User talk:FRANCISBONNICI

July 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Edward Banayoti, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Edward Banayoti. Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am new to this. Will explain why I changed the page. I was once told a story about a person who went to confession and told the priest he had slandered another person. The person in question was given an unusual penance. The person was asked by the priest to go to the top of a hill and to spread a hundred flower petals and to come back to him when he did. The person duly obliged and went back to report he had performed the task. The priest then told the person to go and try to pick up all the 100 petals he had let go a while earlier. The person said that what he was being asked to do was an impossible task. That was precisely the point. My point is that every person who writes on Wikipedia has a duty of care to not overstep a boundary of propriety. Words used should be measured and reflect a fair picture. I did make changes to Edward Banayoti's page which in fact reverted back with a bot within seconds. The fact that so many articles referenced are linked to the same "group of newspapers" and connected people almost appears to be some form of SEO exercise, as well as pointing references to a blogger's page, which by all accounts is in reality was nothing less than a sensationalistic blog which occasionally got the facts right according to most people I personally know. She is sadly missed even though her articles were not my cup of tea because they were too personal in nature and lacked objectivity in my view. The blogger in question more often than not used careful tones which were legally acceptable but not necessarily "fair". The Maltatoday and an ex employee Daphne Caruana Galizia to be more specific are the ones referenced in the major part. The truth behind the article is that a person who was a shareholder of a company which was "alleged" to have breached securities law. He was not alone in what was described as a partnership. In fact he is the only person appearing even though several partners worked in the firm. The person being biographed was in fact undergoing treatment for cancer at the time the actual breaches were alleged to have happened. A 12 inch scar on his abdomen testifies to this. A person who then saw other partners who made the mess in the first place leave from the back door exit and was left to clean the ship. A person who accepted a settlement to leave a clean slate for his family at a time he was vulnerable health-wise, a settlement which included the full amount of money originally taken in by the fund in what was interpreted to be breach of securities law by the Ontario Securities commission, and was argued to not be in breach by the legal team representing him, yet, nonetheless a settlement was agreed to clear up the dispute because that is what it ultimately was. One side said one thing, the other said something different. They agreed to a sum. A settlement means that a person is not accepting guilt but is agreeing to pay a penalty to avoid the risk of being found in breach. Paying a penalty or agreeing to pay a penalty does not mean the person is convicted or has committed a crime. Fact is that "ponzi" schemes which are mentioned rarely see a person face the music. In fact the perpetrators usually make off with the money and all trace of them is lost. This is clearly not the case. The person is still active in Canada with multiple businesses. He is a licensed defence industry intermediary registered with NATO and is a member of CADSI, the Canadian association for the defence industry, an entity which has a very high bar to entry and a very strict ethical standard. A squeaky clean criminal record which although I have personally verified I did not mention can be demonstrated. If Wikipedia admins are about sensationalizing and trying to smear people using pages to serve an SEO purpose, then the site is nothing but pitiful. Food for thought. Would common sense not tell you that a person who is "on the run" from justice would never operate or be allowed to operate a business which is operating in one of the most highly regulated environments where security clearance such as the "joint certification program" are considered important. So I ask Drmies. Can you help intermediate with BBb23 to make a more balanced article since as presented, in my humble opinion, it is not reflective of an honest and fair assessment. I shall leave that to your conscience. FB FRANCISBONNICI (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Bbb23 and other editing the website have no direct knowledge of facts in the matter. I edited things like the LNG because I have a degree in Science and have a direct knowledge of the industry having completed numerous feasibility and technical studies on the topic. The case of Edward Banayoti is one I know very well and in detail. As any editor would, there is a duty to present a neutral viewpoint. Edward was reported on the site to have conducted a "ponzi scheme". See what it means on the wiki. It is described as a form of fraud therefore by default a criminal offence. Edward settled the dispute on misspelling securities when the OSC deemed he needed a license. As I see it. It feels like Nazi Germany, where those in power control the media and push their own agenda. They accused the Jews of having committed crimes they did not. Wikipedia should aim to have higher standards than this. This is why I should be removed from the block, and others who are amdinistrators who use tones which are inappropriate or not objective and fail to present a neutral or balanced position should be banned. Fact is that all those who have tried to correct factual inaccuracies have been banned! What does this say about the community? FRANCISBONNICI (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Until you want to talk about your own behavior and how it related to the reason for your block, instead of talking about what others do, there is no pathway to being unblocked for you. It will be up to the next reviewer, but should you choose to make another request you will likely need to agree to a topic ban from editing about Mr. Banayoti. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

331dot, Yunshui, my dear uncle pointed out there was significant IP disruption as well, and the duck quacks loudly through edit summaries. You can see a list in this section. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

False claims have been made in relation to myself by Bbb23. This is what he claimed:"A controversial article receiving far too much attention. User:FRANCISBONNICI has been repeatedly attempting to whitewash the article. I have reverted him (more than I should but I'm considering it quasi-vandalism), but he keeps doing it. I warned him he'd be blocked if he persisted, but that's not stopping him, and, much as I think he deserves to be blocked, I don't feel comfortable doing so. In addition to the reverts, I've also done some editing of the article, so I'm WP:INVOLVED. If you could at least keep an eye on the article, that would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC). Sure, I'll be glad to. Drmies (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)" MY COMMENT: reverted him (more than I should but I'm considering it quasi-vandalism), but he keeps doing it. After I got the first message from Bbb23 I went straight to his talk page and requested that we discuss the page. He deleted my request immediately and did not reach out. He then placed the following comment above. He then said he was not comfortable blocking me. The reality I believe to be another. However. I would simply ask one of you to be an arbiter on this and consider the facts below. References of articles which shed considerable doubt on the veracity and claims of the Wiki site of Edward Banayoti as presented. All I am asking for is that you consider the facts below for the article and then determine whether the comments were in fact fair, impartial and giving a true picture. PLease remember that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The articles conveniently ignored by certain press raise far more than reasonable doubt. I also ask you to consider. Who is Bbb23. Why is he so determined to paint this person in a negative way? I am honestly mystified! Bbb23 is either unaware of specific contradictory articles or in a more sinister theory is intentionally smearing. I would rather consider it the first option. A full story needs to be presented and not only parts as the article from an article that a politically motivated Daphne Caruana Galizia painted. For those who do not know who Daphne was, she was a very vocal person who was hated and adored depending on whom you spoke to. A person who would see two dots and in any way possible seek to connect them. Banyoti's main crime appears to be his interest in an airline. Daphne jumped onto the story and took selective information from articles not to smear Banayoti, but to show an association of Maltese political figures to a "shady" character. This "local" political agenda now stuck to a person who never expected to get sucked into this saga. What does Wikipedia require from editors when the same reputable source has conflicting information. What is protocol? If you only show the bad but ignore the aspects which conflict and are reputable then an article is one-sided. First reference: this shows that Banayoti was not active in the company at the time and took over from the then president of the company Primorano. [1] It is not enough to have someone state something. So, the second reference which I had to search aggressively to dig out. Second reference clearly shows who was in the driving seat from years earlier. Namely, Primorano himself. [2]. I can confirm, and if you want to access them I am sure Mr.Banayoti himself would offer access to them, that Mr.Banayoti was in fact very sick at the time and was very lucky to make it through. A close friend pulled through from stage 3 recently and I can tell you he stopped working for over a year and would not be bothered with life's problems and would only stay close to his family. This business was not in fact a core business for him but one he left to others to run which is how he could afford his Porsche and other luxuries that Milton Chambers, a disbarred lawyer which is quoted in another article, claims to have come from company funds. Finally, the credibility of reports published usually requires credible information. PLease review the following articles.Namely an article which "quotes" very one side comments from a lawyer called Milton Chambers, who was an in-house lawyer at Golden Gate Capital from early on up to the end and according to the article itself " he was taken in" too. Excuse me! If you are an in-house lawyer and the firm you work for is in breach of a law, who's fault is it! Who's responsibility is it to ensure a company operates within a proper regulatory framework? Can he have a right to plead ignorance? Who would have had the responsibility of reviewing any contracts, licensing requirements, acquisition of assets, etc. This person was two years later disbarred and was nowhere to be found according to the blog quoted below. Where was he when Golden gate hit the floor? Where was Primorano? Fact is that they all made towards the exit door and left a majority owner who himself lost millions on the company to clean the mess up. Worse still, as the "front person" of the company, he got the punishment. One would have expected Primorano to face the music as President of the company, but he chose to get out of sight. Conveniently, this person who was in the employ of the firm claims to have been taken in, yet, was proven to have, himself been involved in malpractice "in the prior 5 years". Once the malpractice suit was started he disappeared into thin air. In the 2010 article.[3] and this is the 2012 blog. [4]. Do you guys have a conscience! FRANCISBONNICIFRANCISBONNICI (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:TEXTWALL. Please reread WP:GAB because these unblock requests are getting disruptive. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock request #whatever

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the reasons why I have been blocked fully. I will not be publishing anything, but I would like to engage in a discussion with bbb23 to try to convince him to consider 100% legitimate reference material which he has not considered to review the verbiage of the article in question. Everyone seems to think they are right, maybe the new material I presented above will make them reconsider. A pen is mightier than the sword. By not allowing me to edit or discuss you have deprived me from a sword but allow unconditionally others to assassinate characters. The least one would expect is for that person to be given access to other material for a fair hearing. FRANCISBONNICI FRANCISBONNICI (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've looked at the discussions here, and your contributions, particularly this one, and my conclusion is you just don't have the right temperament to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. I think you've made too many unblock requests, so I'm disabling your talk page access - you will need to request unblock via the Unblock ticket request system. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi. I am the OTRS agent you have been conversing with lately.

Do you agree to refrain from editing the Edward Banayoti article, and instead restrict your activity related to that subject to the talk page? If so, please amend your appeal accordingly, and I can support unblocking you. If you are the subject of that article, you have a conflict of interest, and should not edit it directly, but instead suggest changes on the talk page.

You should also understand that you have no dispute with Bbb23. He is simply an administrator doing his job to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and in doing so he reverted the deletions you did. I would have done the same; an administrator is not concerned with content disputes, our job is to maintain stability of the Wikipedia project. If reverting disruptive blanking of well-sourced material doesn't restore stability, then blocking users or protecting the article is the next recourse. Bbb23 doesn't appear to have made any significant content contributions to that article. The editors to whom you should be making your points are those who participate on the article's talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: (edit conflict) I am not the blocking administrator (Drmies is), but I oppose an unblock of this user no matter what they agree to. First, even if they restrict themselves to the Talk page, they are simply going to stridently post the same walls of text they've posted here and other places, none of which is reasonable. Second, they say that they specifically want to "convince" me of the legitimacy of their changes. I have zero desire to talk to this user, now or in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Bbb says. I cannot possibly see how this editor is even aware of what we are and what we do, or that they have any interest in improving the project by editing according to guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: @Drmies: If the user agrees to edit requests to make specific changes "Change X to Y" with supporting sources, instead of posting walls of text that nobody will read, I would unblock this user. Otherwise we have the subject of an article who has legitimate WP:BLP concerns but is stuck with no way to address them... and OTRS will not get involved in content disputes. He his here making unblock requests because I suggested it. I made a surgical edit to the lead, inserting "allegedly" in one sentence to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS after examining the cited sources, and I commented on the talk page, but that should be the extent of my involvement.

I suggest, if you cannot currently support an unblock, please state the conditions under which an unblock would be acceptable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: How are the subject's BLP concerns "legitimate"? As far as I'm concerned, the community is able to handle any possible BLP violations in the usual way. We are not required to permit the subject to edit Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, has the editor proved to OTRS that they are Banayoti?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist, I'll deviate from Bbb23 a bit, being more liberal than they are--I could agree with that, always keeping WP:ROPE in mind. But they'd have to be short, sourced, to the point, etc. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, reading over that unblock request again..."by not allowing me...character assassination...": that rope would have to be very short. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]