Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive844

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Banc de Binary, Round 2[edit]

BDB accounts are site banned. Number 57 11:38, 21 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.

Sometimes, they come back.

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

Currently, Banc de Binary is fully protected, and Talk:Banc de Binary is semi-protected. So BDBIsrael began their editing career by asking an admin to let them edit semi-protected pages. This was granted.[1] BDBIsrael then proceeded to set themselves up as the moderator of the BDB talk page, with this: Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Ground_rules. They ask all other editors to agree to conform to their rules. I made a comment on that.

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

For a sense of the stakes here, and why BdB is pushing so hard, see this new litigation release from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission: [2]. BdB is in big legal trouble. The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US, and BdB agreed to stop. Their US legal problems appeared to be over. The CFTC now says they didn't stop, and is going after them in court for big financial penalties, including triple damages on almost everything they did in the US, and is even going after their CEO personally. BdB's editors would prefer that information not appear in Wikipedia.

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

Well, I'm giving it a try and blowing 4 inches of dust off my moderator hat. If it gets sabotaged by misconduct of one kind or another or becomes moot because one side has to be blocked, that won't be the first time I've had that happen. Granted, the mediation I'm proposing is voluntary, but I'm hoping that as a neutral party I can help keep the disruption minimized so that we can unprotect the article. I've already started the process on the article talk page. -- Atama 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Factual Error: I (BDBJack (talk · contribs) am not in fact blocked, but rather am abstaining from the discussion until I have:
  1. A full and better understanding of the policies under which I am allowed to contribute
  2. Information from reputable sources which I can contribute to the discussion on Banc De Binary
  3. Time to contribute in an accurate and neutral capacity.

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

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

(Edit conflict.) Thank you, Atama. The reason I requested ground rules was exactly because of what Nagle has just done. I was assured by OTRS that "[A]ll of our editors involved ... should comment on the content and not the contributors. If such inappropriate behavior continues, I would encourage Jack to contact an uninvolved administrator, who can provide a final warning or a temporary block, depending on the severity .... I will try my best to keep any eye on such name calling and will seek the assistance of an uninvolved administrator if it becomes necessary .... You are welcome to participate in the discussion on the article talk page to help address any concerns that you feel are in violation of policy .... I will do my best to encourage a civil discussion and will continue to remind everyone of our civility policies."
It is against Wikipedia policy to say, "The CFTC told them in 2013 they were operating illegally in the US", as that is not what the CFTC said, nor could it be. Judgments that someone is operating illegally (such as a corporate board member or another editor) take place in a court of law, not the executive branch of the U.S. If Nagle's view of the biography protection and no personal attacks policies is reflected by his comment above, as I said at the article talkpage, I trust other editors will take notice while weighing his views on content matters.
It is Wikipedia's rules I ask conformity with, and that is all BDB has asked for for many months, since we began our social networking compliance initiative. I yield to Atama for setting ground rules of mediation. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
OK. First, thanks to TParis for closing off BDBIsrael's attempt to impose their own set of rules. Second, it appears the BDBJack is not blocked, so we now have two paid COI SPAs representing BdB. This is an unusual situation. We can deal with this, but it's going to be time-consuming. As for the interpretation above that the CFTC might somehow let BdB operate in the US, see page 30, section E, of the CFTC's court filing[3], which, informally, can be expressed as "No way." John Nagle (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
While User:TParis has convinced me to withdraw my statement that Nagle's statement about illegal activity was against policy, Nagle's insistence on characterizing the situation with original research such as "no way" is part of a pattern of rumor against BDB that should be obvious from the record. Wikipedia's susceptibility to rumor is one of its weaknesses and we trust that in this discussion it will not remain susceptible. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The CFTC is asking for you to be banned from transacting in any kind of commodity option and/or future. This is far from a rumor, it is there in black and white. - MrOllie (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, MrOllie, Yes, I understand that they asked something close to that, in the United States only. We continue our regulated operations in 28 other countries. Thank you for stating it more moderately. What we have been dealing with is the immoderate statements that have been made for a very long time now. But I think Nagle's original question has been answered. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) This is not a "rumor". The SEC and the CFTC, which are U.S. Government regulatory agencies, told Banc de Binary to stop operating in the US.[4] That was a regulatory decision, not a request. The CFTC now alleges in court that BdB didn't stop, and is in court to enforce its decision.[5]. These are facts verifiable from multiple reliable sources. Spinning it as "rumor" is not even worth trying. The last time BdB tried that, in 2013, they issued a press release which contained blatantly false statements (including claiming to be a US company headquartered in New York) which they later retracted.[6] On a procedural front, BDB editors are complaining about me on the talk pages of an admin[7], my own talk pageUser_talk:Nagle#Banc_de_Binary, the article talk page, here, and activity on ORTS alluded to by BDBIsrael atTalk:Banc_De_Binary#Informal_Mediation. Could we centralize this, please? John Nagle (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to take the weekend off. Please restrain the BDB team from doing too much damage before Monday. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Frankly, they can get lost. They work for a firm that has been robustly criticised by regulators, and they seek to obscure that with special pleading. Our answer to that should be (and , it seems, has been): "No." Guy (Help!) 00:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. There were two BDB editors when last I looked in on the page a week ago. One was blocked as a sock and yet, voila! one promptly takes his place. Something fishy there. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 02:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

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

I don't think the second choice is really viable given role accounts of this nature are prohibited. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Then it should not be a role account. But clearly, the more desirable alternative is to remove the company from all talk pages. Apart from the links that I provided above, the new BDBIsrael account hastargeted a good-faith editor with specious arguments. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK. the "new" account BDBIsrael has just placed two three walls-o-text on the talk page stating in excruciating detail (over 14K 16K characters) every single period and comma it wants changed in the article, in two three successive talk page posts.[8][9][10] Fine. Noted. The volunteer, unpaid, unconflicted editors can now consider these suggestions in conformity with each editor's time schedule and list of Wikipedia priorities, without further disruption, wikipoliticking and interference from Banc de Binary. The endless argumentation and wall-o-text needs to stop. Time to ban the company from Wikipedia. Enough is enough. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 16:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support any of a block, a topic ban, or a site ban, because these editors are not here to build an NPOV encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree the sheer intensity of the COI editing is disruptive as such, independently of the possible justification of any one edit they make. I, for one, am willing to block the lot here, and will do so soonish unless I hear some very good reason to the contrary. Fut.Perf. 16:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic or site ban because it's frustrating to have to deal with this day after day when we could be improving the encyclopedia. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 17:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I am seeking to comply with Wikipedia policy. Please review the information below, as we would be interested in knowing the correct route to address our concerns that complies with policy.
Regards, Wikipedians. BDBJack requested 67 days ago that the correct legal identity of Banc De Binary, Ltd., be reflected in the lede of the article, which has still not been accomplished. Upon consultation with OTRS and with the informal mediator, and after shorter paths to resolving our concerns were rejected, I have posted a full list of edit requests as concisely as possible in one section (in addition to grammar and style corrections). Posting them in small batches over the past two months has not worked. I have asked for administrative review as to whether my post, in accord with OTRS and the informal mediator, was disruptive or noncompliant. If the editors on this thread can provide a better method for correcting our company name and what we regard as definite or possible policy violations, including biography violations, we are interested in hearing such a method. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
As indicated above, if it is on the list that you provided, it will be addressed when the unpaid, unconflicted volunteers get around to it, based on our judgment and based upon the time available to us. It will be addressed without interference and harassment from BDB-affiliated accounts. You and other accounts associated with BDB have wantonly wasted our time, have socked, and I believe that you are one of those socks because you are a new account that does not behave like one. I also believe that the socking and disruption is not about to end, and that a site ban is amply warranted. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 17:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Figureofnine. You raise an important point in relation to trust-building. I will answer it on my user talkpage. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but a carefully crafted and extremely vague statement about past violation of Wikipedia policies is insufficient, especially when it comes from an obvious sock. If you truly are done with disruption, then you are done with Wikipedia, since Team BDB has demonstrated that your only interest is in skewing the article about you and making false/misleading statements of fact about your company and Wikipedia editors. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support some kind of block/ban. The disruption has gotten out of hand. Atama tried to mediate, and made a list of five issues to be discussed. Those were dealt with. Then the BDB team added a list of 12 issues they were concerned about. Those were dealt with, with a long discussion of whether BdB's activites in the US were illegal, with the consensus that they were. That conclusion was even accepted by BDBjack (who asked for favorable spin, writing "Would it be possible to change mentions of "illegal operation" to "illegal operation under the current regulation of the SEC and CFTC"?") For a moment, it looked like we were done. Then the BDB team added a list of 56 issues they were concerned about, claiming that even where the item was factually correct and sourced, items "harmful" to BdB should be removed. That was, properly, treated as tendentious editing. From the comments above, just about everyone involved is fed up with the BdB team. (All the problems are from the BdB team, which includes their socks and paid editors. BdB has no significant support from experienced editors. This article isn't controversial on Wikipedia.) Given the BDB team's track record of admitted paid editing, sockpuppets, and forum-shopping, it may be difficult to shut them down completely, but it's time to try. I suggest banning/blocking all BdB affiliated accounts, interpreted broadly, for 30 days. (Maybe 90 days?) That's appropriate for disruption. This should include any new accounts which somehow just happen to be drawn to BdB issues. A short-term broad ban is more helpful than editor-specific long term bans and blocks, because of the extensive sock history. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Nagle. You raise several concerns, some of which have been previously addressed, and I am uncertain how to proceed to clarify the record as one of the concerns is that our attempts to make basic corrections relates to creation of "walls of text". Would you be willing to discuss these on my user talkpage? I have already appealed the essence of your concerns to administrative and internal review, as it is not our intent to be perceived as behaviorally noncompliant when we have already entered into mediation for the purpose of removing content noncompliance. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the place for administrative review. Please stop forum-shopping. John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I respect the pent-up Wikipedian concerns about Banc De Binary that have been revealed by this thread. In my position I have made myself something of a lightning rod for these long-standing concerns and I believe they can be addressed at the same time as our concerns about content violations can be addressed. It does not seem that block or ban would be helpful to Wikipedia to resolve either the editors' concerns or our own, either technically or practically, in the current situation where mediation is ongoing. I can respond in more detail but would like to know I have the right to respond as freely as anyone else. In response to your last, if you believe I was mistaken to ask for immediate administrative review, we can certainly see what is resolved on this page. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Block or ban would not be helpful? You're wasting time we could be improving the encyclopedia to turn your page into an advertisement. A block or ban would free up the unpaid volunteers with lives. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 19:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
It's in their interests too, but they can't be made to see that and they are just a hopeless waste of time See "Negotiation Break" section below: "Banc De Binary is prepared to continue its record of compliance with Wikipedia policy." Compliance???Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Figureofnine, you're starting to come off as an editor hostile toward COI editors. Your behavior is not going to fix the problem, it's going to drive it underground. BDB is participating in good faith and this is an opportunity for us to show that declaring a COI works. You're not helping.--v/r - TP 20:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
BDB is participating in good faith? When did that begin? Are you familiar with the background of this situation, especially the socking? For you to say that my attitude or any editor's "attitude" is going to affect these editors one way or the other or "drive it underground" is so divorced from reality as to be bizarre. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This company has employed both declared (non-underground) and undeclared (sock) accounts for a lengthy period of time, a period of many months according to the block history. It has shifted its tactics periodically, but has not wavered from its aim to whitewash the article, and the consensus of all editors commenting upon this except you is that this behavior is tendentious in the extreme and not in good faith. Most recently the BDB editor has argued strenuously to make the falacious point that no allegation of illegality was made against it by U.S. regulators. Pushing that point further, it maintained on your talk page that User:Nagle was worthy of a "warning" because he correctly stated that[11]. I don't think you appear to understand the gravity of what has been going on. What I do know is that your support of the BDB editors is very much a minority viewpoint. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you aware that topic bans require editors "uninvolved" in the dispute to voice their opinion?--v/r - TP 21:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
There are some uninvolved users. I don't believe I was involved for long, although I could be wrong. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Origamite. I apologize for anything that may have caused your frustration. The discussion list posted to mediation is an attempt to improve the encyclopedia and was posted at the advice of an administrator OTRS volunteer and of the administrator informal mediator. I trust that the present thread will not contravene these administrators' attempts to help us improve the encyclopedia, such as getting our legal identity correct after now 68 days of patient requests. You may contribute on that article talkpage thread as well, and you may express any concerns about Banc De Binary at my user talkpage. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I had to look that one up. You mean WP:CBAN? Yes, and they are. But users both involved and uninvolved can comment. My involvement is limited to the talk page, as I have never edited this article. So I am "involved," if you can call it that, about as much as you are. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Back on topic. We were discussing blocks and bans. Specific proposal: 30-day blocks on BDBJack (talk · contribs) and BDBIsrael (talk · contribs) for disruption. 30-day ban on any sock, affiliate, or anyone acting in concert with BdB from editing Banc de Binary or Talk:Banc de Binary. Based on previous behavior patterns, any new accounts with strong interests in these articles to be viewed with suspicion for the next 30 days. Revisit the issue after 30 days if necessary. John Nagle (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussing what the policy says in reference to this proposal is on topic. Perhaps we should also discuss a proposal about your behavior while you are here.--v/r - TP 18:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Complete site ban. Nothing that these "editors" have done has been useful to improve the encyclopedic nature of the subject. Apologizing in one sentence only to immediately turn around in the next sentence and completely negate the apology is time wasting and pointless. I am reminded of other subject areas where a small and very vocal externally organized collection of "editors" refused to accept the consensus at large of the community. It took many steps including 400k bytes in a RFC/U, explicit demonstrations of external puppet army mobilization, and a community being fed up with the subject area to require the enactment of Community Sanctions. While I don't think the disruption is outside the BDB article, I agree that my patience has been used up and I am tired of reading about it every single time the representatives of the subject come up with a new way to justify letting them have free reign over the article. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Hasteur. We have no intent to negate ourselves and I am uncertain to what you refer; and we have no intent to have free rein over the article, only to have a mediated discussion such as afforded any other article subject, even those who also seek to resolve the record on prior noncompliance. I keep referring to the issue of our legal identity because it is a simple verifiability issue and it is unclear why it should have been stalled so long; and our other concerns are similarly grounded in policy compliance. If you have specific concerns, please take them to my user talkpage so that we can answer them. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that a complete ban is a bit premature at this point. BDBIsrael has offered to partake in mediation and has already begun to address the concerns that initiated this proposal, such as the length and frequency of their comments. BDBJack as also agreed to step away from the situation for the time being and focus on separate articles (which effectively meets your second proposal of limiting BDB to one account). Mike VTalk 02:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Mediation—are you aware of the background to this case? There can be no "mediation" with people who are highly paid to promote a certain point of view—all that can happen is that SPAs learn how to operate free from sanctions while driving away editors who might oppose their view. Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support complete site ban. This firm has sponsored three dozen socks. Isn't that enough? What more do they have to do? Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support complete site ban. The community doesn't have time to keep dealing with this mess. Nothing to be gained by allowing BdB to continue editing. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Johnuniq, Coretheapple, G S Palmer. Your comments are acknowledged and prior answers herein should suffice. I trust that the depth, quality, and integrity of all comments herein will be reviewed and that requested guidance about our content compliance concerns will be provided. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You're not doing yourself any favors by replying to every single comment here, BDBIsrael. Others have suggested that you stop, and I agree with them: cut it out. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Negotiation break[edit]

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

Sincd the BDB team is very concerned that their legal identity be expressed correctly, I have found a reliable source for it. See Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Banc_De_Binary.27s_corporate_structure.. Because BdB's web site did not detail their various corporations in Cyprus, Israel, and the Seychelles, previous editors may not have gotten the corporate structure quite right. However, through the investigative efforts of the CFTC and the SEC, supported by summonses from the Federal District Court for Nevada, their corporate structure and ownership has been discovered, put on the record, and reported in an order from a Federal judge. This should permanently dispose of that issue. John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Editors reviewing this matter might wish to examine the court order at p. 4: "Further complicating matters, Banc de Binary and Mr. Laurent [the CEO] refuse to appear for depositions anywhere in the United States. . . In addition to the expense involved with traveling to the United States, Mr. Laurent is concerned that Judge Jones’ August 7, 2013 order noted that Defendants may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute." This clearly indicates the stakes involved in this article, and in this particular legal dispute, for the company and its CEO. It also indicates why the company is so sensitive to people referring to its principals adversely. According to the court order, they are or were in potentially serious legal jeopardy, such that its CEO declined to travel to the U.S. for a deposition for fear of criminal prosecution. Thus, addressing TParis above, this is not an ordinary "COI situation" by any stretch of the imagination. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 22:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Noting the above, one last comment. Here's why this really matters. Read this story of a retired couple who lost their life savings in a few days with Banc de Binary.[12] (Yes, that's not a reliable source, so we can't use it in article space. It's not an isolated incident. A search for "bank de binary scam" will turn up many similar stories.) Wikipedia is a top search result for Banc de Binary. Right now, if someone searches for Banc de Binary, they'll see information on Wikipedia that may make them, rightfully, cautious about sending them money. That's a good thing. That's why we're here - to provide neutral, verifiable information, not PR. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What's a "content policy" that BDBIsrael wants us to follow? It's clearly not ours. Why are we engaging in this? We wouldn't allow any other individual to dictate articles, let them go out and provide sources rather than repeating saying "it's wrong and you have to fix it." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
And I find it amusing that a company that's trying to avoid any hint of US jurisdiction to keep from being deposed is putting so much time and effort to influence a company cleared based in the US. I just hope someone isn't opening the door to a personal jurisdictional argument about their minimal contacts with this country. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
In response to Nagle (talk · contribs)'s comment: "Right now, if someone searches for Banc de Binary, they'll see information on Wikipedia that may make them, rightfully, cautious about sending them money.": Is that what Wikipedia is about? I was under the impression that it is meant to be an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view. The fact that a company (ANY company) has regulatory issues with a particular regulator does not mean that this is the ONLY information worthy of an encyclopedic entry on it. It may be significant, however it should not (in my opinion) be the sole purpose of the article, and "seeing information that makes them cautious" makes it sound like you're making a press / opinion / activism piece instead of an encyclopedic information piece. BDBJack (talk) 12:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Ricky81682. I refer to neutral point of view, verifiability, reliable sources, no original research, biography protection. Not to sound repetitive, but BDBJack asked 68 days ago that our legal identity be corrected, using an unimpeached primary source, and this basic request for compliance with content policy has not yet been addressed as we have waited patiently and politely. I notice that User:JzG has posted a useful help link for corporate issues such as this, and I trust it will not be forum-shopping to contact him about the offer implied by this link, in order to accomplish this policy compliance. Also, we are not trying to influence the Wikimedia Foundation, but I will pass on your concern to our legal department. BDBIsrael (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If you will permit, I don't believe it appropriate for me to ignore the plight described at Forex Peace Army and linked by Nagle. Binary options are not for everyone. Assuming the anecdote is completely true and not padded, we regret the frustration described. The company counsels generally in its terms and conditions and specifically through its agents that trading should be limited to disposable funds, and trading and acceptance of bonuses should not be conducted in ignorance. However, Banc De Binary's customer service has recognized that extraordinary exceptions occur and has in fact waived its terms and performed refunds in similar cases. I am not in this department, but if it would help matters on Wikipedia, I can commit to send the link to customer service for research and potential outreach; but I understand Wikipedia's purpose is not about getting involved in people's investment decisions. BDBIsrael (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Back on topic. This is AN/I. We were discussing blocks and bans. See previous section. This endless argument by BDB is a diversion from that. John Nagle (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'd like to hear the answer to BDBJack's question. Are you intending this article to be an activism piece?--v/r - TP 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If a company is generally a front for high pressure sales tactics that cause consumers to lose money, people reading our article should leave thinking that a company is a front for high pressure sales tactics that cause consumers to lose money. This isn't activism, it's information transfer. I do not know anything about this company, but I believe it's quite clear that that is one possibility here. Hipocrite (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Hipocrite. I am generally in agreement. I am unaware of edits that relate to or suggest high pressure sales in this article; I am aware of one or two edit suggestions relating to losing money, where validity of the sources is in discussion. If reliable, independent secondary sources were adduced that give such a clear judgment as your scenario identifies, and were consistent with biography policy and properly balanced, I would not resist including them. Yet TParis and BDBJack have a valid question, as the idea that it's good for Wikipedia to make people cautious about a company sounds like reverse activism; as you say, Wikipedia should instead advise people of reliably sourced third-party cautions, in balance with other views. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Effective Proposal[edit]

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

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

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

  • Sounds like something to consider after the editors are blocked as proposed above this one, after unblocking, if there is unblocking. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
    • So we can punish them? Because the only reason to consider blocking first before a lesser sanction is because we want to punish. This goes completely against what I think is a WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME.--v/r - TP 19:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I am distressed at your refusal to recognize the depth of disruption caused by this company, which warrants a block by any objective measure. Our first obligation is to the volunteers, not to the companies that want to shape articles as they see fit. To be frank, you seem angry - but not angry at BDB, but at the editors who have been trying to prevent it from rolling over Wikipedia. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • No, you want to wield someone else's block button. Your trigger happy finger has earned your future RfA attempt a place on my watchlist.--v/r - TP 20:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • What distresses me even further is that you disregard that they in fact have been blocked, multiple times, the last time just a few days ago, for socking. Their latest sock was extremely disruptive, and in fact I see that his unblock was refused on the grounds that he warranted blocking even if he wasn't a sock. You call what they did "mistakes." Mistakes?????Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced "not driving COI editing underground" is really a pressing concern in the present instance. COI editors on this topic, be they declared or undeclared, will always be easy enough to spot, and now that we know that tactics that the company has resorted to in the past, all future accounts displaying the same pattern will easily and quickly be detected and can be disposed of. I'm also not convinced there will be any legitimate need for the company to make its edit wishes be known. It has had more than enough time and opportunity to do so; it's time for them to leave the community alone. Fut.Perf. 19:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)c
    • I agree that the "drive underground" argument makes no sense. TParis has used this same phrase before, and I pointed out to him that this company has used both declared and undeclared editors for a significant period of time. This proposal is constructive, unlike the sniping I have seen come from this same editor directed solely at editors who have tried to counter BDB tactics, but I feel that it is simply not necessary and shows undue solicitude for BDB. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • You might want to choose another word rather than solicitude. I consider that a personal attack. @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Yes, it appears that the company has made mistakes. But right now it seems they are trying to cooperate. Even if they are a thorn at the moment, and in this specific case, the overall COI issue is my concern. How we treat BDB right now is going to reflect on our overall treatment of COI editors. Jimmy recently changed his tune against all COI edits toward being against only undisclosed COI editors or COI editors on article space. We had a big change in our treatment of COI editors earlier this year and we need to be careful not to fall back into old habits. This is for our benefit, by encouraging COI editors to be open, than for anyone else.--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • No, it's a comment on the proposal. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the history of disruption by the company, just kind of shrugs it off, treats it like "no big deal." As for Wales' view of COI editing, I'll go to his page and ask him. Maybe you're right, but maybe you're not right. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I care little about any signal we are sending out to other COI parties through the way we deal with this one. Other COI parties will still do well to adhere to our rules from the start. This one didn't; they utterly screwed up by what they did at first, and if the community has now lost patience with them, that's the price for them to pay. True, they may be trying now to "cooperate" – but we have no need of that cooperation at this point. We don't need their help in writing this article, so we lose nothing by telling them to get lost at last. Fut.Perf. 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
          • "I care little" clearly.--v/r - TP 20:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, TParis. I'm not certain how your proposal recognizes the ongoing informal mediation, nor how it resolves the fact that I hope you will pardon me for restating, that we requested our legal identity be corrected 68 days ago, that editors are in agreement that the article is in error, and that it has still not been corrected. I have been asked by the mediator to list all concerns, I have done so and am done listing immediate concerns, and it was my understanding that quiet informal mediation was properly recommended and implemented; and your proposal seems to hamper the mediation process. It is possible that if mediation were moved to a separate page, your proposal could pass, if there is not a character restriction that requires us to summarize complex edits briefly, or if it is understood that we could link long discussions from the proposed mediation page. Further, edit requests for the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material are hampered by the requirement of a secondary source.
Although your proposal appears a significant and rather arbitrary burden, it might be improved by stating that mediation is moved to a new page, by removing the arbitrary character or by permitting linking to alternate pages, by requiring secondary sources only when the edit refers to an existing secondary source, and by extending it to accounts that are essentially single-purpose, as it should apply to them as well as to us. However, if our rights to informal mediation are recognized, it seems that the proposal is not necessary because there is no content difference between mediation on the talk page and on another page. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards again, Future Perfect at Sunrise. It would seem unusual for us to be banned, now that we have admitted past noncompliances and are in present amicable mediation, when we were not banned at the time the noncompliances were ongoing. I have understood Wikipedia to be in favor of fresh starts and negotiation rather than retributive punishment not related to current behavior. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point, BDBIsreal, no one cares about your request 68 days ago. Your editing has become tendentious and right now my proposal is the only thing that is going to keep you editing on this project. Your response doesn't help in the slightest and is only going to embolden the proposal to have you entirely blocked from this website. What your company needs & wants, and the goals of this project are entirely separate. This isn't your company's article, it is an article about your company. No different than if it were in print or news media. At some point you're going to have to accept that it isn't for you to dictate to us and learn to cooperate instead.--v/r - TP 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Figureofnine above. After a full block for a month or so, then we can consider this. Bear in mind that, until a week ago, the BdB team was still running multiple sockpuppets. (Ref: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel.) When that was forcibly stopped, they tried buying paid edits on eLance for $10,000.[14] When that backfired, they created a new account, and tried wikilawyering and endless rehashing of the same arguments. Only when all else had failed did they try acting "legitimate". That phase has only been in progress for less than 48 hours. As for the "fresh start" claim, see Wikipedia:Clean start, esp. "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes..." That clearly does not apply to BDBJack (talk · contribs) or BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). We routinely block editors for a month or so for disruption. That's appropriate here. This is a gentle sanction for the documented bad behavior. Per WP:SOCK, all BDB accounts could be blocked by any admin as being connected to known sockpuppets. John Nagle (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Nagle. I will review these concerns and reply on my user talkpage promptly. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
No, you won't. This isn't a discussion between Wikipedia and BDB. This is a Wikipedia discussion about you. It's final, there is nothing for you to 'review'. We are reviewing, you can contribute to the review. @Nagle: So you want to punish them to teach them a lesson about Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I have contributed to the review by replying here. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, TParis. I will try to reconcile your statement with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and getting the facts right. I was informed by OTRS and the mediator that mediation and presenting a full list of concerns without being demanding would be the proper way to proceed. If you disagree with these administrators as to the effectiveness of dialogue and mediation, I respect your judgment and can inform our Board if necessary that the Community favors extreme editing restrictions rather than mediation. As a compliance officer, I hope you realize that what our company needs and wants is factual, neutral coverage, and that our list of concerns, including that about our legal identity, is related to the goals of the project. I am not conscious of dictating any outcome at any point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BDBIsrael (talkcontribs)
The policy is verifiability. "Getting the facts right" is not a policy, it is a product of WP:NPOV and WP:V. If we follow those two, the facts should be evident. Right now, your argument fails on the WP:V aspect. You don't have third-party sources that say what you want to say. Instead, you're arguing that the sources we are using that clearly say what we are saying - in fact - don't. That doesn't reconcile with what we see right in front of us. You need to provide counter sources. Essentially, the source say the sky is blue and you're telling us that the source says it's a shade of blue closer to red and you don't have another source to back that up.--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Screw it I don't mind taking a minority position and I don't mind defending editors who have screwed up. It's a core tenant of the American justice system that an accused deserves someone versed in the law to defend them and I'm proud of that heritage. However, I can't help someone who is actively working against me. BDBIsreal doesn't get it and their statements make my help impossible. I give up.--v/r - TP 20:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I regret your frustration, TParis. I don't know to what you refer by rephrasing our argument, nor why you decline me the right to reply to Nagle on my user talkpage. On the identity point, in April we provided a source that correctly described our identity, then we dealt with the fact that the source in the article was incorrect by providing another source in which the incorrect source had self-corrected, then other editors accepted that we had correctly described the sources. On other points, many other editors have recognized poor source quality, and that many uses of poor sources are against policies such as undue weight, regardless of whether additional sources are adduced. Also, in some cases Wikipedia's statements were not supported by the sources given. Atama requested, as the preferred mediation process, only that the points in dispute first be identified, not that they be supported with secondary sources until they are being discussed sequentially, and we complied with that mediation request. If you can indicate what you mean by your description, I can make amendments. I continue to believe that mediation was begun properly and is an appropriate forum for addressing our policy-based concerns, especially if taken to a separate page. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The mediation I tried to organize on the discussion page of the article is informal, fully voluntary, and if it needs to be disrupted by blocks/bans or anything else then so be it. It was (and can still be) just an effort to get the dispute into a focus to make it easier to resolve. And nothing in that mediation is enforceable (by use of administrator powers, or any kind of official authority), I'm just using the same methods I used before I was an admin. So if someone has a remedy of some kind that may subvert those efforts, but may help reduce disruption, please don't hesitate to propose or even implement it. -- Atama 21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Adama made a good start on mediation, listing five items in controversy. Rather than addressing those, the BDB team added their own list of 12 items. Those were answered. Then the BDB team added their own list of 50+ items. That was collapsed as clear disruption. That's what happened to mediation. Adama gave it a good try, but BDB refused to cooperate and tried to take over the process. John Nagle (talk) 21:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Nagle, thank you for repeating your view of what happened. My view is that I answered the 5 items and stated there were many more and that we would compile a full list, and I gave 12 items as an interim illustration. Atama asked that we identify all the issues in dispute and we replied that it would take time and we did so; she was not "answering" in the sense of resolving issues but only in the sense of compiling the ongoing list. Atama has not replied as to whether my list was compliant with the instructions given. Anyone can review the record to determine if our list was in compliance for themselves. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Regards, Ukexpat. This was discussed with User:Mr. Stradivarius on my user talkpage, where he concurred that the name was valid because my first name is Israel. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not a role account or deceptive. Per WP:USERNAME, "Usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person". This is a side issue. Let's get back on topic. Do we block these guys, or not? John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Aside from being a nonstarter at the present time for the reasons previously stated, this suggestion contains some rather strange one-sided language: "Editors in the topic area will not use personal attacks and ad hominem remarks to discredit BDB employees." What about providing a defense to non-paid editors? OK to discredit us, I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Gaaaaah![edit]

A few observations as a cynical old bastard.

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

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

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

Ducking Out[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support permanent ban of all BDB COI editing of any article, talk, or other page on WP. They are here to destroy the encyclopedia. Admins: please act now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I do not. Their method is to use an avalanche of mainly tendentious edits to erode the will of volunteer editors. For their own selfish ends, this diverts great quantities of volunteer time. It also discourages volunteer editors from participating. I got fed up dealing with them last year and took a break for about 5 months. Driving away the volunteers = destroying the encyclopedia. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
While they're not powerful enough to "destroy the encyclopedia", they do seem to "use an avalanche of mainly tendentious edits to erode the will of volunteer editors." As I've said before, I suggest, as a minimum, a 30 day block for disruptive editing. John Nagle (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the waste of volunteer time, this situation, if not alleviated, also stands to hurt Wikipedia's reputation. Already this company's activities on Wikipedia have received publicity in three major media outlets [15][16][17] I am sure that it is under continued scrutiny, making it all the more necessary that the issues highlighted above be addressed. Coretheapple (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

User:EdJohnston (administrator)[edit]

This was a baseless report from the get-go and has not improved since. At the moment, we are going in circles. EdJohnston did nothing wrong, either in the block or in the post-block discussion. I was leaving it open in case Ed wanted to comment, but he hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since June 19. Leaving this open is therefore pointless.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 21 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.

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

No, he did not obstruct your unblock request at all. His comments following your unblock request are normal - I often do the same. Nothing he said stopped any other Administrator from seeing and responding to your unblock request. It was not a review. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Ergo, no one settled my request for unblock. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You think you're entitled to a review of your unblock request on a 48 hour block? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
You violated 1RR on Civilian casualty ratio. You got blocked. You made an unblock request. Ed discussed on your user talk but didn't respond to the unblock request. Ed couldn't be cleaner here if we threw him in a clothes washer with a whole bottle of bleach. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Stating here that I violated 1RR, without substantiating it, makes you repeating the same fault as EdJohnston made. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • You made this ANI thread to complain about EdJohnston somehow "obstructing" your unblock request, not argue the merits of your block (which expired). But I'll entertain the idea that your block is still reviewable for a moment. Let's presume for now that your block was incorrect. What should the remedy be? You're not blocked, so we can't unblock you. Block logs aren't purged even of wrongful entries, so that's not happening. You seem to suggest that Ed's administrative action was incorrect... so I presume you think some kind of sanction is merited relating to Ed's administrative actions. Not gonna happen. This single action, even if it were 100% a screw-up on Ed's part that he then refused to recognize as his mistake, would not be severe enough to merit any form of sanction against Ed. So basically, even if there was something incorrect here, this is moot. And frankly, your own behavior in this situation is questionable: I would refer any interested party to the (still being edited) "Suspicious procedure" section at your user talk page. The level of wikilawyering going on there (as here) is disturbing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Do not divert this question to the minor point of obstructing an unblock request. The point is that this administrator did something very fundamentally wrong, namely false accuse of violation of 1RR, and block with the help of an apparent sockpuppet. Whether or not it was his sockpuppet, double fault. And even if it was not a sockpuppet, it was still a false accusation, also on the noticeboard. --Wickey-nl (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The minor point? That's the whole point of this discussion, if one is to believe your original post to this board. As to your implicit allegation that EdJohnston is engaged in sockpuppetry, I will not even dignify that with a response. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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

  • I think the poster has a valid complaint here. I don't see how the second series of edits constitutes a "revert"; they didn't change the same content as the first series of edits. Sean.hoyland tries to explain this on Wickey's talk page but I think his version of events is certainly an over-literal interpretation of WP:3RR. That said, EdJohnston may have more to say about this, and the odd mistake is unavoidable in any case. Subsequent to that initial questionable block there was no fault from anyone - Ed continued to comment on Wickey's talk page, as he is entitled to do, and he didn't touch the unblock request, which is considered best practice. The fact that Wickey's unblock request went unaddressed during the 48 hours that he was blocked is something he's just going to have to come to terms with if he wants to carry on participating in a voluntary project where no one has formally established roles or working hours. Basalisk inspect damageberate 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The poster is offbase on every point. First, they clearly violated WP:1RR by reverting twice. The fact that it's different material, forgive me, is immaterial. The policy is clear. Nor were these minor reverts where an admin might overlook it. As for predictability, read the rule. Comply with the rule. The fact that an admin might in their discretion choose not to block is not something you can count on.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, does that mean that editors in ARBPIA can only make one sequence of uninterrupted edits per article per day that changes existing material because subsequent edits that changed content would be a 1RR violation. If someone else makes an edit the editor would need to stop (or add new content rather than change material with any subsequent edits). If that is the case it should probably be explicitly stated on the ARBPIA templates. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
First, technically that is what it means, although as in just about everything, an admin has discretion not to block if the change is insubstantial. As I also said, I wouldn't count on it, especially in controversial subject areas. Second, there's no need to state that on the template. The template cites the policy. We don't want templates interpreting policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Okay, let's assume the second series of edits doesn't count as a revert: Ed made an error. I'd ask Ed to be more careful. End of thread? I think, though, we would just call this harmless error: even presuming the second series of edits wasn't a revert, it was removal of content without discussion on an article, in a topic subject to a 1RR restriction (and discretionary sanctions, though I note that Wickey had not been given a ds-notice at his user talk until after the block). I think the decision to block on other grounds would have fallen fully within Ed's discretion: in other words, he could've validly blocked for other reasons, though such a block probably wouldn't have been as uncontroversial as a valid 1RR block. I'd also note that had Wickey been interested in defending his edits, he had about 37 hours between Ed's first warning that there might have been a 1RR violation and offer to discuss it, and the time the block was issued. Wickey instead chose to ignore that warning and offer to discuss and just go on editing (and reverting) on other articles within the scope of ARBPIA. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • And yes, Bbb23 is right. A revert doesn't need to be of the same material. It's never needed to be. The point of 3RR (and 1RR by extension) is to compel discussion on talk pages, rather than in edit summaries. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not an adversarial process. That said, it's clear that the restrictions on edit warring were not meant to encompass actual iterative changes to an article that just happen to involve partly undoing a previous edit. But that's not what happened in this case. That Wickey's first revert counts, as far as I can tell, has not been credibly questioned: all the discussion focuses on that second series of edits. Honestly, this specific edit in that series, wherein Wickey removes File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Attempt to Kidnap Soldiers Thwarted.jpg and a caption as "propaganda", is a revert of this edit (though some changes had since been made to the caption). Now, let's just assume Wickey went through the trouble I did and found the specific edit where that photo had been added, and happened to use the edit summary "Undid revision 490939280 by Jiujitsuguy (talk) WP:POV remove propaganda". Can you honestly say this wouldn't count as a revert towards a revert restriction? We wouldn't even be here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, it reversed "the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material" with the action having taken place in May 2012. Bear in mind 1RR was introduced into ARBPIA to stop edit warring. So the question should be, who was the editor edit warring with ? How can you edit war with a topic banned user's edit from over 2 years ago ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
First, you can't expect an admin to look at something that happened two years ago when, on the face of the edit, it's clearly a revert. Second, is the only thing the OP changed was that - nothing else? Third, was the editor whom he undid, so to speak, topic-banned at the time of the edit? Third, if the 2012 edit was so terrible, why has it stood all this time? Fourth, if the editor is claiming an "exemption" under 1RR (no such exemption actually exists), he should make that defense at the time of the report. Did he do so? All he's done here is rail, as far as I can tell.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring isn't a private wrong like a tort: it's not something that merely harms another person. It's a wrong against the community: to bastardize an old phrase, it's a breach of Jimbo's peace. That the editor in question was subsequently topic banned is irrelevant. And even then, you need to keep in mind that this editor had every opportunity before the block to respond to the claim that he was edit warring. He chose to ignore that opportunity and instead made another revert on an ARBPIA-covered article. What is Ed supposed to do? I submit there is no right answer: it all fell to Ed's discretion. So unless you have a cogent argument that the block was as a matter of policy clearly inappropriate, we should not be questioning Ed's block. Period. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "you can't expect an admin to look at something that happened two years ago when, on the face of the edit, it's clearly a revert". If editors believe something is not clearly a revert and on the face of the edit it's article development by changing old content rather than edit warring with another human being, and admins reinforce that view by not consistently treating something like that as a revert, and the community in general operates on the basis that it's not a revert by not reporting similar instances as 1RR violations, it's not clearly a revert.
  • "is the only thing the OP changed was that - nothing else?" No, they changed other content too in the second series of edits. I think it's also all from May 2012 or before.
  • "was the editor whom he undid, so to speak, topic-banned at the time of the edit?" I've no idea, I doubt it, but my point was that 1RR is meant to be about stopping edit warring, actual edit warring between human beings. It shouldn't just be about counting reverts in my view (and in practice in many edit warring noticeboard cases it isn't just about counting reverts). 1RR in ARBPIA has been quite effective at reducing edit warring in the topic area, at least edit warring by editors who are not sockpuppets (which is probably about half of the active editors). But that effectiveness is predicated on editors knowing (and caring about) whether they have made 1 or more than 1 revert in 24 hours in an article. I don't think I need to spell out how important it is for admins to make sure that editors in ARBPIA know what a 1RR is in practice, when they should submit edit warring reports and what result they should expect.
  • "if the 2012 edit was so terrible, why has it stood all this time?" There are many reasons why that could be the case, but the quality of an action that was subsequently reversed in whole or part isn't relevant to the issue of when that reversal becomes a revert.
  • "if the editor is claiming an "exemption" under 1RR (no such exemption actually exists), he should make that defense at the time of the report. Did he do so?" There's no reason for an editor who believes they only made one revert to claim an "exemption" under 1RR. What will happen is what happened here. The editor will think and say that they didn't break 1RR. If admins are going to tell them that they were wrong they need to get their stories straight.
  • "All he's done here is rail"...sure, in part, but that's what happens in ARBPIA when people think they have been mistreated. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that editors in ARBPIA know that when they change existing content, even if it is several years old, even in the absence of any other editors or edit warring, it is a revert.
Mendaliv, I don't mind which interpretation is right according to policy. I don't mind whether an editor is blocked. Nobody died. I don't even mind that this was all triggered by the kind of petty, vindictive and dishonest behavior that is the norm for many sockpuppets in the topic area, a sock who got exactly what they wanted in this case. None of that really matters. I'm interested in the constraints on editors in the topic area in practice and the tools available to put fires out and deal with disruptive aggressive editing, which is still endemic. These rules and their implementation affect the temperature, the level of conflict in the topic area. A small change can have a large effect. For example, if it is the case that editors in ARBPIA can, strictly speaking, only make one sequence of uninterrupted edits per article per day that changes existing material, that is, at least for me and probably many editors, new information and a potentially useful tool to rein in aggressive editors (or take out perceived opponents of course because every rule will be abused). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Tristan.andrade.136[edit]

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

I believe mediation or block's the only way. Consider semi-protecting the article so that IPs don't touch. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 05:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There are multiple articles that he is interested in. I don't think it would be prudent to protect all of them. On the other hand, maybe. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protecting the articles he's interested for a short time might be a good idea. I've seen it work before - if troublesome kids find themselves unable to edit their favourite articles for a few weeks in row, they will often give up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've requested semi-protection on two of the articles, and I suppose I'll just continue to RBI if I see him elsewhere. Thanks y'all. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Isis Lai and Guangdong Xinyi Middle School[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, I just noticed another fun connection: Isis Lai was blocked at 12:57 20 June 2014 (UTC). KennyYudashi made his first image upload at 13:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC), nine minutes later. See my prior note about the connection between these two accounts. I think this, with the reupload of File:Wong Tai Sin 4.jpg, is evidence enough that KennyYudashi is at least proxying for Isis Lai. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Now see File:Xinyi 2.jpg and File:Xinyi Middle School.jpg, which I believe are bit-for-bit identical to previous images that Isis Lai uploaded (and were deleted). One (Xinyi 2.jpg) has also been uploaded to Commons. I am now formally requesting a block for KennyYudashi to compel him to respond and explain their relationship, and to account for their history of copyright infringing uploads. We need to nip this in the bud. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, now at SPI: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KennyYudashi. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Michael josh removing infoboxes[edit]

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

  • (Non-administrator comment) Has there been any discussion with this user to determine why he's removing infoboxes and dablinks? It doesn't look like it (I don't see any real edits outside of articlespace). It also doesn't look like he's ever used an edit summary either. Despite the fact that this fellow has evidently made productive edits, the removal of wikicode can only really be explained as vandalism or a competence issue. I would support a block to prevent further disruption until this user engages in some discussion of his behavior. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was tempted to just block him for a week or two since this was a continuation of the edit warring that got him blocked the other day, but lets see if he comes here or tries to explain. If he instead just reverts another in his war against infoboxes, I would recommend a block. Editors with agendas and no willingness to discuss with others are problematic and it tends to erase what other good they might do. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I noticed Michael josh's infobox removals because I was checking the orphaned fair use categories, so that is why my reversions of the infobox deletions were spread out and usually days after his removals. His other edits seems to be productive, but his unexplained infobox and sometimes cleanup templates are concerning. He has never provided a single edit summary, user talk page message or article talk page message. I left him three warnings, the edit warring notice and now Stefan has left a notice about this thread. This user has either thus far not realized he needs to communicate in some way, does not know how to communicate or is just unwilling to communicate. If it is the last, then I am not sure how we can get them to communicate and might eventually lead to a ban. Michael josh just created Bound For Glory (2014) that contains an infobox, but keeps removing the one from TNA Bound for Glory, so it is hard to explain his edits without his communication. Aspects (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I've issued an unambiguous final warning on his talk page, that he need to not delete any infobox unless there is a clear consensus to do so, else he will be blocked. As for whether they belong or not on any article, I don't care, but we don't need here is a repeat of previous infobox wars. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
And based on this I've blocked for 2 weeks. Feel free to reduce or lengthen as you see fit. No need to notify me. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No, that sounds about right. If I had caught it first, I would have done the exact same duration. Dennis Brown |  | WER 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

AR.Freeflight[edit]

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

It's not my IP Address 59.158.247.90 they're not related to me. I suspect they may be related to anonymity. Regarding this incident you may need to get in touch with an Administration, Thank you PrinceSulaiman (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering that why did you tagg page for SD here as I never blank the page or requested for deletion ? If you don't know about speedy deletion policies than why are you making such decisions? Do you know what does WP:CSD#G7 mean ? Well I assume good faith again and leave it to an admin A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
But at least you have removed the tag and the second tag seems to be added by another user, I could see the reason that it was for promotion of A.R Freeflight which is prohibitive in the Wikipedia also its considered as spam. I have also suggested you to provide references from other article (News) excluding the official website of A.R Freeflight.
I do not think its necessary to write an article about A.R Freeflight which is not important, You can also take look at the article of Spam and here. Thank You and I hope you understand PrinceSulaiman (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
PrinceSulaiman please do not tag an article you are not the original author with {{db-g7}} unless the original author has blanked the article or has explicitly asked for the article to be deleted as you did with AR.Freeflight. A.Minkowiski you need to discuss the deletion of the article with the deleting admin, Nick. GB fan 18:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick GB fan, I have already discussed this issue with another Admin and have it settled soon. Thanks for advise. PrinceSulaiman (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

User:59.41.252.228[edit]

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

The user began to edit the pages on April 30, with the edits seen [18], [19], and [20] without any edit summaries. I've reverted the changes and left two vandalism template warnings on the user's talk page. The same changes to the pages were made on May 31 ([21], [22], [23]) all with the same edit summary of accusing me of vandalism and pointing out that there are more people with the same surname. I reverted all the edits on the same day, also leaving message on the user's talk page informing the user that the type of page the user is attempting to create (apparently a DAB page) was valid only if there were multiple entries on Wikipedia with the same surname, giving examples from other Serbian-surname redirects for both types of pages.

On June 3, the user reverted my edits again, but this time leaving an edit summary and a on my talk page both accusing me of vandalizing, as well as interpreting Redirects from surnames to be optional by arguing that Category:Redirects from surnames's word choice of 'may' in 'A redirect from a surname may be used.' allowed redirects to be changed into the pages as he's created - a page that was neither a redirect or a dab. I've [24] on two points, to stop accusing me of vandalism and only change the changes from a redirect only if there are multiple entries. Despite this fact, the user have left a [25] on June 19 (the time of this posting) with the re-emphasis on 'may' and stating that the user will change all the redirects to his version of the surname page.

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

The only incident here is User:Kkj11210 vandalising my edits which are trying to establish -- on the pages for specific Serbian family names, articles about those family names instead of redirecting them to some specific individuals who happen to bear that family name.
Obviously, User:Kkj11210 believes that specific Serbian family names should not exist as articles on Wikipedia. However, for reasons not completely clear, s/he is not expressing the same vigour and dilligence in deleting non-Serbioan family names such as e.g. Smith. I think that the reason is that s/he accepts the dominance of an Anglophone, US-dominated Weltanschauung on Wikipedia in English that will minimise or indeed elliminate everything User:Kkj11210 sees as unimportant, or peradventure an outright Serbophobia; I haven't taken the effort to investigate and honestly, I do not have time for that.
And neither should I have to do that. User:Kkj11210 should be told not to remove articles about family names in Serbiana nd to allow for the articles about specific names to grown into full fledged entries.
And that's it about this, as far as I am concerned. I am not going to come back to this discussion and reply any further, because I have said what I had and intended to and I now feel that there is no need to ellaborate any further for any person of at least average intelligence (which I am going to assume User:Kkj11210 does have) and at least a neutral viewpoint about Wikipedia articles (which, again, I am going to imagine anyone who edits on Wikipedia, including [User:Kkj11210] has).
59.41.252.228 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
59.41.252.228, what you're trying to make (single pages used for selecting between multiple subjects) are called wp:disambiguation pages. Generally we don't make those unless there are already multiple existing articles to disambiguate between. So if there's only one article about someone named Alempijević (Aleksandar Alempijević in this case), we'd leave Alempijević as a redirect. Once there's another article that could also be a disambiguation target (e.g. if we had an article about someone named Bob Alempijević), that's when the redirect should be changed to a disambiguation page. Alternatively, if you wanted to write an article about the Alempijević family, that's great, but you'd have to find enough documentation that the family itself was notable under the notability guidelines (WP:GNG). We do have a number of articles about famous families like that, such as the Bach family. But you have to supply a reasonable amount of text and sourcing (like in that article). A single sentence like "Alempijević is a Serbian family name" doesn't qualify as a Wikipedia article, so that's why it keeps getting reverted. You have to write something more substantial than that, with enough references to establish notability. That's all that's going on here. 192.249.63.59 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet another grossly offensive DYK on the main page[edit]

(NAC) The DYK in question was updated to reflect the concerns raised in this thread. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:44, 22 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.

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

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

And before anybody suggests that it should be obvious it means mass murder given the context (the terms "Jews" and "ghetto" along with any time during the Holocaust implying it), there was quite a lot of actual processing/routing of people done as they were moved to concentration and death camps. So it might not be clear even to those of us who have had an education in world history. Also, using scare quotes around processed could be seen as making light of the whole situation rather than casting doubt on the euphemism. I generally concur that this is not a DYK that should have been published. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The scare quotes around "processed" is very sketchy and inflammatory. A truly bad example of a DYK. Doc talk 02:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with all 3 editors above, however the positive value of getting the most evil act of living history on the DYK instead of trivia about a manga character or a sportsperson probably outweighs the damage done. Personally I would like to see an admin quickly intervene and edit the DYK with were murdered at Bronna Góra over execution pits which is what the lead actually says rather than pull such a necessary reminder of our world. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I like IIO's proposed solution. Of course this DYK is disgusting and inflammatory, but until I read that far I wasn't entirely clear what was being requested of the admins -- is there not going to be an investigation as to what exactly went wrong here? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with the proposal. As to what went wrong... meh. I don't think it's going to be anything remarkable. Just something that should have been considered more carefully than it was. Suggestion for the future? Perhaps DYKs for topic areas like the Holocaust (and topic areas/articles subject to any general sanctions) should require an arbitrary number of extra approves prior to publication. But even if you design a ship with sixteen watertight compartments, she can still sink. Perhaps we could go a bit further in vetting what gets pushed to the main page, but in a necessarily high-speed/high-volume process like DYK, things like this happen. And in case it needed saying, I don't blame the individuals responsible for this DYK; I'm not only assuming good faith, I'm certain of it. It's just one of those things that seemed okay when it was written; we've all done it before. The process just didn't catch it this time. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thing is, I seem to recall an atheist user (might have been User:HiLo48, can't remember) getting called out and damned-near being sanctioned for saying "Did you know that Jesus Christ is Lord? HALLELUJAH!" should not have appeared on the Main Page, and "religion" doesn't seem to fall into your suggested category of general sanctions. Perhaps a bare minimum number of supports should be required for all DYK nominations? 126.0.96.220 (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That would cover religion without unfairly singling it out, and cut off arguments as to whether a particular DYK was unfairly subjected to heightened scrutiny. Anyway I have other concerns but this isn't really the place to hash it out now that the problem at hand has been taken care of. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 04:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I've changed "'processed'" to "murdered". Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you NYB. My post was being typed while you were acting. Your response is much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 04:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That term was taken directly from the linked article where "murder" (no quotes) was part of the same sentence. It appears to have been put there in the first version of the article by User:Poeticbent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I have no doubt that editor's intentions were good: based on their contribs, they've made an evident extensive effort into improving en wp coverage of Nazi crimes in Poland. It appears to have been a simple error in formulating the DYN short text.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This can be closed then? No harm, no foul. Doc talk 04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption at Suzannah Lipscomb[edit]

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

Someone, probably with a WP:COI, is attempting to micromanage this article. Reasonable edit requests will be considered, but edit warring and talk page disruption should not be tolerated.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982. @Ianmacm: the user you are referring to is already doing this (see talk), and I feel the accusations of micromanaging are not true. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me guess: the "brand new" users want all mention of her ever having been married, to be expunged from the article. Am I right? Evidently nobody ever told Ms. Lipscombe the old adage: "marry in haste, repent at leisure". Guy (Help!) 11:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Not really, in fact rather the contrary. Read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lw1982 for what the disruptive IPs and the SPA have been up to re the article. Voceditenore (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Just spotted this edit: "deleting all my comments as fed up of a dictatorship site that does not allow freedom of speech and shuts people down for asking questions". I think some blocks per WP:NOTHERE may be the order of the day... --Mdann52talk to me! 14:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Lw1982 blocked one week for sockpuppetry. IPchange indeffed as sock of Lw1982. Article semi-protected from the hopping IPs until 4 July. (IP range too large to block.) Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I just broke my TBAN, community input appreciated[edit]

Exceptions are rare; this happens to be one. Usually better to ask before acting the panda ₯’ 10:22, 22 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.

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

Please see exemptions. If the user has been warned previously against copyvio and isnt heading warning there may be an exception here but its no guarantee as copyvio isnt vandalism without meeting particular circumstances. Amortias (T)(C) 22:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
There was no copyvio on this one, just reverting a well known sock. Simply I am asking to be let off for reverting in violation of my ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • A few things: Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat/Archive, the IP is clearly within the range and geolocates to the exact same region as previous Nangparbat socks (although, European geolocation in general and UK geolocation in particular is all but worthless). In my experience, Darkness is better at identifying N*bat socks than anyone else, and I don't remember him being wrong very often, if ever. However....this edit was N*bat deleting content not adding contentious material. Honestly, you should NOT be reverting these and in my opinion, you should instead be reporting them via email. It isn't technically listed, but in my opinion it would be within the spirit of the exceptions, as he is a banned editor. If you are reverting BLP material out of an article, then current exceptions already covers that. I don't recommend any action here (this time), and would oppose sanctions simply as you've come here for clarification and I think you were acting in good faith. But yes, you did break your Tban restriction, with the best of intentions. Please don't do that again. I don't want to see you end up blocked. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I just now saw you have already been given an exception for filing at SPI. You could do that, and email ping a clerk, or even me if you must. Seriously, DS, I know it is slower but you have to just live with it as long as you are under sanction. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with User:Dennis Brown here, unless it's something that clearly needs to be removed immediately (defamation, threats of violence, etc), then you should probably list it at SPI, and leave it to someone else to review and take action. In this case I don't think it's actionable since you had the good sense to bring it here for further review, but you probably shouldn't do it again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

I'm a non-administrator bystander but I'm a little confused by this TBAN violation. He'd asked for another TBAN exemption to revert socks a couple of times before all this[26] [27]. Looking at the relevant Talk pages, it seems that Callanecc told Darkness Shines on June 14 to wait a couple of weeks[28] before bringing up reverting socks again; then DS asked to revert one[29] yesterday, got no answer from Callanecc, and said he'd do it anyway[30] today and came here. It's seems clear to me that DS really wants to be able to revert socks and is trying to force the issue, which seems to me to go against the spirit of the TBAN. Of course I'm neither especially experienced nor an administrator so I could be reading all this completely wrong. --Ca2james (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

  • He was already been given an exception for SPI right after being advised to wait a couple of weeks. He isn't asking for an exception here, just clarification. Lankiveil summed it up better than I, but we are saying no exception exists for copyvio OR socking, and saying no action should be taken over this singular, good faith breach. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the clarification. --Ca2james (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As no one has yet objected, I issued a mini trout and notice to be more careful on DS's talk page. This should be adequate this time. Dennis Brown |  | WER 14:37, 21 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.

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Kuwait_Towers[edit]

Closed by Dennis Brown. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 15:06, 22 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 there! Our normal closer nominated this, and both of the secondary closers have voted on it; it's a fairly simple close - all supports and over the quorum - but I'd prefer someone else actually makes the decision on whether it passes or not. If someone does, I'll do the rest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


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.

Abusive user[edit]

One month block by Acroterion. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:57, 22 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.

The following IP address 89.205.38.27, has been writing abusive edit summaries to me and others (in the past) [[31]] a quick look down this will show it. (Sorry if this is the wrong way to do this.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring and abusive edit summaries, not to mention removal of this report. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry if I filled this in wrong, it's my first time. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the combination of nasty edit summaries and edit-warring, this was probably the best place to mention it. Acroterion (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Legal threats by IP and editor[edit]

BLOCKED
BloodyCrip indefinitely, IP address for a month (non-admin closure) Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 01:08, 23 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.

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

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

(edit conflict) The legal threat appears to deal with the editor's objections to the article on Yet Another Cleaner, claiming that the subject software contains malware. While there might be something to be said for making some of the information from the controversies section more prominent... apart from that, this isn't a WP:DOLT situation. Anyway, blocks are warranted on this: even if the legal threat is not credible, it's an attempt (albeit sophomoric) to gain leverage in a dispute using threats of using the legal system to resolve an on-wiki dispute. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
And I note that BloodyCrip's response above, threatening "a full investigation" unless he gets his way, gives a pretty good idea of the situation here. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
As blatant a legal threat as can be. Before indef'ing the user, is there any merit to his claims that some of the linked sites are connected with malware? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE seems to apply for the user... Connormah (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's not a virus or trojan, but Cnet admits it messes with your registry, and looking further ([32], [33], [34]), I would treat it like malware if it came near my system or those I'm responsible for. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, the article does mention that there are criticisms of the software. There's no reason for the user to be removing sourced content and threatening those that replace it. ... discospinster talk 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh..no. I won't get into the specifics here, but forum posts and warning about having any program remove registry information are not admitting it "messes with your registry". Of course a registry cleaner alters your registry. Every registry cleaner I've used warns you not to remove vital entries. So anyone that just "cleans" their registry without looking what they are removing may believe the program "messed with their registry", but the fact is, the user just did it. Also, this has nothing to do with the legal threats the IP and editor are making. They don't seem to understand what the program does either. Also, CNet has been allowing programs to install 3rd party software with their "free" versions. BUT, there are options to not install the software. In order to be available on CNet, they have to give the option to not install. And they do. Dave Dial (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So, given all that, why hasn't the user been indef'd yet? Legal threats cannot be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Off topic (although I didn't take it there), but the actual effect of the software on say, my mother's computer, would be no different than deliberate malware -- I'd end up spending time bringing the computer as close to the state it was in before that program was put on there due to problems caused by the software. And read the CNet page I linked to, CNet says that one of the downsides to the software is that it "can interfere substantially with your system Registry, often with negative results." Yes, all software of that kind does that, but one of the sites I linked to (which I believe is actually cited in our article) points out that it starts doing a scan whether you tell it to or not (indicating a dangerous lack of control), produce false results, and collect user data for spamming purposes. WP:Assume clue, next time. Or install it on your system and use it for a bit if you're so convinced it's safe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I concur with Ian here insofar as the advertising component is something I'd consider highly undesirable. It wasn't long ago that the terms "adware", "spyware" and "malware" were used interchangeably; only very recently have these had any real difference in meaning (mostly because the "adware" wasn't breaking things as often as it used to). While we usually are pretty unforgiving when it comes to requiring a reliable source for certain claims, internet subculture-type stuff has been historically given a bit of leeway, especially when it comes to articles about dodgy software. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I was just going to let this silliness go unanswered, because this thread isn't about the issue being brought up. But no. It's not malware. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeffed Bloodycrip under NLT. His comments make it overwhelmingly likely that he's the same person as the IP who was making explicit legal threats, and even if he somehow wasn't, the threats he has been making haven't been appropropiate either. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Karsad147[edit]

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

There are the List of Monkey Quest Charcters which are released in 2014. Sample text from article:
  • Roman Brilliantant
Roman Brilliantant is the charcter he is the Sea Dragon Counter he was creatd by Karsad147 (Kyle Chester Ancheta Antoyne) He serve the Monkey King when he is adopted in 2012 the last one he appears in the upcoming video game in Nickelodeon on 2016.
Extended content
  • Seeno Baltotus
Seeno Baltotus is the Femish charcter lives in Femland inserts him when Kyle Chester Ancheta Antoyne keeps him produce and he Became friends in Chim Foo origins in the world.
  • Nik Calmwolf
Nik Calmwolf is a Henrish charcter which he takes place in Henriland when he Besided of those he is being ocxiderd in themselves sabotaging those villains in Ook.
  • Leonardo Loyalship
Leonardo Loyalship is a Femim charcter of he is discount by the Esterators when Leonardo is afflicted by the Bad Pirates he is voweled of those 25 years ago until he is adopted to defeat Ka.
  • Ultra Sparkwarrior
Ultra Sparkwarrior is the British devoping those Arubans and Politteans under controlling him Ultra is diversed by the villains in the Carnivals and Cities under Ultra he is beyonded by the Healers


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

My guess is Candy Crush, but I don't know why it's here. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 16:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I just blanked her user page as a copy-paste copyvio from the Pokemon wikia, Bulbapedia, which operates on Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 according to the bottom of the page. I presume that a straight copy and paste into Wikipedia is still a violation. Blackmane (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC) Edit: Of course, I'm more than happy to be proved wrong and will self revert in that case. However, if it is a copyright violation, it is still in the page history. Blackmane (