warring. One of the questions was about mentioning Janet Reno as involved with one of the cases (before she was attorney general). I didn't have a strong opinion at the time, but had/have a problem with the tendentiousness of the editors intent to add it (editors that had other clear problems with POV on the page). After several bouts of edit warring and lengthy talk page discussions, it remained at the consensus version since February. Today one of the editors (a dynamic IP) has returned to restore precisely the same material without presenting any new arguments.

• I reverted
• The editor reverted me with edit summary "I am well aware that some editors don't want her name mentioned in this article. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page, and will take this to arbitration if necessary."
  • This was followed by a talk page message which addressed the addition by saying "I have re-added the note, as the participation of an extremely notable and controversial figure in national politics is definitely worthy of inclusion." (effectively, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to the previous talk page discussions).
• I again reverted.
• IP a third time restored the content with edit summary "Reverted until you address my concerns on the talk page. Please do not arbitrarily revert edits without discussion. I'm on freenode #wikipedia-en, nick EGNT if you'd like to chat."

As there aren't any new concerns on the talk page and this editor seems intent to edit war, I'd rather not take this any further. There's not been any WP:3RR violation, and the problem has more history than an isolated edit warring incident, which is why I'm here rather than at the edit warring noticeboard. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking a little closer, this is nearly identical material, wording, sourcing, and similar edit summaries to those used by Jimjilin, the user who had edit warred over this last time around. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  04:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not doing the editing though someone ought to change that article it is VERY biased.Jimjilin (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

user 174.125.115.111 here (finally made a new account after years away from editing). Came across this article the other day, and was disturbed to notice that it lacked many important facts that were included in discussions of the panic in college, where I fist learned about it. Checked the history, and saw that three or four users had been on a major purge to remove references to non-fundamentalist participants in the accusations, as well as the therapists whose "repressed memory syndrome" theories enabled them. This article compares unfavorably to the Salem Witch Trials article, which includes historical and cultural context, and explicitly notes the involvement of historically significant figures such as Increase Mather, while also explaining the use of pseudo-'scientific' evidence in the trials.

I currently lack access to a decent library, so won't be able to improve the page significantly for another few weeks. But I would eventually like to expand and clarify a number of sections in this article.

Unfortunately, I suspect the three editors who have the page on lock-down will not appreciate me playing on their turf. Eggonought (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you did not know, this is not the place to discuss content disputes (only conduct disputes), so if you have something new to discuss content wise (such as the "references to non-fundamentalist participants" issue above), please take it to the article talk page. Ignoring consensus is your reason for being here. HelenOnline 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Intelligentguy89 again

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

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the user User:LardoBalsamico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2)Talk:List of Turkish football champions

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

User talk:Rivaner

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

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

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

Special:Contributions/Rivaner

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

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

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

Special:PermanentLink/612602385

Rivaner (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Keeps Removing Useful References Again

Previously, I've posted about Macaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) before (see archive).

I asked to have an admin clarify to Macaldo that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary sources and an admin has respondes (see here).

However, Macaldo still removed two of my edits, here and here.

He states that (spam, we have the link to the patent with the same infos, so this has no value) even though it was pointed to him that secondary and tertiary sources are valid. The link to the USPO filing is very hard to understand and both articles break it down into digestable means.

In addition to this, he commented that Searchengineland and Searchenginewatch are two content farms which are used to put lot of useless links on Wikipedia in the SEO articles. SEW is used to add useless and irrelevant sentences in the article just to add a link to their site, as a reference. SEL has a different technique, they publish a short article to echo each announcement of Google and put a link on Wikipedia to these short articles. These statments are false since Search Engine Land and Search Engine Watch are authorities in the niche and their updates are industry updates; their news websites and are doing what news sites do.

He goes on to say have read and studied the ~30 pages of the Panda patent. Not a a single reference to machine learning. I studied each formula, each algo (there are just some lines of code). Zero machine learning here. So your "SEO authority" looks as a joke. Remember these sites are filled by contributors with various levels and backgrounds. For the others arguments above, they have the same quality. He speculates I am new to SEO because I removed links to SEL that is a sort of God in his mind. I know this site for years and I saw how a quality site turned into a content farm over time. But, a simple Google search shows that "machine learning" and "panda update" are highly correlated and is the predominante view in the industry. Macaldo has no references or proof validating his opinion. Until he shows proof that his opinion on how Google Panda works is cited, it is just his private opinion and not the view of the SEO industry.

Because of Macaldo's lack of sources backing his opinions and his defiance of an admin, I'm asking for: this edit to stay and Macaldo to stop editing Google_Panda. Can an admin please enforce this, I'm tired of having to explain everything while Macaldo just removes stuff without proper explanation. The burden of proof should be on his end, not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fedora2014 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Town of Menemen

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

Is engaged in a biased revisionism of Menemen massacre. 1. edit [77] Adds part about atrocities against Greeks. The changes the main article link of Menemen massacre into "mutual excesses" in disregard that multiple Western sources named it "one sided". 2. edit [78] Removes Greek atrocities against Turks, rewords sentences in disregard of the sources used. Dunderstrar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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 [79], 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 [80], 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[81][82][83] and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May [84][85][86], and again on 30/31 May [87][88][89][90], always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June [91], 10 June [92] and 12 June [93]. 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 [94][95][96].

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 [97][98], after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here [99]. 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 [100].

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, ([101]) 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)

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.[102][103][104] 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, but 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)

User: 86.174.240.211 at it again under different IP addresses (86.174.240.214)

The IP user that I had dealt with in May, is obviously at it again, making arbitrary edits to start edit wars with people. He has been caught using other IP addresses, including 86.174.241.37 and now 86.174.240.214. How do I know? His edits are exactly the same as the other mentioned IPs, reverts without providing any edit summaries and likely will go at it and leave personal attacks once more as he did with the two previous other IP addresses. He has already been blocked on those two others, and has likely using a third different IP address. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Blocked 86.174.240.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of 86.174.240.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

We have an edit war of vandalism between a fake user and an I.P. at Gluten Trackinfo (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Blockhammer to the face applied in both cases. However, the correct noticeboard for this sort of tomfoolery is thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, this is "thataway". Did you move this? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

He means thataway. Looks like somewhere in the world there is a classroom of bored kids. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did indeed mean thataway and not thataway. I suppose I should now head thataway... Yunshui ^雲_水 12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because this was a problem with TWO editors reverting each other in a problematic way, I kind thought ANI was the right place, but maybe there is more or less to it than I thought. (and here is your mini-trout ;) <((()))>< ) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Jaqeli (talk · contribs) was topic banned on January 5th[105] from everything related to both Armenia and Georgia, such as for example the history of the Georgian alphabet. He removed the ban notice a couple of weeks later[106] after he had been blocked for a week for violating the ban, and when I replaced it twice today he reverted me both times. Our guidelines make it clear that active sanctions cannot be removed from talk pages - WP:BLANKING. Whether or not he is now violating the ban itself I'm not sure, although he certainly was in March with edits such as [107] and [108] which were about the history of the Georgian alphabet, now renamed Georgian scripts. Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I restored it too, but he promptly reverted me: [109]. Mdann52 has now warned him for edit warring. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Unconstructive comments by Horst-schlaemma

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

1

2

3

4

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Catflap08 edit-warring/POV-pushing on Kenji Miyazawa

A few months ago Catflap08 (talk · contribs) made an unsupported claim[110] that the subject of the Kenji Miyazawa article was a "nationalist", based on the fact that the subject was a member of a religious group some sources have characterized as being nationalistic in nature. Almost no sources actually refer to the subject as a nationalist (as I've demonstrated on the talk page, this is a WP:FRINGE theory).

Last Friday I removed[111] the claim before being quickly reverted.[112] I encouraged[113] Catflap08 to discuss on the talk page, but he outright refused, making only short, irrelevant comments.[114][115][116] Still refusing to use the talk page, he immediately took the dispute to AN and insisted that I was the one who was edit-warring. He was promptly told to go back to the talk page and discuss with me. He then, still refusing to read my comments or interact with me directly, posted[117] an RFC with somewhat biased wording. I presented more evidence[118] that his view of the subject was incorrect, and one other user weighed in[119] on my side.

Despite utterly failing to gain consensus for his view, he proceeded to re-emphasize[120] in the article that the subject was a member of a "nationalistic" group. Since the group's founder was already referred to as a nationalist in the same sentence, and since Catflap08 has already been given ample evidence that the subject was not a nationalist, this edit seems highly inappropriate. He also marked the edit as minor, even though he had every reason to believe it would be controversial. I reverted[121] earlier today, only to be re-reverted[122] with an almost incoherent edit summary.

Catflap08 has never contributed anything to the article except to add the WP:FRINGE theory that the subject was a nationalist. It's clear that he doesn't have any real interest in the subject, and only came across the name "Kenji Miyazawa" in an essay on the group in question. I'd therefore like to propose a WP:TBAN on "Kenji Miyazawa". I don't know enough about the various Nichiren sects he generally edits in (he appears to have stumbled across the Kenji article through one of these) to say whether his other edits in this area have been disruptive, but the Kenji Miyazawa article at least does not benefit from his presence.

126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please do yourself a favor and drop all the personal observations when filing a report, and just stick to the facts. What I see here is an old fashioned content dispute. You've already had a 3rd opinion filed by Catflap (which he ignored, but it isn't binding) so the next step is WP:DRN. Either way, we are not at the stage that a topic ban is due. Lastly, I would remind Catflap08 that the WP:BURDEN is on him, so according to WP:BRD and general consensus on how to be a good Wikipedian, the "nationalist" claim should be left OUT until DRN or another consensus of peers decides otherwise. Continuing to add contentious and undersourced facts when there is a dispute might be seen as disruptive, so don't do it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that interpretation of the dispute, and I appreciate your advice, but I'm always reluctant to go to DRN, especially when (as here) the problem is that one of the parties is completely unwilling to discuss the dispute. The fact is that DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and that's when all parties are actually willing to come to the table. Catflap08's talk page activity (or lack thereof) implies he is not. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Technically, you don't have to. As I've explained to him, the WP:BURDEN is on him, not you. If he does, I would recommend you participate. As with any dispute, sticking to the facts gives you a higher success rate, keep personal opinions to the side. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks! :D 126.0.96.220 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh I see now that that guy can not be called nationalistic the nationalistic organization he was a member of is not nationalistic anymore … interesting to say the least that is. That is why references on that organisation are given--Catflap08 (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)