Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive843

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel[edit]

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

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

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

  • Looking at your editing history, I can see why others might be concerned. As someone who has blocked over 300 sockpuppets/meatpuppets for User:Morning277 in just one sitting, I can see several familiar patterns. That alone isn't a guarantee you are him but I can see why they are suspicious. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations, Dennis Brown! Sure. How can I distinguish myself from those familiar patterns and do the task I set out to do, improve the article? You would probably have good advice. All I can guess is that improving other parts of the cyclopaedia would give me a little credit to fix this God-forsaken (?) mess of an article. Anything else? Okteriel (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Your editing history indicates that your account was dormant for three years and then was reactivated. You have a COI disclosure that beats around the bush. Yes, you do seem to be a sockpuppet and yes, it was justified to delete your comments. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 15:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm a user accepting being treated as a managed COI. If you're saying my account is indistinguishable from a sleeper, how should I distinguish it? Should new editors be prohibited from improving important topics? How should my disclosure read in general terms? Isn't socking judged on edit quality and not interests alone? Okteriel (talk) 16:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Your account is indistinguishable from a sleeper (your term, and accurate). No, you can only distinguish it from a sleeper by going back in time and not acting like one. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, again. I'm back now. OK, good, so I really am a WP:SLEEPER, good, because I thought it was a negative term. But, then, why can any random user or two delete my comments completely, and charge me as an agent of a company, that, it is widely known, had the means, motive, and opportunity to break undisclosed advertising law, solely because of my topic interests? Is it because I asked the company for information to complete their article with? I know some topics are more sensitive, but none are regulated beyond autoconfirmation and protection, unless, subject to, e.g., ArbCom proceedings. And, I know the Community may make judgments about all people involved in the thread, and, I only ask that they make judgments about all people involved. It's mystifying to me that Historian's behavior has not been objected to, before, not with more than templates. Okteriel (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
You had only three edits in 2011 and then reactivated the account for the purposes of COI editing. You are knowledgeable about Wikipedia rules and are obviously abusing multiple accounts. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, that's it? What abuse of multiple accounts means is, if I'm abusing this account, or another one that ties to it, or the combination thereof. Why is it so obvious, what is your evidence? The only evidence I can see is interests. Should I back off from the page for a little while maybe? I have other ideas for Wikipedia, it's just that this keeps coming up on my watchlist and notifications.
Also, I really did mean it, what should I disclose? I started to edit my disclosure, but would it help me any? Does my knowledge of another language's Wikipedia rules get me in trouble? I guess I do have a second account, in another language, I wasn't even thinking of that as a second account, but wouldn't that just be a legitimate alternate account? I don't mind being in the hotseat, but just don't make me guess what you want, and make sure all the editors are in the hotseat in turn. I came here to voice my suspicions about unannounced COI SPA behavior, and I sure don't want to project same myself. Okteriel (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

As a bit more context, Banc de Binary came up on WP:COIN a few months ago as promotional, and I did some work on it. The article has one self-identified COI editor, BDBJack (talk · contribs), and a long history of SPAs and anons making edits to remove negative information (typical example [1]). The negative information comes from the the US SEC and CFTC (Banc de Binary operating illegally in the US), Canadian securities regulators (same thing in Canada), the Better Business Bureau, Forbes, the Financial Times, the London Daily Mail... The COI editors generally remove that negative information and prefer sources from BdB itself or generated by BdB's extensive PR and affiliate operation. Banc de Binary is actually one of 200 brands connected to a company called Softoption, in Cyprus. Those brands in turn recruit affiliates by paying them for new account signups. So there are a large number of web sites devoted to making BdB/Softoption/related binary option companies look good. Because the COI push has a lot of effort behind it, we're now at full protection. We now have extensive wikilawyering in response to that. The last time full protection was released, the article was rapidly changed to something much more favorable to BdB. This is starting to look like an effort to wear down editors trying to stop promotional editing. Full protection is a good temporary measure, but a long term solution will be tougher. Anyway, that's why we're in this mess. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you were to differentiate between the behavior of COI-declared editors, lest it seem like an accusation of Sock-puppeting / Meat-puppeting. BDBJack (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@DougWeller, thanks. Reading the rest of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okteriel (talkcontribs) 19:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a very different summary of the situation. The article relies heavily on extremely low-quality sources like court documents, press releases from the SEC, and Investopedia, but efforts to focus on reliable secondary sources have largely been thwarted. We have two COIs that are both disclosed and both mostly sticking to the Talk page, but exaggerated claims of poor COI conduct have been effective as a POV railroading tactic to protect an attack page on a marginally notable organization. You have an involved admin that seems to have negative personal opinions about the company adding article-protection to preserve an article written by an SPA who engages in personal attacks against the company and its reps and who is canvassing editors with a non neutral notification.
However, given that there is emerging consensus to keep the version of the article that is filled with junk sources, I don't think there is anything anyone can do... CorporateM (Talk) 18:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
CorporateM, didn't see that consensus yet, just a protection on the "wrong" copy after 3RR and nearly 4RR by Historian. Others, note, both CorporateM and BDBJack favor shorter versions, but I understand if you discount my or their views. Black Kite has been very involved, and I don't think he's trying to protect any particular version, but again this thread is partly about the various behaviors. Uh-oh, who do I need to notify of this discussion now? Anyway, Black Kite said, focus on resolving both behaviors and content. I think if the community has input here on behaviors and at article talk on content, we will make progress. Okteriel (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I was wondering the same thing. The answer appears to be "because nobody has stopped him." Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hipocrite and Figureofnine, if you have any evidence of socking beyond what's hinted at in this thread please let me know. I'm actively investigating but not coming up with anything convincing yet. I also don't have the experience with this farm that Dennis Brown has, but I've been going by what I see here for now. If you want to email me rather than posting something here or on my talk page feel free. The same goes for anyone else who has concerns. -- Atama 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I, unlike the editors in question, am not being paid for my time, so I'll decline your gracious offer to waste time picking through account histories to prove that an account that registered in 2011 to edit basically nothing, than disappeared for three fucking years, till they showed up to fake-edit their way to autoconfirmed and then jump headlong into an article plagued by paid editors to advance the cause of said paid editors, with massively advanced understanding of the structural and cultural nuances of wikipedia is obviously a sock of a paid editor. SHIT! I just spent the time I promised not to spend! Ahh well! Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I concur at least that Okteriel isn't a newbie, though that doesn't preclude some previous editing as an IP, or that they had a previous clean account that was abandoned. I can't block someone because I have inconclusive suspicions. -- Atama 21:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a more tangible problem. BDBJack (talk · contribs) proposed some changes to the article on the talk page, and invited discussion. Various people put up "support" or "oppose" notes. When the results were not favoring BDBJack's position, he refactored the talk page so as to close the old discussion, effectively throwing out all the old votes, and started a new vote, with his vote first.[2] This is an attempt to manipulate the process and wear down other editors for whom this isn't their day job. John Nagle (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: I'm sorry if my "reorganization for clarity" is not viewed as appropriate. However with all of the concurrent separate discussion threads, even I (as someone who is active in the discussion) am having a hard time understanding the difference between positions and unrelated chatter. This was not meant as an attempt to manipulate the process, and in fact I have been doing my best to clarify the user's positions by placing them in easily read tables, segregated between "neutral" and "biased" users. BDBJack (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
As an involved editor with a declared COI, it looks really bad. Ravensfire (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Ravensfire: Noted. I will refrain from making such edits in the future. I would like to note though that the section in question is at least 2800px high (on my 1920 x 1080px screen). This action was meant (on my part) to help focus the discussion, not to make any unintended changes. If someone thinks that the edit that I made does not accomplish this, I will be more than happy to assist in reverting back to a previous state. BDBJack (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's time for you and the other COI/SPA editors to bow out of the discussion on that talk page. You've made your point. You've done your work. You can report to your bosses that you gave it the old college try. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: I will gladly "step out" for the time being, however I request that you hold other SPA/COI editors of the opposing bias to the same standards that you are holding me to. BDBJack (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I said all SPA editors regardless of inclination. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we've found something we can all agree on: the 3 SPAs all stay off the article and talk page forever. That's 1) Okteriel, who's getting off damn easy, but blocking or banning him in general doesn't make that big of a difference, because he's already been banned and blocked many times. 2) BDBJack, who is an admitted employee who has been blocked before for the same stuff he's doing now - major disruptions and putting in promotional material, and 3) Historyofrecenttimes, who is an SPA, but as far as I can tell has only made a few newbie mistakes. Yes, this is unfair to History, but I'll just encourage him to accept this because without the 2 others we'll be able to get a fair article. If BDBJack and History accept this (indicate below) we're on. If Okteriel doesn't accept it, I don't care, I'm sure the community will stop the disruption. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, in the last few minutes we have BDBJack trying again to introduce three sources, two of which are explicitly BdB press releases, and the third, while in a nominally unaffiliated publication, reads like one.[3] (This is from someone who previously insisted that the financial section of the London Daily Mail isn't a reliable source.) If there is not to be a block, could we have something comparable to 1RR, limiting the usual suspects to one edit a day? Watching an article being edited by a full-time COI editor is a full time job. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Okteriel and BDBJack are gaming the system blatantly and need to be off that article pronto. BDBJack claims that there is another SPA that is a thorn in his shoe, but only these two are creating difficulties at present. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 02:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this is enough to tell who is arguing for discipline based on behavior, and who is arguing for discipline based on content. Figureofnine's adoption of a position is also rather sudden. The content discussion block is not due to content disagreement but to behavioral challenges with setting up harmonious discussion. In most articles the various views on a segment can be easily separated and resolved (as BDBJack is attempting). In this one it took several days even to obtain agreement as to the correct name of the subject company and of its CEO due to (government-sponsored) misconceptions, and now people can't even come out and have a friendly discussion about whether we should build from a short article or trim from a long article. Aside from BDBJack's work, there's no agreement about how to even decide the question. Please help us out, thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC) The two editors I wanted input about have both been quiet now, which might mean no result arises from here, but I'd really appreciate advice as to what to do if the problem recurs. But maybe I should AGF. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary proposal[edit]

BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes are topic banned from articles related to Banc De Binary, this ban does not apply to discussion space. I have logged this ban at the editing restrictions list. -- Atama 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • Support a topic ban for BDBJack, a BDB employee, and for Okteriel, who has in effect admitted his COI and is trying to dominate the talk page. Though HistorianofRecenttimes is an SPA and a newbie, I don't see anything serious enough for a topic ban. I'll suggest he voluntarily step aside however, just to make things easier. Given the $10,000 bounty offered by the BDB owners (apparently documented by admin @Bilby:, with Okteriel stating that he has had an email conversation with the owner about it (see User:Okteriel/Five figures), something has to be done. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is hardly a valid proposal, especially when modified by the idea, that Historian has done nothing serious. Historian is the one who called the CEO of BDB a criminal, in article talk, an outright BLP violation, and whose talk and editing is full of OR (do you need links?), for nearly a year. I can understand asking me and BDBJack for a topic ban, but neither of us have been accused of behavioral issues. But, in theory, if some topics are just so sensitive that a new user who edits on one side of them is automatically topic-banned, then this is no longer a forum for free discourse in the area of those topics. I am trying hard not to be a SPA. The case warrants a usual resolution, namely stubbing. Historian is the one who has prevented stubbing all along and has continued BLPGROUP violations by edit-warring as per his talk. Smallbones is the one who has been deleting my comments prematurely (which he should not do unless I were separately community-banned, so, topic ban would mean nothing to resolve what may be a personal attack on me).
I'm not sure it would even help to answer the question, now. At first, I said it would make a difference if I stood on my honor and personal privacy, to not answer. But it would hardly make any difference to certain editors if I said either "yes" or "no" now, because, e.g., Smallbones has already denied the validity of my earlier denials. I was told to fill out a SPI on Historian and Smallbones, and the fact that only one of them is very active at a time might warrant my doing so, but that would hardly help either. I came here for advice. I can hardly believe that the Community has topic-banned new compliant editors solely because the topic area is a spur of a previous problem. Okteriel (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Look, isn't this the kind of thing ANI deals with? Did I come here to get more of the same? Is that how WP works today? Is there an uninvolved editor who is willing to deal with the BLP, or will the BLP remain because the only people, who care about BLP, anyway, end up disqualifying themselves by getting info from the subject? The article is a WP:ATTACK and should be stubbed and rebuilt by consensus. Okteriel (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I just removed a BLP violation by Nagle. This is essentially identical to the BLP violation by Historian some months back. Should I include Nagle in a SPI? It makes no sense that we should go to SPI over this. Okteriel (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I really didn't want to check but forced myself to. I know this kind of analysis suffers from imagined patterns, but here it is. Lately Historian only edits on weekends. On the 8th, between the two, we have H 11:30-11:50 (5); S 12:52; then H 15:14-15:15 (2), S 15:37-18:12 (10), H 18:47-20:22 (7), S 20:32. After that we have a lot more alternation such as would be normal for unconnected editors. But it's those two long edit runs of 10 and 7 that are very interesting because they each overlap with a long break in the other account. I told you I didn't want to do it, because I might just be imagining something. Can anyone comment? Okteriel (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Your refactoring the talk page comment by Nagle was for no valid reason, no BLP violation whatsoever, and is one of the reasons why you have to stay off the talk page and leave it to editors not paid by the company. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with ammendment - While I do not think that a blanket "ban" is either required or necessary, a block requiring us ( the mentioned SPA's as well as any others ) to use the Talk page to gain consensus and edit requests to implement those changes would (in my opinion) bring order back to the page. It will allow the process of editing to include the opinions of editors who have both experience and information on the subject to contribute without fear of their biases "taking over" the article. On a personal note, I am sorry that if my presence on the talk page for the article about the company that I helped to build has offended anyone. I have endeavored to the best of my ability to follow WP:COI policy, and any breach was not intended, but instead just a misunderstanding on my part. That being said, I would like to ask the following questions:
* smallbones (talk · contribs) is it possible that you too have COI due to your involvement in a financial investment scheme? ( See: )
* historianofrecenttimes (talk · contribs) can you please elaborate on your connection to Banc De Binary, professionally and personally
[[User: |BDBJack]] (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Re:the questioning of my motives by Okteriel and BDBJack above. Okteriel is accusing me of being a sockpuppet? Please check my user page for details on my long history of contributions to Wikipedia. Then if you want to go to SPI, be prepared for the rebound.
BDBJack mentioned something on Talk:Bernard Madoff - it's a stray footnote from somebody else of the type that shows up when you try to document something on a talk page. I can assure you that me or my family never had any investments with Madoff or related companies. I will say that when I created the Madoff article, I did have some (distant) professional knowledge of his previous non-criminal ethical challenges, the same as I have some professional knowledge of the type of operation BDB conducts. Including that material without standard RS would however be considered WP:OR here so I didn't include them in either case. I do think though that editors do not fully understand the seriousness of BDB's legal situation and what the continuing legal complaints entail (e.g. 3x return of the proceeds in the CFTC complaint). If for no other reason than the continuing legal situation, BDB representatives must be excluded from any influence on the article. As far as some other editors referring to BDB as "crooks", it is completely understandable, but not in Wikipedia's tradition. "Legally challenged individuals" might be better - and do note that when they were challenged legally, they appear to have waived their day in court by not showing up. If BDB wanted to sue for defamation in the US on this, they would be laughed out of court. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Thank you for clarifying the nature of the statment from the Talk:Bernard Madoff page. It makes more sense now in context. I cannot speak for Okteriel (talk · contribs)'s actions, in refactoring another user's comments, but as stated above, my "refactoring" was not meant to disturb the nature of the conversation, but instead to focus it. The previous thread had (in my opinion) gone out of control, with a thread that was over 2800 pixels long. Please note that I did not move / change any user's comments (with the exeception of Mike V, who I had received permission to do so from him), nor did I edit the tables of "positions". Please remember that I am NOT paid to edit Wikipedia, I am paid to do my job ( I am a programmer ). I have very little previous experience with Wikipedia policies, and I would appreciate if you were to treat this lapse as a "newbie" mistake (see: WP:DNB). In most cases, I've asked for others with less interest in the subject and more experience in Wikipedia policy (such as Huon (talk · contribs), Pinkbeast (talk · contribs), and GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) ) for guidance and direction. In any case, were all things equal here, I would have received a warning for re-factoring the talk page, and allowed to continue contributing my opinion (without making any direct changes to the article) on the talk page. (Such as in the case of HistorianOfRecentTimes (talk · contribs)). I don't expect a level playing field especially since I am both a COI editor and an SPA, however I did not willingly make any changes that were in violation of Wikipedia policy knowingly, and I would appreciate guidance and assistance in continuing to do so. Blocking me from allowing to contribute my opinion (as long as I do not violate Wiki policies) would be (in my opinion) counter productive to Wikipedia in general, since I have considerable resources available to me in providing relevant encyclopedic information. The fact that I have chosen to attempt to debunk myths and reduce the negative bias of the article is both a "rookie" mistake, and an "ego" issue. I realize that it does not excuse my behavior, however I do not believe that it makes my point(s) any less relevant. BDBJack (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Restrict SPAs to talk page in the first instance. Tis is our recommended mechanism for conflicted parties to interact with the project. There may be valid complaints or the concerns may be querulous; if they are, then we can record the fact that they have been reviewed and rejected and then we can restrict further. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban, including the talk page, for Okteriel and BDBJack. The problem with Guy's suggestion is that that these two COI editors behave tendentiously on the talk page. Okteriel just refactored another editor's comment as a supposed "BLP violation," when it simply states in plain language what regulators on two continents have said about this company. BDBJack, an employee of the company, has also refactored the talk page, as described above, just a few hours ago. It's inappropriate for paid editors/employees to so completely dominate the talk page of the article of their employer. Okteriel is an undisclosed secondary account and apparent WP:SLEEPER based on his behavior and contribution history (three edits in 2011 and the rest in the past few days). Historyofrecenttimes is an SPA but doesn't hold a candle to these two in aggressiveness, tendentiousness and WP:OWN talk page behavior. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 11:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban with sam reasoning as Figureofnine, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support temporary topic ban I for one am glad they brought this attack page to the community's attention and at least one of the three sources provided recently are useful. But overall History has engaged in some pretty awful personal attacks, edit-warring, canvassing and POV railroading. The paid editors are pouncing on every comment everywhere, voting in discussions and filling the Talk page with too much "stuff" that causes disruption because nobody can have a discussion with walls of text from them jumping at every corner. A permanent ban would prevent them from speaking up about being treated unfairly and irresponsibly on Wikipedia, but a temporary (say 3 months) would allow disinterested editors to discuss and wait for their input after things have settled. I do see that the article has attracted quite a few editors now that have strong negative views towards corporations in general and PR participation in particular and by being so aggressive they are only digging themselves a bigger hole anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 15:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

and from the introduction (2nd paragraph)

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

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

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

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

@Smallbones: I can close this, but do you mind waiting another day for more opinions? These discussions should take at least 24 hours for a conclusion anyway.
I also agree that the refactoring of Nagle's comment by Okteriel was wrong. Suggesting that an organization has violated US law is not a BLP violation (see WP:BLPGROUP) and even if it were, completely redacting another editor's comment is a pretty extreme measure. If someone else hadn't undone that redaction, I would have. We can argue about the accuracy of Nagle's statement, but it does not have to be removed. -- Atama 16:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If waiting for 24 hours is what you need, then go for it. But from Coretheapple's comment below and his link to the SPI, I don't think you need to wait. Note the same modus operandi there that Okteriel used. You can block him as a sock, you can close this topic ban, or you can enforce WP:COI (somebody needs to!). All the same to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Smallbones, and join him in urging immediate administrative action, which is overdue, to put in place appropriate blocks and permanent topic bans on all of the COI, paid editors and SPAs. Just to recapitulate: this article originally received attention on Jimbo's talk page when an uninvolved user discovered that this company was offering a five-figure payment in return for reverting to an earlier, whitewashed version of the article. At the time, people said "Gee, that's ridiculous. Obviously this is an outlier, a company that will stop at nothing to push its POV." That's precisely what it is. The talk page is the worst paid-editing fiasco that I have ever seen, both in the sheer brazenness of the paid/COI editing behavior, the sleaziness of the subject of the article, and the lengths to which the editors employed by this company have gone to get their way. This company has tried literally everything. They've unleashed sockpuppets on the page. They have an employee acting like a discussion moderator. And then they have this latest user account, who seems to be following from "the best defense is a good offense" sock playbook, who responds with wall-o-text rants and open contempt when asked simple questions like "are you paid by the company?"
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Notsosoros/Archive, which is the relevant sockpuppeting case. Seriously, guys. Look at all those socks! I counted 38, but admittedly I may have miscounted. This company and all of its representatives should be permanently blocked as meatpuppets and, at the very least, topic banned, permanently and forever and until hell freezes over. Talk page too. No, talk page especially. If they have a beef, they can write to the OTRS system. The bans should relate to all COI editors and all SPAs, including any and all anti-Banc de Binary IPs and socks. While anti-BdB socks and IPs are not the nexus of the problem, that is necessary in fairness and because we don't know if they may be bad-hand socks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: THANK YOU. No, nobody has yet brought up that sockpuppet case. The only sockmaster that anyone mentioned that I've seen was Morning277, but I couldn't find any connection. I think I'm going to take this to SPI after I do a little checking to see if the evidence is there. But I suspect that there's enough to justify CU, and given that the last CU was about 3 months ago the info should be fresh enough for a check. -- Atama 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're certainly welcome. I would be surprised that they won't pass a CU with flying colors, given the resources the company has delployed to own their article, and I believe BDBJack was explicitly exonerated by CU. I was putting it out there just to illustrate the utter unscrupulousness of this company in its Wikipedia image-management. In my opinion there is already ample evidence to take action based purely upon behavior, with the SPI factored in of course. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to block Okteriel. I believe that this editor is Notsosoros. What I find to be the most damning evidence is how Okteriel made 12 edits to articles that had nothing to do with BDB, then jumped right into it. That is exactly what the other Notsosoros socks did (either 11 or 12 edits, then right into BDB articles). I also notice some linguistic similarities between the way Okteriel speaks and the way the previous socks spoke, I don't want to get into it with too much detail but if you look at how the other socks spoke on article talk pages and user talk pages (including a fondness for "quoting" particular words, rapid-fire short sentences one after another, and so on) it feels like the same editor. The motives are the same also (whitewashing BDB).
I don't get the same feeling about BDBJack. Jack was open from the start about his affiliation with the company, and he doesn't communicate the same way, nor is his editing pattern similar.
I'm not going to bring this to SPI. The evidence is strong enough for me to block Okteriel. This discussion would then concern what restrictions BDBJack and HistorianofRecenttimes should be subject to. -- Atama 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't heard about the "$10,000 bounty" until today. That helps to explain the level of effort being devoted to this issue. As for my comment on the talk page, about BdB being crooks, while I would't be that informal in article space, it's not wrong. The US SEC and the US CFTC got injunctions against BdB operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to get out of the US rather than be prosecuted. Although BdB claimed to be located in the US, they didn't really have any staff in Chicago or New York as BdB had claimed, so the US regulators lacked a US target for criminal prosecution and had to settle for barring BdB from selling remotely into the US. Coverage in The Wall Street Journal [4], and a more colorful article in the London Daily Mail [5]. I recommend the Daily Mail article for a good overview on BdB. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I appreciate Atama's swift action, and I just wanted to address the remaining two editors. As was just pointed out to me, the declared corporate employee User:BDBJack has been "SPA tagging" User:HistorianofRecenttimes, a corporate critic who has been frequently and negatively editing that page. Apart from the propriety of the subject of the article making edits like that, we also have the WP:BATTLEFIELD issue. That's why I think that it is incumbent that all SPAs, both for and against the company, be topic-banned from the article and its talk page permanently. I think this also is a very good illustration of how paid editing can result in battlefield situations such as this. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

CorporateM is paid to edit certain articles, but he has a history of being very transparent about it. He maintains a list at his user page of articles that he has a COI at (and it's a large list). He's also a frequent contributor to WP:COIN, both in disclosing his own COI at particular articles, and in assisting other cases where an editor has a COI. He knows how an editor with a COI should behave, he has been at Wikipedia for over 5 years, with over 25,000 edits, and yet has a clean block log. Throwing around accusations like that look like an attempt to deflect criticism away from you, and it does you a disservice. -- Atama 20:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Atama, one interim step that would be useful, and I was going to raise this at RPP but I guess I should here, is to semiprotect the talk page indefinitely. I see that IPs have arisen very recently,since you blocked Okteriel, for the purpose of screaming "Criminal!" and they stink of "bad hand" "Joe job" socks. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
An admin has applied semi-protection to stop that. Thanks. That IP spamming, with different IP addresses in the same IP block, was just lame. It looked like a toddler having a temper tantrum. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't really participate at COIN that much, but I do spend a lot of time removing weak or primary sources from company articles, where editors tend to find weak sources that support their views (mostly cleaning up promotion though). I find it unlikely that the article you're referring to is sponsored, considering publications are required by law to disclose when/if content is sponsored and there is no reason to believe that this is the case here. Using primary sources editors can make a company look like a saint or a villain. Company articles tend to be a magnet for weak sources used by the company for promotion and by brand antagonists for attacks. Often the two are trying to balance each other out and it results in poor articles like this that are half-promotion and half-attack and all poor-quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 22:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
This really belongs on the article talk page, and it's been raised there twice already by BDBJack. The source CorporateM is supporting here is European CEO magazine, which has a laudatory article on BdB's CEO, starting by calling him "tall, dark, and handsome".[6] (For comparison, Google image search for pictures of CEO: [7].) It also has the claim that Banc de Binary was "headquartered at 40 Wall Street", which the SEC later discovered to be false when they went after Banc de Binary.[8]. European CEO seems to have a mix of well-written neutral articles and obviously promotional ones, not distinguished in any clear way. The current issue [9] has a promotional article for Jet Logic private jet rental on page 50, and a full page ad for them on page 65. We are not in reliable source territory here. Tag-team editing? John Nagle (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree that this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Also agree that the articles stink of sponsored content. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this [[10]] is relevant to the discussion specifically, but since it's related to me, BDB etc. I think i'll put it here. I don't know who's idea it was to post that, but neither funny, nor does it really help at the end of the day. I've "abstained" from making edits even to the talk page (despite even being baited to reply). I've tried ( previously ) to gain consensus on a page that the only other "contributing" editor is an SPA, I've turned to admins seeking assistance and guidance, and I've tried to be as civil as possible while doing so. What have I gotten in return? I've been chased off, ignored, and called a crook. Not by all. That's for sure. There have been some notable exceptions. However I have found it VERY hard to "play by the rules". Based on what I saw here: [[11]], and in the previous edit on my talk page, and on the IP Vandalism, someone has a bias against BDB. I don't know who. I don't know why. You can say that we're scams, frauds, crooks etc., but if your only evidence is a single case from the SEC and the CFTC, then we're actually cleaner than most of your local banks. That being said, I don't want to know who did it. I don't care. Whom ever it is should be ashamed of themselves. BDBJack (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh please. Those vandals have "Joe job" written all over them. First you guys deploy sockpuppets as if they were going out of style, then your employers try to corrupt Wikipedia by offering a five-figure bounty for whitewashing the article. Now this. I think you guys have wasted the time of the unpaid volunteers of this project more than enough. Time for blocks/topic bans/whatever is necessary to deal with this situation once and for all. Coretheapple (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you say you "play by the rules." That is debatable. Your behavior on the talk of the article is the worst I've seen of any declared corporate editor, tag-teaming with a sockpuppet and using every trick in the book to get your way. I just noticed this: In this edit at 21:44 8 June, NeilN correctly deactivated your request to revert back to a whitewashed version, saying "First get consensus, then make the request." 25 minutes later you reverted that deactivation, saying there was "evidence of consensus." At that time there was not even discussion of your request, much less "consensus." You call this "playing by the rules" but I call it gaming the system. Coretheapple (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Conduct of William Pina[edit]

Blocked, multiple unblocks declined, and now locked the panda ₯’ 22:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wasn't going to start this until a few more levels of template warnings had built up, but since we're here now:
I would note that my second "revert" to Blue Screen of Death was not exactly that. I originally deleted the link William Pina had added, as the page it links to is very amateurish and hasn't been updated in a long time. William Pina reverted that deletion, rather than raising the issue on the article talk page. As a compromise I then deleted only the highly unencyclopedic comment that went with the link.
William Pina's response is here. This and many of his other responses after being edited indicate that he has a clear feeling of article WP:OWNership. A message on his user page, " I don't like it when someone modifies the pages I edited", is consistent with this.
I answered but to my recollection he has never given any sign of having read any such answers to his bitter complaints about being edited.
William Pina added a re-creation of an NT4 BSOD to Commons, claiming it was his own work, and placed it on the Blue Screen of Death page. However this image was clearly a simple copy of one from the BSOD web page he'd linked to. I deleted the image from our BSOD page. I also put a copyvio notice on the file at Commons, with the URL of the original image. His response and my answer. Again he made no further comment.
I corrected a grammar error of his on Black Screen of Death. Again, his response was anger at having his work be changed.
As TheMillionRabbit states, William Pina has created a large number of redirects (and notices of redirects and DA pages), some of them bizarre. These include:
  • ErrMsg: redir to Error message. CSD R3.
  • ZSZ: original contents unknown; this was CSDd, he subsequently re-created it as a redirect to the Main page (wth?). CSD R3.
  • V Inc: redir to Vizio. This one is at least defensible as Vizio Corp. indeed originally called itself "V Inc", but they changed their name many years ago, but today it is highly unlikely that anyone looking for Vizio would type in "V Inc" (exactly like that). He also placed a note on the Vizio page warning not to confuse it with Microsoft Visio. CSD R3.
  • PPKA and EWQ: both redir to Xbox 360 technical problems. CSD R3.
  • My first time: redirected to a section of his user page. That's right, a redir in mainspace with the target being his user page. CSD R2. His response and B's answers. Oh, hm, I see he did respond to a reply to him in that one case.
In at least two of these cases he attempted to stop the deletion by removing the speedy deletion tags from the redirect pages. One of these was to My first time. He was warned about this. He did it again to the EWQ CSD.
After encountering admin B (talk · contribs), who had deleted one of his redirects (and posting the usual "how dare you" notice to B's talk page), William Pina noticed that B had no user page other than a simple redir to B's talk page. William Pina decided to add a redirect/disambiguation notice template on B's talk page. B soon deleted it. William Pina added it again in a different form. TheMillionRabbit noticed it and deleted it. This resulted in a by-now-familiar response.
He wrote a section on his user page that mentioned me, and I wanted to respond (thinking that he might have a better chance of reading a response if it was on his talk page). At first I posted my answer on his user page, but thought better of that as he said he didn't want anyone editing it. So I copied his text and then added my answer onto his talk page. Again he was furious that I had dared to answer something in which he mentioned me.
In summary, William Pina (talk · contribs) seems to me to be:
  • Completely unfamiliar with or unwilling to accept the notion that Wikipedia is edited collaboratively.
  • Unwilling to participate in discussions regarding his edits. (He complains, someone responds, but he's only replied once to any such response (here), and that one wasn't particularly showing a willingness to learn.
  • To have a very strong sense of article WP:OWNership.
  • Unfamiliar with conventions of polite discourse.
  • Unable or unwilling to learn from previous reverts, CSDs, and comments - he just keeps doing things in the same vein.
  • Unable or unwilling to write at a high school competency level of English ("in saying" for "insane", "you didn't have your permission" instead of "you didn't have my permission", etc.)
  • Perhaps eleven years old.
I think that covers the whole of my experience with this editor.
My opinion: his edits are disruptive, he doesn't seem to be here to participate collaboratively in building the encyclopedia, and even if he were, he doesn't seem to be competent to do so.
I was going to raise an RFC/U, but it says there that this should be reserved for those with at least a couple hundred edits; he has fewer than 100. I don't know what to suggest, but I do know I'm tired of seeing ridiculous edits and redirects from him in pages I watch and having to fix them up. It was a lot of time to gather this info, but perhaps it will save work in the long run. Jeh (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Three letters: C I R. Ansh666 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes. WP:NOTHERE and best for all that he doesn't stay here. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinitely blocked. I think they've been warned sufficiently. Yes, competence is required, and outrage when inappropriate actions are reverted won't fly. And look at this, just in, after the above posts, after the various warnings on William's page, and after the alert about this ANI discussion by TheMillionRabbit. At a guess, it was a sort of response to the alert (?); as you can see, there has been no other. The user may be well-meaning, but they're incompetent and huffy. At an admittedly cursory overview of their contributions, I can't find a single useful edit. Blocked indefinitely, encouraged to appeal. If they do, and are able to show some understanding of the problems with their editing, I'm all for an unblock. Thank you for the complete reports, MillionRabbit and Jeh. Bishonen | talk 08:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Unfortunately an excellent block based on well-established evidence the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment from one of the reporters: Most of his redirects were merely nonsensical (abbreviations for his personal use, maybe?), but redirecting another user's talk page to somewhere else is just malicious. I always groan when I see a new editor following the incompetent, WP:OWNership, not-WP:CIVIL, WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT path. (Not to mention malicious.) Fortunately they are (in the very small set of pages I follow) not at all common, but when they do appear the result IME has always been the same: a progression of warnings on their talk page, culminating in a couple of people spending a significant chunk of time putting together ANI reports and a block. Nobody seems to have come up with warning templates or any other phraseology that helps. Sad.png Thank you Bishonen, thank you to TheMillionRabbit for starting the ANI, and thanks for the support EatsShootsAndLeaves, Ansh666, and DeCausa. Jeh (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The user hasn't requested unblock or otherwise edited their talkpage since the block so far. I hope that doesn't mean we're about to see an, uh, new user or IP making similar edits. If you should happen to see something like that at the pages you watch, TheMillionRabbit and Jeh, the simplest thing might be to alert me on my page, since I already know the case. Bishonen | talk 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
All right, now he has edited his page. Still. Is it possible that he didn't even notice the block message? Bishonen | talk 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania[edit]

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

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

We have a situation here[edit]

Writ Keeper has indeffed the sock. MarnetteD | Talk 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

It's not CensoredScribe. It's Dragonron, a.k.a. Wiki-star, who has taken to "impersonate" CensoredScribe as he used to impersonate Zarbon. An SPI has been open for weeks but it hasn't been touched for some reason, and there is a known IP range that he is operating from that has a block expired.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the update Ryulong. Looks like he has already been blocked. I wish that the SPI had been acted on and I am sorry that your page was redirected by this troll. MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This edit has to be struck[edit]

This is the edit [12] and it violates several policies and guidelines. The content added to the article is fine but I would revert it as it translates to "Crystal Myers Japan", but it's the user "outing" and legal statement made in the edit summary that are the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • RevDel'ed, warned, reported to OS, and oversighted. Normally, it is much better to report direct to oversight WP:OS, as too many eyes are here at ANI. Dennis Brown |  | WER 18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The editor has subsequently requested that [13] be RevDel'ed as well, and the subsequent revert of that content. While we've got the big eraser out, [14] is probably a good candidate as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: I've passed the edits on to the oversight team. Please, please, please send any similar edits to the oversight team directly via this this page. It ensures that it's handled as privately as possible. Thanks! Mike VTalk 00:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I will try to remember. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question: I see he has had three more edits oversighted after he was given a clear final warning. I don't have access to oversight, and no warning was given afterwards. Can an oversighter review this for a possible block? Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd support a block. [15] and plenty of other edits by the same editor at the time has some serious but wacky (wacky enough that I'm not going to bother to request suppression but anyone else is welcome to) accusations. The editor seems to self identify as the person making the accusations via this upload File:Krystal+Meyers+Norman.jpg (incidentally the details in the accusations strongly suggest the editor isn't the copyright holder so I'll be nominating it for deletion if someone doesn't get to it first). I don't know what precisely was in the new edits but the target's suggest to me it's more of the same. Nil Einne (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Image listed at PUF Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files#June 12. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters being moved[edit]

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

  • It's perfectly possible that Bitbopdo doesn't know what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • In hidden messages on List of Coronation Street characters it says the link must match the article, and he keeps changing the link so I keep reverting it. He has now changed the name of the article to prove that what he is doing is right, but now the whole thing is wrong as the page names don't show the character's most common name. And when I revert them back to what they originally were other people keep reverting my edits as if I'm the one who's doing the disruptive editing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Side note: I have no opinion or knowledge of or on anything. What I'm saying is let the moving and the copying and pasting stop, and let this be figured out before some poor admin has to unfuck things up. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've tried to fix the various mad moves and double/triple redirects, please someone let me know if there's anything more that needs my "fixing". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Bitbopdo made a mess of things when he moved those articles, but ThisIsDanny doesn't seem to know what he's doing either. According to him, Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor are the proper names for those characters. I'm not doubting that, but any changes should be made to the original articles, and not to the redirects. Therefore, we should be dealing with moving the articles Rita Tanner (Coronation Street), Fiona 'Fiz' Stape, Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street), Leanne Tilsley (Coronation Street) and Carla Barlow to the proper titles, because that's where the edit history for those articles is. I only used the "Coronation Street" disambiguation, because I couldn't move the articles back to the original names, but ThisIsDanny only made things worse, by trying to redirect everything back to the cut and paste versions. I don't claim to know anything about those characters either, but in order to sort things out now, a history merge will need to be made for all of them. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I only cut and pasted everything and changed the redirects to get the original page back. I didn't know how to merge articles or delete the ones that Bitbopdo created. The names of the articles should be Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt, Leanne Battersby and Carla Connor. Which is what they've always been and don't need changing. I agree it's gone out of hand, I was just trying to get things back to normal. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Understood. Please now don't "copy and paste" any article from one to another. There's going to be some issues to be resolved around the licensing arrangements we have when we submit stuff to Wikipedia (even this post I'm writing now) so someone clever is going to need to find out exactly what's happened to what articles and fix it. Can you help with that, can you describe exactly what's happened? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I just had a look at all the articles/moves/redirects in question and it looks like this is sorted out from an attribution/history perspective. The only thing I would suggest is moving disambiguated names to non-disambiguated names where they are the only topic (I see at least two), but that isn't a discussion for AN/I --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
They look right to me too. User:Anthony Appleyard histmerged three of them (contribs, logs), requested by {{histmerge}}. Fortdj33 and Drmies reverted the other two. I added {{Copied}}s. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Seconding that this is still a concern. I don't know enough about the topic to revert the most recent moves; is Gail McIntyre (Coronation Street) under discussion somewhere? but have added a further note to Bitbopbo's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
User is still moving pages and refusing to discuss changes. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Bitbopbo has been indeffed for sockpuppetry - this can be closed. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Resuming an old edit war at Satanic ritual abuse[edit]

IPs involved:,

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

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

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

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

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

user here (finally made a new account after years away from editing). Came across this article the other day, and was disturbed to notice that it lacked many important facts that were included in discussions of the panic in college, where I fist learned about it. Checked the history, and saw that three or four users had been on a major purge to remove references to non-fundamentalist participants in the accusations, as well as the therapists whose "repressed memory syndrome" theories enabled them. This article compares unfavorably to the Salem Witch Trials article, which includes historical and cultural context, and explicitly notes the involvement of historically significant figures such as Increase Mather, while also explaining the use of pseudo-'scientific' evidence in the trials.
I currently lack access to a decent library, so won't be able to improve the page significantly for another few weeks. But I would eventually like to expand and clarify a number of sections in this article.
Unfortunately, I suspect the three editors who have the page on lock-down will not appreciate me playing on their turf. Eggonought (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In case you did not know, this is not the place to discuss content disputes (only conduct disputes), so if you have something new to discuss content wise (such as the "references to non-fundamentalist participants" issue above), please take it to the article talk page. Ignoring consensus is your reason for being here. HelenOnline 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ana Xsosta: uncommunicative and competence issues[edit]

User:Ana Xsosta was blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet by User:Peripitus. NorthAmerica1000 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ana Xsosta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a new user (about two weeks old) who has thus far caused nothing but issues with her editing. Examples include mutliple copyvio file uploads (see User talk:Ana Xsosta) and more recently changing of wikilinks. These change result in links to disambiguation pages, redlinks, etc, etc, where previously the linkwere valid, working ones. Examples include [16] (F5 is a dab page), [17] (Dirty Deeds is a dab page), [18] (a leglock is not the same thing as cloverleaf), and [19] (killswitch is an article on safety mechanisms, and nothing to do with pro wrestling). Multiple editors can attempted to communicate with this user, but she has zero user talk or talk page comments. Can she be blocked or something until she starts explaining herself please? NiciVampireHeart 15:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

All I am seeing is a whole lot of templated warnings - I would not blame them for simply ignoring them all as it is quite overwhelming. I have removed them. I'd like to note that when you are accusing new editors of being incompetent, it may not lead to a positive response (or any response at all in this case). I think a block is premature at this stage, but if they still fail to communicate then action may be taken. —Dark 15:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The templated warnings to which you refer were -- with the exception of an invitation to the teahouse, a disambiguation link notification and one on using reliable sources -- due to problems with files that the user uploaded. They have uploaded 17 so far, 16 of which have been deleted; the remaining one looks set to go the same way in seven days time. The attempts to discuss Ana's problematic linking have been done via written messages; I had a go myself today, but, in repeating problem edits, they have shown no sign that they've understood the objections to their edits, or even read them. --VeryCrocker (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I am hoping that after I have cleared the templated messages on the talk page that Ana would proceed to read the comments. If she does and stops making the edits, then I see no reason to take further action. However if she continues to edit rashly and fails to communicate, a block would be in order. —Dark 18:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Although the user is new, I'd say that 16 or 17 template warnings should be enough to show them that they're not doing something right. Template warnings aside, we've reached out to discuss these issues with Ana but never received any response. In case that isn't enough, Peripitus has written a warning out for them already. I just tagged a new photo of theirs for copyright violations a few minutes ago meaning that none of these warnings registered. They show no signs of cooperating, at what point do we take action so we don't have to cleanup more of this users' unconstructive edits?LM2000 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've applied a 3-days block for copyright violations. Let's hope Ana takes this time to educate herself on how Wikipedia works. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable block. I was unaware that the user had continued to edit after I cleared the talk page. —Dark 18:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree, quite reasonable. Hopefully now Ana can take the time to smell the roses.LM2000 (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I just extended the block to indefinite on the basis of at least 3 sock accounts (see the list on the user's talk page). Same accounts have been blocked on Commons (see here)- Peripitus (Talk) 12:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olympic Stadium Adem Jashari/ Trepča Stadium[edit]

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

@IJA: This is not an appropriate place for discussing such page moves. If Nado158 had moved something per WP:BOLD, you can discuss with the user about the move. Have you tried? First reach to the agreement that why user has moved the page, once you would know the reason, you should evaluate that whether his decision was correct or incorrect. If the user disagrees, you can open a page-move request. If Nado158 reverts against the consensus, then you may inform. But at least for now, there's long way to go. OccultZone (Talk) 17:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not just a one-off; there's this move too, where Nado158 disagreed with the closure of a requested move, and simply moved the page back to their preferred title. To go back to disruptive moves so soon after coming off a block for editwarring is not a good omen. bobrayner (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Bobrayner: I agree that his behavior has not been changed. In my opinion he should be given another chance. You can check here, consensus is going against his change already. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:BRD is a good rule. "Another chance" is all very well for some new editor making changes which we think are misguided, but when somebody makes disruptive changes again, the next step is to undo it, not to let them have their way in article-space have another ineffectual talkpage conversation which they have already said they will ignore. Sairp (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a pattern of disruption from Nado158 where he is going against the more common Albanian language names of football articles in Kosovo across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

A few months ago Catflap08 (talk · contribs) made an unsupported claim[20] that the subject of the Kenji Miyazawa article was a "nationalist", based on the fact that the subject was a member of a religious group some sources have characterized as being nationalistic in nature. Almost no sources actually refer to the subject as a nationalist (as I've demonstrated on the talk page, this is a WP:FRINGE theory).

Last Friday I removed[21] the claim before being quickly reverted.[22] I encouraged[23] Catflap08 to discuss on the talk page, but he outright refused, making only short, irrelevant comments.[24][25][26] Still refusing to use the talk page, he immediately took the dispute to AN and insisted that I was the one who was edit-warring. He was promptly told to go back to the talk page and discuss with me. He then, still refusing to read my comments or interact with me directly, posted[27] an RFC with somewhat biased wording. I presented more evidence[28] that his view of the subject was incorrect, and one other user weighed in[29] on my side.

Despite utterly failing to gain consensus for his view, he proceeded to re-emphasize[30] in the article that the subject was a member of a "nationalistic" group. Since the group's founder was already referred to as a nationalist in the same sentence, and since Catflap08 has already been given ample evidence that the subject was not a nationalist, this edit seems highly inappropriate. He also marked the edit as minor, even though he had every reason to believe it would be controversial. I reverted[31] earlier today, only to be re-reverted[32] with an almost incoherent edit summary.

Catflap08 has never contributed anything to the article except to add the WP:FRINGE theory that the subject was a nationalist. It's clear that he doesn't have any real interest in the subject, and only came across the name "Kenji Miyazawa" in an essay on the group in question. I'd therefore like to propose a WP:TBAN on "Kenji Miyazawa". I don't know enough about the various Nichiren sects he generally edits in (he appears to have stumbled across the Kenji article through one of these) to say whether his other edits in this area have been disruptive, but the Kenji Miyazawa article at least does not benefit from his presence. (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Please do yourself a favor and drop all the personal observations when filing a report, and just stick to the facts. What I see here is an old fashioned content dispute. You've already had a 3rd opinion filed by Catflap (which he ignored, but it isn't binding) so the next step is WP:DRN. Either way, we are not at the stage that a topic ban is due. Lastly, I would remind Catflap08 that the WP:BURDEN is on him, so according to WP:BRD and general consensus on how to be a good Wikipedian, the "nationalist" claim should be left OUT until DRN or another consensus of peers decides otherwise. Continuing to add contentious and undersourced facts when there is a dispute might be seen as disruptive, so don't do it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that interpretation of the dispute, and I appreciate your advice, but I'm always reluctant to go to DRN, especially when (as here) the problem is that one of the parties is completely unwilling to discuss the dispute. The fact is that DRN has something like a 5% success rate, and that's when all parties are actually willing to come to the table. Catflap08's talk page activity (or lack thereof) implies he is not. (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Technically, you don't have to. As I've explained to him, the WP:BURDEN is on him, not you. If he does, I would recommend you participate. As with any dispute, sticking to the facts gives you a higher success rate, keep personal opinions to the side. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. Thanks! :D (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Catflap, please understand that it's not about what "can" be said, but about what usually is said. If a significant number of reliable sources referred to Kenji the way you do, your claim would not be controversial. My life would not be any better or worse if Miyazawa Kenji was found to have been a nationalist, and I don't see why you should be any different. I have read an awful lot about Miyazawa Kenji -- it's part of my job -- and never heard him called a nationalist except on Wikipedia. You can speculate all you want as to the reason for this, but as long as this is true you can't add the claim in question to the article. (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No permanent damage, lessons learned, best to just move forward... Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User Keeps Removing Useful References Again[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have answered on my talk page and advised this user to propose links in the talk page of the article at first. His "contribs" have been deleted by other users too. Macaldo (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Gregbard[edit]

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

My last comment on his talkpage sums up my opinion the panda ₯’ 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
His recent comments do seem to be of a "tell we what specific content I've erred at so I can fix it" nature, rather than of a more useful "tell me how I am violating policy and guidelines so I can not do so in the future" kind. Statements of the latter kind would definitely be more useful and a better indicator of Greg perhaps avoiding such problems in the future, and I regret to say that not seeing them until, perhaps, after this comment is made here is troubling. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Even worse, in my mind, is his most recent comment essentially saying "Yes, I thought about the copyright policy and found it wanting". You can obviously have a different opinion on how copyright should be enforced.. but what you can't do, after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia, is refuse to follow it. James of UR (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
A minor problem, done repeatedly becomes a major problem. Being advised about copyright infringement as far back as 2006 and 8 years later there are still the same issues. His responses don't really suggest that he is contrite, only saying whatever is necessary to be unblocked. The accusation of bullying by the blocking admin is absurd. Based on the discussions at the talk page, I feel the indef block is warranted. Neuraxis (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been poking around, as it is an established editor with 90k edits and no prior block for copyright, but after looking at the whole picture, I have to endorse the block. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Source Source text Article text In 1697, he was part of a group of inhabitants who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation (north Redding). In 1697, he was part of a group of settlers who petitioned the court to purchase land north of Norwalk to create a plantation in Redding

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

(As more than a trivial aside, the article claims Jachin Gregory was a deputy to the General Assembly, but the cited reference is about James Olmsted. It appears that Gregory was a deputy to the Court, not the General Assembly.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC) is a good source for locations of graves and pictures of tombstones. Even forgetting copyright issues, it is not a valid source for text, because it's based on user input and could come from anywhere (even from Wikipedia, for example). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point, BB. I was focusing on the close paraphrasing, without even considering that the source is not valid for its use.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Greg claims here that it is which have copied Wikipedia, not vice versa. Would this be a valid defence? --John (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • The Findagrave page was created in 2008, and the Wikipedia page was created in 2014Mogism (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Good enough. Endorse the block. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see anyplace in John's diff where Gregbard claims that Findagrave copied from Wikipedia. It just says "the original text is quite ancient", i.e. that Findagrave copied from some even older source. My guess is that it's adapted from a geneaology book or site. Of course someone could always ask Gregbard if they think it matters. (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Accidental editing[edit]

Told user to try to remember to not use account, but we can't do this sort of SUL merge, resolved. NativeForeigner Talk 18:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

If you'd like I can block it, if it would simplify matters for you. There is no real way to 'remove' accounts though. NativeForeigner Talk 07:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't be possible to link the accounts, so I don't have to log in and log out when I switch? Also what does blocking entail, exactly? Would there be a big "this user is blocked" thing on the userpage? THanks JPNEX (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
You might wish to check at WP:BN, but I think due to WP:SUL issues that's not possible, unfortunately. I would block you, but you could simply make a blank userpage, and it wouldn't appear. I would make the block reason something explanatory. I certainly dont' need to block it though. NativeForeigner Talk 05:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! So it'd be enough if I were more careful not to edit under that account in the future?JPNEX (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be fine. If you know you should avoid editing with it that should be enough, per common sense. NativeForeigner Talk 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, then I know! I'll be careful. Thank you. JPNEX (talk) 10:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: at it again under different IP addresses ([edit]

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

Blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as a sock of (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Fut.Perf. 10:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I was tempted to semi-protect the article as a result of this, but it gets barely any attention from anonymous vandals so it seems like overkill. Not that it hasn't gotten any (and it wasn't just the "Envoy of the King of Spain" causing problems either) but the volume has been pretty light so it doesn't seem worth it. The Filipino peoples article is still on my watchlist in any case. -- Atama 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

...and this is blockable? the panda ₯’ 00:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Editing against consensus is disruptive and disruption is blockable.--v/r - TP 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one. Im not going against the consensus, and there is no consensus either that the old image is the one to be used for the article. The only consensus was for the item to be kept no more, no less. So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced? Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened? The item was closed without giving the slightest chance to hear the other side again. Plus about the spam link, that was an oversight and not intentional so dont make a big deal about it. Plus I think that a talk is not disruptive right? I presented an evidence but it seems that he does not simply like it.
So like what I did for the LG G3, I opened another talk page for the LG G2 to ask for a true consensus on what image is better to be used for the article and not merely use a "consensus" for keeping or deleting the image passed of as consensus to be the one used in the article. GadgetsGuy (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If that's your argument, then I support a block. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an acceptable reason to not follow WP:DR processes, and you simply blindly reverted to prove your personal WP:POINT. Now you have the guts to defend it. Does your explanation not look dumb now that you put it it writing? I would have thought a light would have turned on over your head once you typed that the panda ₯’ 09:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't it that doing a talk page is the right thing to do? I merely voiced out what I think also and I think that does not do a merit to block like what you say. Prove to me that asking a consensus for what image is to be used is blockable then. Also with such foul mouthing of another user, who do you think deserves to be blocked now? Im sorry but im doing such in a diplomatic manner so I guess you could also do it in the same light? Plus I did not say I did not like it and he was the one who did not like the initial source that I gave to him in which I clearly stated in our talks before it fell down so WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not apply to me as i did not state such but I just stated that if there is better image, why not allow it and to solve that problem or disputes, I chose to open a talk page heading so that it will be justified by a consensus which is also the way that WP:DR states to solve it correctly. Lastly, I just reverted the image once after he single handedly decided on such matter and I to adhere to the policies, I even stopped reverting and created a heading in the talk page to ask for a consensus, so again WP:POINT is not applicable to me. Respect a user please? Being a administrator does not merit you to foulmouth another user Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct so please tone down your arguments. GadgetsGuy (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
"My argument is simply that my image is better than that the old one."
  • Then try to convince others that it's better. Don't replace it because you think it's better.
"So therefore if there is a better image for the article, then isnt it not allowed for it to be replaced?"
  • Not if it's only better in your opinion. You don't have a super-opinion that trumps others' opinions.
"Plus is it right for one user not to notify the other party that a new discussion for deletion was opened?"
  • It's considered polite to inform potentially-interested people in a neutral manner (in other words, not canvassing) but not required. The assumption on Wikipedia is that if you care about a page and want to keep track of it you'll add it to a whitelist and you'll be notified when the deletion template is added to it.
I'm not advocating a block here. There's a discussion here, why can't people just come to a consensus there and then settle it? It seems that if GadgetsGuy was once arguing that there was a licensing problem but isn't any longer, and is now only arguing that it's a more appropriate image. There's no current edit war, so I don't see what is actionable at this point. -- Atama 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the deletion discussion he mentioned here was on Commons, not here. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Then in that case his complaint about notification is not relevant. If someone is upset that they weren't informed of a deletion discussion on Commons, take it up with admins over there. This board only covers misbehavior on Wikipedia. -- Atama 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related[edit]

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

I have added a nobots template to the page. Let's see if that works. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That did not work, so I have deleted this as a useless redirect. Let me know if this causes any unexpected problems. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
The bot recreates the page. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying protection; the bot is not an admin. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If the bot refuses to obey {{nobots}} then we have a bigger issue on hand because we have a non-compliant bot. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Juddieeee[edit]

Yesterday, this IP constantly added "satirical" content to the Britain First article, and reacted by vandalising my user space for not tolerating it. The smoking gun is that this user credited a lame joke to an "Ed Judd", before instantly removing that source. By constantly reverting this editing, the page was fully protected for "edit warring" rather than indefinitley semi-protected for IP vandalism. Today, a user by a name similar to that vandal was inserting the same WP:OR non WP:NPOV WP:SOAPBOX whinging, which to me adds up that this user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

After the message on your user page, the disruption from Juddieeee appears to have stopped. New accounts (Kappser, Kreepsa and Fubritainfirst) have vandalised the article by changing the external links, and there has been vandalism from other IPs, but there's insufficient evidence to say any of these are the same user as Juddieeee - more likely there's a reason for this being targeted for vandalism by several users. There's a request at Requests for page protection but no admins are active there.