Misplaced Pages

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: This ANI is about alleged "personal attacks", and so far only one diff have been given to support this claim. Most of the comments are blatantly distracted from the topic of this ANI. In my opinion, user Neuraxis owes a serious apology for his name callings. But a reason for ban? No, certainly not. If someone wants to open a new thread on the behaviour of Neuraxis, feel free to do it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: The hands of those vilifying Neuraxis aren't exactly clean if they're doing things like (from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Statement by Neuraxis, "User:BullRangifer has twice deleted my comment for a clarifiation request and is now alleging I am edit warring over it!". This looks like a classic case of trying to gain leverage in a content dispute by trying to get the other user blocked or banned. K7L (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• K7L, I'm surprised you are still around creating disruption, especially after my 12 point summary of all you've done wrong. At least you didn't send your sockpuppet. You should have been blocked by now for sockpuppetry.
  You really need to do your homework before jumping in here: Start by looking at the actual diffs of what happened, not at the claim made by Neuraxis. Here are the diffs: , . Read the edit summaries carefully. Note these words: "Please place in your own area and sign properly." There was no attempt to prevent the inclusion of that content, only to make sure Neuraxis followed protocol. We are not allowed to place comments in the wrong areas in a Clarification request. What I did was considered the "100% correct" thing to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support This may be sufficient. It is not clear if the user in question has any interest in editing other topic areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban as slightly preferable to site ban, based on the material presented above, but only on the following conditions:

• Neuraxis to be topic banned from articles related to the topics of pseudoscience and criticism of science, broadly construed, for not less than 1 year and 1,000 edits, which is roughly Neuraxis' annual number of edits to date,with one of the requirements for the ban to be lifted displaying no serious problematic behavior in that time and, preferably, seeking a mentor;
• Neuraxis is subject to an interaction ban with her/his critics here for the same period of time;
• Neuraxis is banned from maintaining any pages related to these topics in userspace, either under the current name or former name;

• Honestly, the previous behavior of this editor, particularly the previous sanctions including sockpuppetry, and their behavior here, raise in my eyes extremely serious questions about that person's basic honesty and integrity. I have for some time thought that we should have a variation on WP:SPA for WP:SAP for Self-appointed Prophet, the kind of person who seems to see no problems whatever in advancing their personal views under any circumstances, whether they remotely fall within guidelines or not.
• There is an extremely slight chance in my eyes that this individual may be capable of becoming a reasonable, productive editor, but I think it is an extremely slight chance, and have no particular objections to a site ban. I am, as I think most of my record indicates, generally willing to give even the most problematic editor one last chance, probably to the degree of irrationality on my part. John Carter (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Are you threatening me with legal action? John Carter (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed mandated external review of Neuraxis

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

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

Proposed discretionary sanctions on Neuraxis

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

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

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

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

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

John, step back. If you analyzed by edit Hx, you would see that I have spent 4-5 months editing, the rest filled with inactivity gaps. So you ASSuming that 'I should know' bc of being here for 2.5 years does not take this into account. Considering that QG has a long-standing issue with tagging, I ignored it bc it seemed like an intimidation/bullying move. Thanks again for assuming no good faith and calling me incompetent. However, it did make an error. That was assuming you had expertise and competence in scientific matters. I figured that an arbitrator at pseudoscience had the ability to discern scientific literature. I read your bio and your expertise seems to be more about theology. No wonder why you were so 'overwhelmed' by the scientific papers, but that's your own shortcomings. You've made it clear of your intentions and how you have your biases and it's to debunk. I would figure that your intent, as an arbiter, would be to analyze, interpret the evidence before having preconceived notions on the topic, or recuse yourself if you very little about the subject matter, especially in a professional capacity. So, if you have any constructive criticism, that's helpful. Your repeated attempts to smear me with your specious allegations, that are diff-less, reveal more about you than me. IOW, shit or get off the pot. Neuraxis (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Neuraxis, you seem to ignore once again the material in the page I linked to above. You seem to be willing to make any number of passive-agressive commentary on others while at the same time showing little if any abillity to review your own conduct in a reasonable light. At the same time, you seem to place yourself in an exalted position despite clear evidence of your own inability to adhere to basic guidelines. You seem to find it "overwhelming" to actually make a basic effort to meet the basic standards of competency here, and, as the page I linked to indicates, competence is required. John Carter (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the characterization that I am a fringe-POV pusher, or any insinuation that I am an alt-med apologist or a white-washer. A danger to the project, or the community. Smh. We follow the sources. This source which concluded Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigm is the linchpin of all this. DJ opined that this source cannot be used under any circumstance. The skeptics want this buried because it challenges their ideology which states the overwhelming majority (if not all)) of chiros are pseudoscientific. Please don't hyperbolize the situation. I am not 'exhalting' my position, nor 'boasting' about my credentials. Nor am I being passive-aggressive, I am merely citing the facts, which you do not dispute. I asked for 'constructive criticism' and you answer with an attack. Here's what I think: Despite many other editors, to my count, 14 who had issues editing with QG, I did err in adding the link. My personal beliefs aside, that wasn't right, and I apologize to QG. I also agree that I can use mentoring, which I had asked for,and you had a good suggesting of putting me into a similar program. I will voluntarily limit to 1RR in good faith. I will continue to use the talk pages before introducing any significant changes to any page I edit. I will use DRN and RfC as means to mediate stalled out debates, which is when frustrations start to accrue and things go to hell in a basket. These are my proposals to get the ball rolling here, they come voluntarily, under no coercion in a sincere to help resolve this issue. Neuraxis (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Russavia#Unblock_request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support unblock. As the saying goes, unblocks are cheap (and by extension, reblocks are cheap as well). I'm personally of the opinion that the higher profile the unblock request is (i.e., getting an ANI thread and multiple rapid responses), the faster a reblock will be issued should the editor in question deviate from all but the most appropriate behavior. In this particular case, I get that there's a pretty long history, and possibly some concerns as to whether the unblock request sufficiently takes ownership of the problems that led to the block. I think in light of Russavia's work at Commons, we can afford to be a little accommodating. Taking ownership of past problems is best, but I don't know if I'd call it so essential as to negate everything and anything else a user could possibly bring to the table. Now, whether the "anything else" Russavia brings to the table is still enough to offset any concerns with the unblock request is, frankly, not one I'm prepared to answer... but I'm personally willing to take the chance based on what I've said above. Yes, there's a long history of problems with this user... but an evident energy and dedication. I'm not willing to say Russavia is either a malefactor, nor am I willing to say Russavia can not contribute positively. And if following the unblock things go back to how they were... again, reblocks are cheap. Those involved might even gain support for a full-on siteban. —/Mendaliv//_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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 "here is the option of contacting directly, or the chief editor of the magazine, for further comment/clarification. Or the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose unblock. I don't believe that Russavia has the best interests of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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\ 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. Cullen 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  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 07:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something new

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note under WP:CBAN is the paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment As Smallbones notes, knife-twisting aside, he is now de-facto banned. Formalizing a ban does have its purposes, but he cannot use his talk page anymore and any unblock will not be accepted without community or ArbCom approval, so there is not much use for a formal ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

• Have any of his edits been anything but constructive? If the only problem with his edits is that he is making them while blocked, then the revert exemption is not of any interest at the moment. Unless he continues socking and those socks do things that are not simply constructive editing, there is no basis for formalizing a ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's hard to say, and I personally am not going to review these edits. But they tend to be insertions of images which I must presume he has uploaded to commons, and given that this has been one focus of the problems with him, I wouldn't object to reversion of such edits without consideration. Mangoe (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• There are no "problems with him" that would suggest media he uploads to Commons or adds from Commons would be generally problematic. Matters where there have been "problems" are singular incidents where the issue was a subject of some controversy and required significant discussion. Indeed, some of those matters reflect a cultural divide between Commons and the English Misplaced Pages.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:49, 17 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  04:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Regarding all of the above:

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

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

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

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

• I have tried to keep my statements brief, while also addressing all the issues that were raised. A balance has to be kept between the two. My presentation (as a separate point / paragraph for each issue, rather than all mixed-up together) is to facilitate easier reading and understanding. You need not read it at all, if you consider it to be "blabbering". No one is forcing you to read it. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I will bet that no one is reading it as they have read it once elsewhere. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Insisting on adding a section with 4 subsections on the "16th Lok Sabha" talk page, treating it as a WP:BATTLEGROUND by removing any attempts to collapse your article length section featuring copious graphs, tables and lengthy evaluations as to why you consider the addition of the content to be important, then challenging other editors to start the discussion all over again after consensus was reached on the "Indian general election, 2014" article talk page regarding the use of these allegations on any of the related articles is gaming the system. "You asked for "reasons given by other editors", etc. That should in fact be done by those "other editors" themselves."? We have already gone through this with you at length. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Would suggest topic ban or such covering articles related to the latest general elections and its subtopics. User is fairly new and shows no grasp of understanding policies. Let them edit other stuff elsewhere and in the process understand how we work. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I share your frustration, Dharmadhyaksha. Unfortunately, both occasions where an AN/I into Intelligentguy89's WP:TE have been opened, there has been a protracted, convoluted AN/I regarding other matters running concurrently. This is reinforcing Intelligentguy89's perception that his behaviour is acceptable. The previous AN/I saw only only one comment by The Bushranger observing that "More precisely: Frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry uncivil at best and are usually considered to be personal attacks." before it was archived without being actioned. I sincerely hope this doesn't get overlooked again. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Ohconfucius summed it up well: "You were clearly watching the general election article, and you saw the consensus developing on that content. The view was that the information was mere news and was unencyclopaedic. Because of the fundamental principal that a person is innocent until proven guilty, those statistics are meaningless at best, and scandal-mongering at worst. That pretty much rules it out for all articles. I therefore see no need to restart the discussion for every article you decide to spam it to." I've looked at the material and completely agree. One form of it can be seen at User:Intelligentguy89/sandbox. EngineeringGuy, please move on now. If you continue to add this material or get brought back here for similar behavior, then a ban or block will be appropriate, but hopefully this can be avoided. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that if Intelligentguy89 doesn't drop the stick it's probably time for a topic ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 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 , 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 , 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 and immediately again the next time he touched the article on 27 May , and again on 30/31 May , always alternating between removing and fact-tagging things he didn't like. He continued his tagging tactics on 3 June , 10 June and 12 June . 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 .

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 , after being clearly told to stay out of it, and made further personal attacks against him here . 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 .

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, () 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 12:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banc de Binary, Round 2

Sometimes, they come back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Johnuniq, Coretheapple, G S Palmer. Your comments are acknowledged and prior answers herein should suffice. I trust that the depth, quality, and integrity of all comments herein will be reviewed and that requested guidance about our content compliance concerns will be provided. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Negotiation break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaaaaah!

A few observations as a cynical old bastard.

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

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

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

Ducking Out

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

Not sure which question the BDB team is talking about; they've posted so much. I've posted an edit request on Talk:Banc de Binary to make the minor change to the corporate identity info of their companies which the BDB team has been repeatedly complaining about. That should satisfy their one legit complaint. This probably would have been done weeks ago if we all hadn't been so busy dealing with other BDB-generated problems.

Meanwhile, here's where we are:

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

If we release full protection on Banc de Binary without preventing edits by the BDB team, there will probably be trouble. There seems to be consensus that something should be done to keep the BDB team from causing problems. Everyone has had their say on this. It's time for a decision. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes to RfC and General Behavior Pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues should be reviewed in action of this ANI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New header for ease of editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is utterly unbelievable to me you feel you can continue to use this type of incendiary language such as "you were so nasty to me" without providing a single diff demonstrating my supposed "nastiness" (obviously because there is no such evidence of "nastiness" by me to you). Your malicious spreading of false accusations about me with impunity must stop (this is the third demonstrably false accusation you've floated in this thread that I've called out). It is utterly inconceivable to me that this type of swagger would be permissible in any civil forum. As for your thousands of edits, what I observed in my original message - and what is verifiably true - is that there has been a measurable increase in your appearance in threads in which I've participated since our disagreement in the AfD for Live Wire Radio. And that is absolutely correct. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Binksternet, this is not acceptable. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal to you to occasionally fly into random threads like this ANI and declare to other editors that I'm "poisonous" and "distasteful" before flying out again but these kind of adjectives make me feel like pure shit, especially when there's no evidence they'll stop and that you intend to subject me to this kind of treatment for my life on WP. There's no reason I should be expected to grin and take it. You have lied (this, itself, is a very WP:CIVIL-line word, however, I think I've proven its objective accuracy) about me throughout this thread and you continue to do it with impunity. Your declaration about my AfD zealousness was rebutted by pointing out I had filed 2.5 AfDs per year; you then moved on to declaring I had edit warred about Woody Allen and I demonstrated that was another wind-up. You decided to log-off of this thread with a final bomb throwing by saying "some of the instances in which you have been found guilty of incivility ..." when, in fact, in four years, I have had a single 48-hour block (for which I apologize). I don't know what next steps are at this point, but this is simply not a situation that can remain without resolution. I know I risk being perceived as a Drama Queen by pursuing this matter, however, I'm also a human-being and it's understandable if it rattles my cage (to borrow a phrase from earlier in the thread) to know I'm going to be dive-bombed with this kind of hatred ("poisonous" "distasteful" "you have been found guilty") at random points forever. I don't think I'm being totally unreasonable to try to seek some help to get this bullying to stop. BlueSalix (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impersonation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@BlueSalix: I'm not here to gloat, but you should have taken my advice when I said to drop it early on. I had your best interests in mind. When disputes can be solved amicably early on, and apologies are made, it is always a bad idea to start a new dispute immediately afterwards.--v/r - TP 18:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Please close this whole thread now, preferably without using the word "resolved", because the issue of the false accusations is not resolved. It's being handled elsewhere. I appreciate Drmies' and TParis' sane comments, but any further posts telling BlueSalix he did wrong would be superfluous, in fact I would remove them. Bishonen | talk 12:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh jeez, not this again : This has been going for at least 18 months, and possibly longer. It culminated in Cleo Rocos getting an entry in WP:LAME (including edit-warring on WP:LAME itself! - ) and a whole load of hot air being blown about exactly the same content dispute. I said it would happen again, and I'm not wrong. I firmly predict we will be having another ANI thread on the same conduct in a different article in the next six months. Ritchie333 09:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Password Problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, Now Able to change it. Maybe it was just a bug, I have all my passwords in a document. Maybe I Should make them more secure... TitusFox 19:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments removed per WP:NPA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TheREALCableGuy

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

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

115.164.222.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just blanked this section. Origamite 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Impersonation of quasi governmental entity - Block request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright violations by Tintor2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misuse of rollback by Nick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicolas Sarkozy

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

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

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

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

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

It was this one: , but DoRD revdeled it. Thank you again. Origamite 17:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know about that; the talk page was done in 2013 and so was this diff. Origamite 22:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

TBBT just emailed me this:

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

Do we grant it? Origamite 12:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fut. Perf. indef'd TBBT Chase with email and TP access revoked. NAC time. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army (Poland) edit warring

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

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

Georgism problems

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

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

Nightscream

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

User:MosesM1017

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Brown Here's another one from today: User changes release date from February 4 to February 14. Although unsourced in article, the article says that the album was slated to be released on the 4th. iTunes shows a February 4th release date, as does Google Play, AllMusic and the artist's Twitter feed. I haven't been able to confirm the record label yet, but I've seen Select-O-Hits pop up a few times, including here. I'm out. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left a final warning. He always edits from phone, so not sure how well he is getting the notices, but that isn't our fault. It is disruptive at this point, particularly since he will not engage in discussion at all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a look at the deleted article and, based on that, I don't really foresee any constructive editing any time soon. Either WP:CIR or perhaps even WP:NOTHERE may apply. I would be inclined to support a block as well. Go Phightins! 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Has User:Eddypc07 gotten hacked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing at that talk page has been actioned since at least August 2013 (the first request is undated). Since, that page is clearly (currently) inactive, I have tagged it as such. Should anyone decide to action the requests, the tag can be removed. I will attempt to copy the request to m:Talk:Spam blacklist later today when time presents itself, and will shall see what happens. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Personal Attacks by Swisstruth

Swisstruth and his IP sockpuppets (sockpuppeting noticed on the relevant notice board) are consistently engaging in personal attacks against me and administrators on asmallworld talk page. The page has been protected twice after section blanking by this user/IP address. And is currently protected because of their attempted blanking. here are the personal attack diffs - (please note the edit summary) and attacking me and two administrators that protected the page . You can see the IP blanking and our entire conversation on the page/talk page. Thanks for looking into this (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC))Also here is my reply to the personal attack with a polite warning . (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC))

IP 115.112.41.166 Long Term Persistent Vandalsm

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

Most recent vandalism

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

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

Requesting IP range block

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin undeleted an article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The RFC has been deleted because it wasn't properly certified. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct mentions deletion after 48 hours, but this appears to have been deleted after only 32 - is there another guideline that allows earlier deletion such as this? Peter James (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention that even if there is an overwhelming consensus to remove the tools, only ArbCom can desysop an admin who is unwilling to give up the tools willingly. Tutelary (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorta true -- but the community can ban any user, even an admin, which would have the immediate effect of a desysop. Such an act, of course, would engender some controversy, and I mention it only as a hypothetical act. RfC/Us, of course, are not sufficient for such a community action, AFAICT. Collect (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Upon reflection, I'm good with one more chance given the surrounding circumstances. Antonio has been put on very clear notice that out-of-process deletions/restorations—especially where he or his father is the article creator, or there's such poor documentation as to create the appearance of impropriety (e.g., the WP:SELDEL situation mentioned above)—will likely result in a petition to ArbCom to desysop him. While the responsibility for Antonio's actions falls on his own shoulders, his adminship dates back to a bygone era (indeed, it seems to predate the existence of the 'crat system). Some accommodation is not unreasonable, but it should be well understood by now that there shouldn't be any more. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 03:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

New user removing AFD template

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

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

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

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

Article deleted after it had been voted to Keep!

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

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

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

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

Odd editing at Vivint

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

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

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

Institute of Mathematics

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

The Institute of Mathematics and its applications - a prestigious London academic society - is being redirected to some similar ly named organisation in India. It says: "(Redirected from Institute of Mathematics and Applications)"

HOW DO WE STOP THIS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.220.145 (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong here, you're just going to the wrong article. You're looking for Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. I'm disambiguating the "Not to be confused with" links to fix that. Thanks! —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have also created a disambiguation page. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Multi-article edit-warring by Fallacies4

Fallacies4 has been edit-warring across multiple BLPs and against multiple editors for days now adding mock Golden Raspberry awards against consensus and against the recommendations of Wikiproject Film. For the relevant discussions/warnings please see the talkpage of this user. The admin action requested is a block of this editor to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems somewhat reasonable on his talk page, but the edit warring continues unabated. Maybe there are communication issues due to his not being a native English speaker? It's possible that he simply doesn't understand the templated warnings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The templated warnings today came after the editor did not stop following a discussion with Ashanda, Coretheapple and Doniago between 8-11 June. These users had already requested him/her to stop at that time. Δρ.Κ.  08:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What gets me is that, the issue of whether the awards should be added to biography articles aside, we made it clear that they should at least be sourced when added, and Fallacies seemed to understand that. Based on their recent contributions though, evidently they either do not understand or do not care. I think their Talk page makes this fairly clear, but diffs available upon request. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Also they are still continuing with similar edits, after this ANI report was opened, adding unsourced Raspberry awards even as we speak. Δρ.Κ.  16:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Posted to their talk page asking for a reason not to block. Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Doug! DonIago (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Doug. Let's just hope they respond to your fair question. Δρ.Κ.  16:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fallacies4 actually said he was going to stop at one point, but then he continued, even edit-warring about them. These mock awards are efforts to ridicule people. If they are discussed in RS sources, fine. But he kept adding them to "awards" lists without independent secondary sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many signs of trouble with this editor. Not only they are an SPA but they also add unsourced controversial material and edit-war across many BLP articles. On top of that they appear not to communicate well or show any signs of stopping. Δρ.Κ.  17:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

So here I'm. NinjaRobotPirate is right. I'm not a native English speaker, so that I don't undertand every detail that you write, but I understand your warnings or advices (somehow). Because of my generally English skills it is a little bit difficult for me to answer your "comments", so that I ignore the most of them. (Yes, I was/'m lazy and naive).

My impetus to add this awards, is not to ridicule people. The awards should show the bad performances in filmhistory.

My editings follow my german editings of this awards (Razzie Award = Goldene Himbeere)and on the german pages of people from the film branche, you do not need a secondary source or something like that. But if you want that I give you a secondary source to this awards, than I will do this in the next time (That mean that I will accept your rules yet).

But what I can not understand is, why did you always delete my editings and not the editings of the other edits of the Golden Raspberry Award without the secondary sourcing?

I hope you can excuse my English. When you can not understand one point of that you can ask me. I will not be offended.

Fallacies4 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure if there are edits by others concerning the Razzies that have not been removed, it was uninentional. I certainly have. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fallacies4: Please understand that there is wide agreement amongst editors that these awards should not be in the articles. If there are any other remaining they will eventually be removed. But that is irrelevant to the problems you are creating, because the idea is that these awards should be removed from the articles, not added to them. But the first step to solve the problems you are creating is for you to stop adding any more Raspberry awards anywhere. Δρ.Κ.  21:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The problems related to the user Qizilbash123 in the page of Iran

Please take a look at the history of the page of Iran.

In the section of History, dear Qizilbash123 has tried to add up some disputed contents against a huge part of the people of Iran, in several times. Ignoring how hard he has been trying to remove the image of the protest of Iranian women against the rules of the new regime, in his recent edit, we have seen a phrase ("disputed only by minority of Westernized women") which is a clear invasion to a huge part of the population of Iranian women who had protested for their rights, on the International Women's Day, after the Iranian revolution. Many of these women include the people who have done efforts in order to gain this revolution. Why would the new regime become against them?! The word "Westernized" has always been a useful weapon against the government opponents in Iran. The government tries to relate the simple rights of the people to a western culture, and they fancy an ordered eastern lifestyle for the Iranian people. This is exactly what this user is trying to do. The revolution of Iran, was a movement against the Shah and his monarchy. It was not a religious revolution, but a fanatical religious group of the people were trying to led the revolution to another side, and they were actually successful in this flow. This is why it was written "The Iranian Revolution, later known as the Islamic Revolution". But this person has replaced the word "also" instead of "later" to achieve his own purpose.

In the section of Observances, we have tried to find and include the most obvious depicted form of this well-known and understandable tradition (Haft-Chin Table). But this user has removed it several times and replaced his own order which include a painting depicting a particular performance quality of this tradition by a specific group of people in the Qajar dynasty. But we believe that this tradition can be shown in a more obvious and purely way. I believe that the thing which has been pleasant for this person in that painting goes for the white scarfs of women.

Another surprising action of this person is that he keeps removing the photos added to the gallery in the section of Geography. He says "too much" photos are included, where as I have seen in other pages that we have a gallery including two lines of photos.

In the section of Philosophy, we read: Iranian philosophy can be traced back as far as to Old Iranian philosophical traditions and thoughts which originated in ancient Indo-Iranian roots and were considerably influenced by Zarathustra's teachings. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, the chronology of the subject and science of philosophy starts with the Indo-Iranians, dating this event to 1500 BC. The Oxford dictionary also states, "Zarathushtra's philosophy entered to influence Western tradition through Judaism, and therefore on Middle Platonism."

So I found a photo of Faravahar which is a symbol coming from the Zarathushtra's philosophy. But then this person appears and removes it, and replaces a photo of a Mullah.

The question it why?!... Why this person must have such freedom to do whatever he wants to do, change whatever he wants to change and include what ever he wants to include?...

I believe we need a more accurate monitoring on this page. And this user needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

User:Binksternet, User:Robert McClenon and User:Bbb23, please help me if I couldn't explain it enough! :(

Thank you. Arvid Qasemy (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• A few diffs would be helpful. And you could clarify as to exactly what administrative action you are requesting. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Qizilbash123 just got off a 31 hour block for edit warring on Iran. Here is Qizilbash123's very first edit after getting off that block. Spoiler alert: the edit summary is "rv POV-pushers". Including the previous diff, Qizilbash123 has made three non-consecutive reverts on Iran in the last 24 hours (, ). I think 31 hours was not long enough to prevent further edit warring. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I just left them a message to that effect. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Qizilbash123 is now blocked five days for resumption of the edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal and the user User:LardoBalsamico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As suggested, I've changed all the links to diffs.Rivaner (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Putin khuilo!

I was stupid enough to open this nomination, which has now been turn into the championship of single-purpose accounts who can insult me stronger. Based on the fact that Russian is my mothertongue, they make unjustified conclusions that I must be pro-Russia biased (note that a couple of weeks ago on this very page, WP:ANI, many users suggested that I should lose my administrator flag because I am strongly and obviously anti-Russian biased and protected a (different) page on an "anti-Russian" version), and now of course that I am lying. I am not sure whether anything could be done about this except for me just shutting up, but I would welcome any ideas how this could be solved.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

AfDs like this don't pose an insurmountable problem. Because the votestacking SPAs are incredibly obvious, the closer will disregard them in favour of the policy-based arguments. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not so much afraid of the vote stacking (after all, AfD discussions are being closed by experienced users, and I do not have any particular reason to have this article deleted does not matter what, it was just my opinion that it is not notable at the moment), I was more afraid of the amount of personal animosity against me from the people I have never met. The page has now been semied, hopefully this may solve the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anything needs to be done. I've been the target of similar personal attacks, including SPA pile-ons at AfD coordinated by massive off-wiki campaigns. But it all dies down as soon as the deletion discussion is over. These people are just here to ride their own hobby-horse; once it's taken away from them they all suddenly disappear and are never heard from again. Of course, if you've actually been threatened with physical harm then that might be a different matter; if that happens you should refer to Misplaced Pages:Responding to threats of harm. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

May be I should take it easy indeed. So far there were no physical harm threats.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been in a similar situation. Often a lot of it is a single user or person (and as seen below there was a sockfarm involved), though even if not, this sort of stuff tends to die down fast and get forgotten before long. I wouldn't worry about it. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What is amazing is the simple fact that the "song" does not meet the notability requirements for songs - several of the sources are about an epithet a Ukrainian envoy used, and a "chant" by a crowd, and the "song" at best is not cited as a focus of the articles. The material may well belong in an article on Ukrainian protests, but as a stand alone article - it fails. And this would be true of a Russian "song" about Ukraine as well. IMO. Collect (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't as far-fetched as that, the Washington Post source is solid, and covers the song/chant directly. But one source isn't enough, so the best outcome here is a redirect until/unless it is covered in greater detail down the road. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Both the article and the AfD have been semi'd, several SPAs blocked, the shrillest of them by a CU as a sock farm; AfD has been cleaned up some and has been getting some more input from experienced users. Should be okay now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I got a death threat on my talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc

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

I am unhappy about the conduct of this admin user:Callanecc - he has ignored my question to him on his talk page , and then when I repeated it , said he forgot about it and then just wrote a lot of jargon -its TPAC and may be ARRBWASH kind of stuff - I asked if he kept an eye on articles where he had blocked editors who were, as they saw it at least, trying to stop an article from being an advert or whitewash, in this case Mint Press News - he has not bothered to respond - in the meantime another editor set up a sockpuppet investigation , and it seems to me callanecc could look at that , as it directly concerns a page where he has got involved, but that is ignored too. obviously it is frustrating to see a very poor and pov version of the article in place - perhaps I am upset and over reacting but it seems to me callanec almost wants me to change the terrible pov version so then he can indef ban me for breaking my 3 month ban. whatever, I have found his interactions with me personally rude and offhand, and his studiously avoiding changing a poor pov version or looking at the sockpuppet investigation where I have drawn his attention to it -, very poor. really awful behaviour. haughty, negligent, spiteful, alienating.Sayerslle (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was a tad puffy -- but it does have what is likely a notable connection to the Syria story which I would hesitate to remove. Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• You were topic banned from Mint Press News here (via general sanctions available to topic that touch on the Syrian War). You emailed him, he forgot about it while pondering it (it happens, we are volunteers with real world lives), then you took it to his talk page where he informed you that you are on the border of violating your topic ban, and he linked why it wasn't an exception. If anything, you should have emailed again and just left a note on his talk page. A topic ban is just that, a ban against talking about that subject online. Even if you think the edits that someone else did were biased, you are still banned from talking about or editing the topic. Bringing it here is a violation of your topic ban as it isn't covered in WP:BANEX, which he already linked you. If you bothered to follow that link, you would understand. Personally, I recommend you stick with email if you must, but don't reply here or on his talk page about the subject, or someone is likely to block you for breaking the topic ban. I think you've already pushed the limits of the ban far enough...too far, really. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

good lord - no wonder wp is haemmorrhaging content editors. I have never emailed a wp editor in my life btw I don't know what that is about. thankyou collect for looking at the article.Sayerslle (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The same could be said about editors that edit war and make life hell for other editors. That is why we have general sanctions and topic bans. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• At the top of Callanecc's talkpage is says they have crappy connectivity until the end of June. Indeed, I've seen less of them as of late. You left a question on June 13 on their talkpage that is a violation of your topic ban, and should lead to a block. If they forgot to reply, or ignored it so as to not have to block you ... they were both wise choices. Now you're hounding them about it, even though you're not supposed to even think about Mint Press. Are you a fan of "suicide-by-admin" or something? Bringing your multiple violations of your topic ban in front of all admins? If I was logged into my admin acct, you'd already be blocked. Nevertheless, admins are NOT at your personal beck-and-call - you shouldn't even be watchlisting an article you're banned from the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I suggested on my talk page (and for some reason I didn't get an email about your reply in the top section on my talk page) you are getting very close to breaking your topic ban. Which is that you can't make any edit regarding Mint Press News anywhere on Misplaced Pages, per WP:TBAN your comments on my talk page, the SPI and here have breached the ban. Regarding the SPI, there are currently 13 other (unendorsed) requests waiting for checkuser attention so you should expect some waiting time and I didn't get to going through that list (as an SPI clerk) today. However I've had a look and endorsed it for CU attention due to the evidence presented. I'm not going to have a discussion regarding the article which you as you are topic banned from it an so aren't allowed to discuss it (hence WP:BANREVERT). Dennis could be referring to the xxx left you a message email which is what I'm using to work out what's happening on my talk page at the moment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ok , thanks for that reply. I will leave this subject now as I have been rather forcefully advised to do so. I would say that language like this 'Are you a fan of "suicide-by-admin" ' - is unhelpful though, and rather grotesque. Sayerslle (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When you're topic-banned, you should expect some "rather forceful" response if you violate it. Your best bet is to pretend that the topic doesn't exist. Stay away from any articles connected with it. Take any such articles off your watch list. Avoid all temptation. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeated IP vandalism on page YesAllWomen

An IP block needed on page YesAllWomen. IP user 209.94.203.146 is relentlessly vandalizing page.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently at final warning, no edits in about 10 minutes. Although it's pretty blatant vandalism, I don't see anything here that requires an immediate block rather than letting this just go through AIV should the IP vandalize again. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for link to AIV. Will report if I happen to be online when they vandalizes again...I mean, maybe they'll stop now, but I'm not all that optimistic because prior warnings from others didn't seem to deter them. See: User talk:209.94.203.146. Hopefully, this report will at least get more eyes on page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As the person who gave the final warning, I don't believe there should be any administrative action other than blocking the IP. This shouldn't have been brought here, it's like using a shotgun to shoot a fly. Go to WP:AIV (after they vandalize again, since after the final warning, I don't think they've edited again.) Tutelary (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused. Only action requested was a block of the IP. Sorry if I brought this to the wrong board. Thanks again Mendaliv and Tutelary for link to AIV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, asking for an "IP block" on a page sounds a lot like asking for semi-protection. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Updating. This no longer requires attn. The vandal hit page five more times from different IP address and DragonflySixtyseven protected page so only auto-confirmed users can edit....so issue has apparently been resolved via semi-protecting page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about semi protection at this point; I think it's too soon. It's only two IPs. Block 'em both for a day or two. It's a pretty hot topic that might draw in new editors... and a locked page kind of goes against the idea of being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 18:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked one week, if another IP comes back, report at WP:RFPP for semi-protection. With tag teaming IPs doing nothing but pure vandalism, I didn't see a need to wait for the blocks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)