Spotter 1

private response to your recent post on RT

Spotter, I don't share your sanguine view of ymblanter...he seems to constantly defend those who are clearly trying to slam RT, without justifying supportive reference. In any case, I wanted to alert you to the fact (that you may have noticed on my talk page) that mediation has been requested (by me) to help resolve some of these issues. Note that Ymblanter excluded himself from the discussion. If you would like me to add your name to the editors involved (if you would like to participate in mediation on these issues) let me know and I'll add you and send you information on how to follow up. Kenfree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfree (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

how to join the RT page mediation

Spotter, At your request, I included your name in the list of editors to be included in mediation (assuming the request is accepted). I don't know if you'll receive an automated invitation to sign up or not. In any case, you can do so by editing this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/RT_Network#RT_Network You'll see that there is a segment for agreement. Both myself and TFD are listed as agreeing to the mediation. You would just sign your name as agreeing as well. BTW, you seem to be a new editor, so I wanted to be sure to point out to you that you are not signing your posts. You may not be aware that signing your posts is easy...after each post or edit, just type four tildes (~) in a row, and your posts and edits will automatically bear your signature! Peace, Kenfree (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Awarded for your persistence, mature understanding and disciplined pursuit of NPOV on the RT webpage Kenfree (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Kenfree!Spotter 1 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Resolved account problem

Summary:

First because of a technical error in one of my browsing session active login information gets erased - I falsely assume that the profile is also erased. Then (days later) my intention was to reply to Iryna's posts with spotter_11 (to assume sockpuppetery with almost the exact same user account name is nonsense) after that to try to merge my spotter_1 with the spotter_11 account with the help of an administrator. Ban on spotter_11 interferes with that. Trying to log in to spotter_1, realise automatic complete works --> profile unharmed.

Details below.

Appears to be an account created to discredit you [RESOLVED]

Hi, Spotter 1. I'm currently being barraged by a new account created under the username of Spotter 11. I think I can safely assume that it isn't you as the user. Could you please confirm that you and Spotter 11 are not the same user in order that I report the account? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You won't get an answer (from spotter_1) because I continue my account with user spotter_11.Spotter 11 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I find it tragic that you seem to suffer from short-term (and, perhaps, long-term) memory loss. Forgotten your account login already? Tisk, tisk. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy woohoo I'm back, technical glitch sorted out. Spotter_11 / spotter_1 back online. Now back to business and schooling Ms.Harpy ;-). Clearly you must backtrack from your appalling statement.Spotter 1 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Created new account spotter_11 [RESOLVED]

Spotter 11 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not worry about losing your login details. Your IP address will confirm whether you are the same user or not. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As stated above I regained access to my original account - technical glitch is sorted out. My apologies for the hassle (thank you for your help Amatulic).Spotter 1 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Altercation on temp user site spotter_11

Creating account in bad faith

It appears that you have created an account in order to discredit Spotter 1. Could you please confirm that you and Spotter 1 are one and the same? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You got me. I am the same editor. The reason should be obvious you are a smart girl afterall...Spotter 11 (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Good-o. In which case, you should be able to confirm this by responding to my message on your Spotter 1 talk page. In that way, I'll be satisfied that you are one and the same. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

already doneSpotter 11 (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

...and this account is now blocked. Use your original one please. There are valid reasons to have multiple accounts on Wikipedia, but this isn't it. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

well this is not possible I've lost access to spotter_1 because of a technical error which erased my automatic login profile in the browser(no mail backup, I did not register my email).Spotter 11 (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

luckily the error affected only the active login information not the profile itself.

Interesting. I find it tragic that you seem to suffer from short-term (and, perhaps, long-term) memory loss. Forgotten your account login already? Tisk, tisk. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why so judgy? thought you WP:GF - but before the fact ahh it's the opinion that matters I forgot.Spotter 11 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite so. That was where I actually was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought someone else was pretending to be you in order to barrage my talk page. I was testing to see whether you could log in to the other account in order to prove that you were an imposter. Sadly, it turns out that is was you creating additional accounts. Ahh, jumping to conclusions about good faith. Why didn't you just contact Wikipedia about having lost your password? Don't try to pass the buck back to me for your own presumptions.--Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why pretending? I stayed true to my myself and pursued my line of argument on your talkpage. Not every error is malicious you know.Spotter 11 (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Haven't lost the password, please read the explanation above. First you do your due diligence asking of the alleged impersonation (thank you!). After confirmation you can't hide your "Schadenfreude" then you allege that I was "caught out" (what possible positive reason is there to use an almost identical username and that would benefit me exactly how?) and you hold this against me. Now you are (seemingly) trying to weasel out? Tisk, task, mene mene tekel upharsin.Spotter 11 (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser needed- I've run a checkuser, and the two accounts are Technically indistinguishable. PhilKnight (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you intend to abandon the other account, I can certainly unblock this one, but I would first need some verification that you own both accounts. Because you cannot log into that one, and you did not include an email address for password verification, you can't post a confirmation under the other account. A checkuser will have to verify the likelihood that both User:Spotter 1 and User:Spotter 11 are the same. I have tagged this page to request a checkuser look into it. ~Amatulić (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I regained access to my original account (I've logged in to both accounts, should be sufficient for verfication I hope) - technical glitch is sorted out. My apologies for the hassle and thank you for your help Amatulic. I can copy the contents of this talk page to my original account and this account can be closed if you agree. Spotter 11 (talk) 11:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Spotter 1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

First there is no consensus, you would recognize this after viewing the entire RT talk page and the policy WP:NPOV doesn't require consensus for the tag.

Second, related but seperate, the article is clearly biased towards the "Anglosphere" with complete absence of views from the "Global South and East". Almost every mentioned source is based in the US or UK. Therefore the template

is appropriate.Spotter 1 (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at RT (TV network). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spotter 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is a violation of the WP:blocking policy and a personal attack for the following reasons: 1. The Purpose of resurrecting the tag is in my opinion not for restoring the content of the article (as in edit waring) but according to the WP:NPOV policy, a nonnegotiable principle if there is no consensus, it is the restoring of the NPOV tag (because of a NPOV dispute). Different editors made, inc. myself, substantiated points in this regard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_.28TV_Network.29...neutral_feedback_desperately_needed.21) / (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring ---> KENFREE comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_%28TV_network%29 Motion NPOV tag.

2. globalize/USA - template is an entirely separate issue, that deals with the structural bias/systemic bias WP:BIAS of the English-language wikipedia by virtue of the sources used as evidence and the cultural background of the typical English-language editor. In this case many parts of the article are almost exclusively written to be a representative opinion of the civil society of the USA and its Allies. Not one notable scholar / RS is quoted from the "Global South" (i.e. Latin America, Africa and Asia(f.e. India and China ---> therefore a minority stance made out to be the worldwide majority stance). This is why I added the globalize/USA - template, I stand to be corrected.

Following my argument the claim by Volunteer Marek that the 4th # [1] intervention is above 3 in total as reported under User:Spotter 1 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked) is groundless and void.

3. This is a personal vendetta and an abuse of wikipedia blocking policy by User:Volunteer Marek. User:Volunteer Marek is assuming to be the chief interpreter of my activities and doesn't react to substantiated points that I made on the rt talk page (f.e. giving evidence about "CNN" misconduct in the context of propaganda). A look on his contributions let's one assume that he is involved in an ongoing information war in the role of an "ukr/pol activist" gaming the system by deleting everything that isn't pro forma yet, therefore deleting entire pages/arguments in its infancy, that could be reformed to comply with wikipedia policy and make a valid contribution (f.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Timeline_of_largest_projects_in_the_Russian_economy&action=history). His advantage is the general Anti-Russian stance in the Anglo-American society, making it so much easier convincing English-language editors to dismiss out of hand the points made by different editors. What he does instead is participation in personal attacks, calling my user account a sock of User:LarryTheShark (why can this groundless attack be used for a block and go unchallenged?), equating thorough posts as soapbox, giving everyone the chance to react to my points is interpreted by him as a wall of text (one post on the user page that is meant to be a notification: "NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled" ) although I've explicitly said that this post-notification can be erased and has no other purpose (on user:Iryna Harpy page). Therefore this block has hallmarks of WP:PUNITIVE. Spotter 1 (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No part of WP:NPOV is an excuse to edit war, edit warring applies to metadata and article content equally, and you broke the WP:3RR bright-line rule. Given your point #1, I'm not convinced that you won't immediately resume edit warring once you're no longer blocked. I also disagree that the block is WP:PUNITIVE, since its purpose is to prevent you from edit-warring further. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry, Spotter 1, but I don't want to delete or redact the section at this late point as there was further discussion (including another editor) directly relating to the RT article. I have my auto-archive set for 30 days, so it won't feature there for much longer. I do, however, wish to retain it in my archive intact. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

keep calm Bbb23 I was simultaneously editing my request with Jackmcbarn and my edit got lost by Jackmcbarn intervention. I missed the part by accident. Spotter 1 (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC),Spotter 1 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spotter 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Follow up to the rejected request:

1. If this is an established practice counting the tag resurrection as an edit war action, despite there being no consensus on the NPOV dispute; hence the WP:NPOV policy (and its logical signal (tag)), as a nonnegotiable principle (if there is no legitimate consensus on the NPOV), is of inferior importance to the 3rr - I will accept the point made.

2. If the globalize/USA - template is a separate issue, but by reverting the globalize/USA - template it is rendered a cumulative tag reversal with the result that I violate the 3rr - I will accept this point too.

3. Subsequently to point 1-2, this is not a punitive action concerning the 3rr rule, which I will accept only in so far as it applies to the 3rr (issues in point 3. 1st req. still remain) .

Spotter 1 (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Thank you for accepting that you were edit warring and that being blocked for such is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Spotter 1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Follow up to the rejected request: --jpgordon seems to miss that to accept in this context means I made a false call with the 4th # [2] intervention, with no further need to block the user account because I will refrain from a further edit war in this regard, as established through the 2nd request. If this is not a WP:PUNITIVE block this should be accepted. Spotter 1 (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The purpose of a block is a preventative action, to prevent the project from being damaged in some way, in your case, through edit warring. Blocks will cease to prevent damaging behaviour if they can be appealed and rapidly overturned, so for this block to remain a preventative block right now and long into the future, it seems sensible to keep you blocked for a week, so that you may continue to learn that edit warring is not in any way, shape or form acceptable, and that when you edit war, you will be blocked and remain blocked for the full length of the block period. And please do not edit the page after placing an unblock request, as this results in Edit Conflicts which slow down the time it takes to respond to you. Nick (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alright, I will refrain from making any new attempts to request my user account to be unblocked. I think I made it clear enough that my reverts were not intended to be an edit war (but to restore a legitimate tag) and that there is no need to block the user account, because I will refrain from making any new attempts to revert the article beyond legitimate reasons (no further "damage" is prevented by this; if by "damage" you mean my contributions, I am prevented from solving the issue...). As of now Nick's comment "Blocks will cease to prevent damaging behaviour", "remain blocked for the full length of the block period" made it clear that this is an attempt to let this unblock rejection serve as a warning to others, hence it is a WP:PUNITIVE and counterproductive action.Spotter 1 (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network) falls under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBEE

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding your disruptive and tendentious editing practices. The thread is User returns from block to resume battleground strategies.The discussion is about the topic RT (TV network). Thank you. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hello Spotter 1. Per the consensus at this ANI discussion, you are now indefinitely topic-banned from Russia- and Ukraine-related articles, broadly construed. This topic ban includes the RT (TV network) article, and is subject to the usual exceptions. The ban may be appealed at the administrators' noticeboard, no sooner than six months from the date of the closure of the ANI discussion, i.e. on 28 May 2015. Please read the policies I have linked to above carefully, and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)