Wikipedia:Editor review/BlueSalix

I have been on WP since 2011 and feel recent events make now as good a time as any for Admin review of my behavior as another editor has raised issue with it, vis a vis Ronan Farrow, a largely derelict article -
 * I recently CheckUser discovered 7 sockpuppets inserting promotional language in Ronan Farrow. The socks were banned, after which I made more than a dozen edits to Ronan Farrow to remove the socks edits and (what I felt was) promotional language and update the article. The only other active editor on this page - a senior contributor, Tenebrae - questioned my integrity in making these edits and so I opened a RfC. The other editor said I had to admit I was trying to insert POV by modifying the socks contributions, and when I refused to do so, notified me that I was officially considered a liar, a child, single-purpose account, an extremist, disingenous, sneaky, a weasel, and disruptive (here and here). He has told me on three occasions he can have me blocked and that he will have my behavior reviewed by an Admin.
 * Also, a second editor (AsadR) who has not been on WP in 5 years and who, prior to this, had only made 13 contributions in 2008 - reactivated his account the day after the socks were banned to roll back all my edits and voice his support for the other editor in Talk who was saying he would have me blocked. (If my edits in an almost abandoned article are causing people who have been off WP for 5 years to reactivate apparently just to undo my edits that tells me I'm doing something wrong.) <--I apologize for including this; after re-reading this myself it appears this could be another sock so I've filed an investigation request and ask AsadR's comments on me not be taken into consideration during the evaluation process.
 * The only other editors active on this article - two anonymous IP editors - have also expressed disagreement with me and support for the calls to have me declared a single-purpose weasel child and blocked.

It is sometimes difficult to evaluate oneself and I am hoping to get a third-party opinion so I can correct issues with my own involvement that I have been unable to self-evaluate - but that these four editors have identified - in hopes of avoiding being blocked as the more senior editor has told me he can arrange. Prior to making an edit to Ronan Farrow I had never had the slightest run-in with any other editor in the year and a half I've been here and - but since making an edit to this almost abandoned article - I now find myself being absolutely pummeled; therefore, I think I need to be evaluated. Based on what I've aggressively been told by the above four editors, I am very close to be kicked off Wikipedia and am submitting this as a last ditch effort to show Good Faith in having whatever issues may be present in my editing resolved and avoid removal. A master index of articles I've been mostly involved in during my edit time on WP is contained on my user page that can be reviewed for a more thorough review of my history. BlueSalix (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since I'm being talked about, I feel I should respond. It is false for him to claim that I have "told [him] on three occasions [I] can have [him] blocked." I am not an admin and cannot have anybody blocked. All I can do I can do is report an editor's behavior to an admin &mdash; which I only suggested may be appropriate after finding myself going up against a brick wall with him at Talk:Ronan Farrow, in which BlueSalix behaved in disingenuous and, I believe, deliberately disruptive, "not listening to you" ways designed to provoke a response. Ironically, he has been the one running to one admin after another, as well as canvassing and forum-shopping, so not only is it incredible hyperbole for him to claim, "I am very close to be kicked off Wikipedia," but he appears to be trying to do that to other editors.


 * I should also mention an incident in which he placed two quotes of mine side-by-side on his user page, saying opposite things, in a clear attempt to make me appear hypocritical. Those quotes, of course, as he well knew, were referring to two different things. I would ask how you or any other observer would characterize his talk-page response. See User talk:BlueSalix. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a longtime editor generally considered helpful and productive. And I can say in complete sincerity I find BlueSalix's singleminded, politically motivated efforts over the past week or so to be obsessive. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As another editor who was alarmed to see BlueSalix's disruptive, single-purpose insertion of derogatory POV material, I can corroborate User:Tenebrae's claim of disruptive editing. BlueSalix repeatedly, sometimes in hundreds of sequential edits and sometimes rolling back the work of multiple other editors, attempted to insert unsourced quotes and negative opinion quotes, while stripping out substantive biographical information, in the biography of a living person. This is something some of us take seriously, and it is only thanks to the efforts of editors such as User:Tenebrae that this disruptive behavior has been rolled back. In the mean time, BlueSalix has initiated a campaign of canvassing, in the process making damaging claims against users such as Tenebrae and even initiating a bad faith attack sockpuppet investigation against my account. I do not wish to opine on how the review of BlueSalix's behavior should be resolved, but I do wish to defend Tenebrae's suggestions of a topic ban, which was far from a baseless attack and was in fact a rational response to BlueSalix's disruptions.AsadR (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For historical purposes, I'd like to note the above user has just been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is the 9th identity used by the team of publicists working on Ronan Farrow. BlueSalix (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input.
 * Tenebrae is correct, he did not tell me he could have me blocked. He told me he would seek to have me blocked. I apologize if my word choice indicated something that was inaccurate.
 * Vis a vis "going against a brick wall" ... Tenebrae held a different position than me in a Talk discussion in which only the two of us (excepting socks and IP editors) were involved. I ultimately deferred to his position and did not make the edits I had suggested in Talk. Tenebrae, however, said that was not sufficient and declared me a disruptive, child, weasel, extremist, sneaky, single-purpose "la la" editor for not admitting to him I was trying to push POV and declaring him to be correect. I did not do this as I felt it was unnecessary since I'd ultimately deferred to him, nor did I feel I was pushing POV, and ultimately thought this was just a case of "going in for the kill" which was not WP:CIVIL. That said, Tenebrae is a more tenured editor than myself and part of the reason for me requesting Admin review is to clarify my obligations in that sense and inform my own behavior in the future - do my obligation to consensus building include public contrition for suggesting edits in Talk that are not ultimately incorporated into the article?
 * In clarification of Tenebrae's canvassing contention, I did contact two admins unknown to me to ask for casual dispute resolution (see here for that conversation) after Tenebrae declared I was a disingenous, weasel, child, extremist, sneaky, single-purpose, "la la la" editor who should be blocked after I undid the sockpuppet edits in question. I was not under the impression this constituted canvassing, but perhaps I was wrong, which is the reason for this request for admin review.
 * I already explained the use of quotes from other editors on my user page, Tenebrae has provided a link to that, and I thank him for that as I have no problem with that being taken into consideration.
 * Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And to clarify, each and any characterization I made, within a larger context, refers to a specific behavior he exhibited, and not to him as as person, as he inaccurately states. As well, it's not his "undoing sockpuppet page vandalism" that I objected to, as my first comments ever to him made clear. My and other editors' objections have been to two specific examples, one since removed, of unsourced or questionable derogatory comments about a living person. BlueSalix has shown a chronic tendency to mischaracterize, apologize when caught, and then mischaracterize again.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Tenebrae, I kindly ask you leave this alone pending admin review. You frequently refer to "my and other editors objections" when you follow me around various WP pages to denounce my integrity. With respect, I believe this is disruptive; the only stated objections to my "behavior" has come from you and IP editors and sockpuppets whom I've had CheckUser'ed and who have been blocked. You phrase each accusation against me with "my and other editors objections" which does nothing but muddy the waters by suggesting the presence of a mob that does not exist. I have not attempted to campaign against you and ask you not do it to me. I kindly request you refrain from further comments in my Admin review; this review is for my benefit and is not an attack on you. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You cannot talk about another editor, especially when you misrepresent him, without the editor having the opportunity to contest said representation. And to use a term like "mob" to describe other editors who, separately and without collusion, all seem to find your most recent edits questionable is deliberately tarring other editors as having bad faith and ganging up on you. That is most assuredly not the case. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I kindly ask you stop referring to banned sockpuppets and anonymous IP editors as "other editors ... all find your edits questionable." As you are aware, and as the Talk page in the article shows, you are the only confirmed editor who has expressed concern about my efforts to remove sock-inserted promotional language from Ronan Farrow. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 23:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are lying again, and I am once again calling you on it. There are other registered users at Ronan Farrow and at the talk page, as anyone can see at their History pages, and your most recent sockpuppet claims are just allegations that no admin has been able to confirm.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * For historical purposes, I'd like to note the "other registered user" who was used to add legitimacy to the the charge that my edits were "disruptive" has just been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. This is the 9th identity used by the team of publicists hired to work on Ronan Farrow. For those who read this in the future, I hope it puts in perspective the charge - from a still active identity - that I was "lying again" and inspires some further inquiry into the generally odd behavior exhibited in this review, the linked Talk pages, and Ronan Farrow. BlueSalix (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Separate from any issue regarding a sockpuppet, this doesn't excuse BlueSalix from making disruptive, biased, attacking edits based on what clearly seems his personal disagreement with the article subject's politics. Likewise, just because someone takes the incredibly wrongheaded action of sockpuppetry doesn't mean that particular edits aren't more constructive and useful than those of a biased editor with a personal agenda. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Tenebrae and BlueSalix have impressed me with their dedication and skill, and I'm not sure how this drama went nuclear. I think both have raised good points and both have made missteps.  BlueSalix probably should not have put those quotations on his user page.  It's easy to construe such a thing as an attempt to ridicule an editor, and I think BlueSalix probably could have defused some of this situation by simply apologizing and removing it, instead of defending his actions.  However, I don't think he meant to ridicule Tenebrae, and I believe that BlueSalix was just being silly.  Tenebrae has raised some good points in the debate at Talk:Ronan Farrow, but I think BlueSalix has once again been acting in good faith, and I'm perplexed by some of Tenebrae's accusations, such as disruption and pushing a POV.  BlueSalix gently suggested to an IP editor that he register, and this became yet another major source of drama on the talk page.  I'm not sure why.  I think everyone needs to just chill out, count to ten, and assume more good faith.  It's very frustrating and stressful to have a negative experience with an admin, but I think BlueSalix is one of the good guys.  It might be too late to mean much, but maybe an apology from BlueSalix for the quotation thing would help matters somewhat. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a place where we review administrators. Perhaps you mean Editor review? --Rschen7754 08:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BlueSalix isn't an admin? I don't know why I thought he was, except that he impressed me and I apparently need more sleep.  Well, then, maybe it does need to be moved to the appropriate venue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And I should note that exactly one month after the above editors note that this is the wrong page for BlueSalix to have taken his issue, he brought them here again. Maybe it was exercise in futility for me to have responded, but it's hard to let his assertions go unanswered. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to Editor Review for the sake of clarity and to avoid further confusion. Mkdw talk 16:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)