Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916

Revision deletion—A quick favor...

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.

Can an admin do me a quick favor and perform a revision deletion on the following two edits to my userpage.

• [1]
• [2]

Thanks.

FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 23:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Done...only one revdeletion necessary, user has been blocked. Lectonar (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: They have returned. Can you have a quick look at my userpage again? Thanks! FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@FA9295:  Done SQL^{Query me!} 00:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@SQL: Thanks! Can you also remove the first accounts' user name ("FukTrump") on the page history, as Lectonar never did that... FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 00:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@FA9295:  Done SQL^{Query me!} 00:53, 6 March 2016 (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.

Non-constructive edits and reverts of multiple editors by IP editors

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.

---

Nightscream notified me of a situation involving multiple articles edited by one or more users using multiple IP addresses to make repeated non-constructive edits, reverting the edits of Nightscream and Tenebrae. I protected the articles Jupiter's Legacy, List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs, and List of Saga story arcs for one week on February 8 in response to encourage talk page discussion rather than edit-warring, but there was no discussion on any of the article talk pages and it appears the editor has returned to the disruptive edits. Since the user appears to have no problem switching IPs, it may not help to block the addresses, and I am not sure whether we want to keep the articles protected for a lengthy time. What is the best solution here? BOZ (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason why the articles can't be protected for longer periods. I am the creator and primary contributor/editor of both articles, so no significant amount of information would be excluded. To the extent that information is added by other editors, they can continue to contribute with username accounts. Protection would simply exclude our IP policy violator, until he gets tired and leaves, at which point the protection can be lifted. Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The three articles can be protected for increasing periods, if that the best solution. BOZ (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

With no input to the contrary, I protected Jupiter's Legacy and List of Jupiter's Legacy story arcs for one month. The third article has had little activity since the protection expired. BOZ (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2016 (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.

Redirect vandalism

I've noticed a bunch of vandalism on pages where people are adding vandalism to articles by putting in redirects to inappropriate pages, such as this, this, and this. Is there a way to prevent this (such as an edit filter), or should we just keep reverting them as they appear? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Those diffs are all one troll it seems. Were there others? I looked on the usually sites that organize trolling campaigns but didn't see much (though /pol/ had a few mentions of wikipedia today). Those edits did set off some filters though ([3]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User indeffed. Nice catch! Regards,   Aloha27  talk  04:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Could one of the current anti-vandal bots be cloned & modified to trap this as follows?

1. Check recent edits that add redirects,
2. Extract the name of the "old" (redirected) article [ sans any parenthetical disambiguation like (actress) ]
3. Do a string search in the "new" (redirect target) article contents to see if it includes the "extracted" name.

In theory the new article should always have the old article's name/topic in its contents somewhere. If not then an automated revert could be executed with an "apology-if-wrong" type notice put on the editor's talk page. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 04:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that it was the same IP, but I think we could set up a bot to notice if there is a redirect tag on a page, and then there is a certain amount of text below it. I think that might be easier than the other option, but I could be wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You make a good point, that a redirect should be on a basically empty page. Your approach would be much faster (and have much lower server overhead) to spot, but of course there also is always the risk that vandals would add the redirect and page-wipe the article. And so the battle goes on... Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 06:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Discography vandalism

Over the past few months, multiple artist's discographies have been vandalized, having content blanked and release dates changed. Some of the IP addresses making the edits include:

• 1.136.97.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.37 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.49 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.50 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 1.136.97.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Some have been blocked but new ones are popping up on a regular basis. Is it possible to get a range block for 1.136.97? Eric444 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen this one about on some discography articles. A 1.136.97.0/25 block affects only 128 addresses with little collateral damage so I've blocked for a month. We'll see if that slows them down. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

This LTV is likely Dylan Florida. I've got a few other /24 under multi-month blocks that I keep having to renew (including ranges adjacent to this /25). Will want to keep an eye on the rest of the /24 containing yours, and also check back in a month to reblock it. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, DMacks. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

NLT block

• CaseyMcCreedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Katherine McNamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• "Legal removal of Evan McNamara's per request of her lawyer and publicist AdvantagePR as he is no longer legally her parent."

This edit summary is plainly intended to invoke a chilling effect, with an implicit legal threat against any editor who reverts. Regardless of the merits of the edit (and I am a strong supporter of following the subject's wishes in these things), the edit summary seems to me to be a clear violation of WP:NLT, but I think reasonable people may differ so I am bringing it here for review and I will leave it to independent reviewing admins to decide if the block should stand or not. Guy (Help!) 09:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

As they went straight to a legal threat without any previous dispute and the edit summary is dry and factual, I would say a NLT block is appropriate. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not persuaded, and would give some leeway if an unblock request was made. However I would expect the sentence in question to be better supported by references. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I had a laugh at the "no longer legally her parent" to justify for removing mention of her father. But this isn't a legal threat as neither Wikipedia or any editor is being threatened with legal action. Of course, that doesn't mean that there aren't other problems with the edit. I did do a quick Google check to see if there were any mentions of Katherine McNamara "divorcing" her father, but didn't come up with any legal action regarding her and father. Perhaps someone else's Google-fu will be better. —Farix (t | c) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a legal threat at all, nor is it the right way to make changes either. KoshVorlon 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I can't imagine an actress successful suing to "divorce" her father being completely ingnored by the media. At the very least TMZ would have covered it.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits of User:Gamerprof

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.

---

User:Gamerprof does these edits [4], [5], [6] at Ryazhenka without any summaries which show a clear edit warring behaviour. They refused to participate at the extensive content dispute at Talk:Ryazhenka about the origin of this product. I opened this topic on Talk in December after their first edits of this kind. They ignored it and also they ignored my comment summaries inviting to participate at the discussion and the warning at they Talk. Previously they attempted to remove the word "Ukrainian" from sourced sentences (a clear vandalism) and to introduce several times highly unreliable sources (one where the authors were unsure about its origin, one blog page and one copy of an old version of Wikipedia itself) to assert its Russian origin (s. history) which were reverted by me and another editor. Recently another editor took part in the dispute at Talk and we discussed it in detail. The outcome of the discussion was that there is some degree of uncertainty due to the scarcity of the sources, but that the Ukrainian origin is the only one supported by the sources (actually old Russian and Soviet primary sources, as until recently this product was virtually uknown in the West). However, User:Gamerprof did not take part in the discussion, but changed lately the behaviour to simply deleting the entry in the infobox on its historical Ukrainian origin. I see no possibility to resolve the issue in a civilized manner, as the user refuses to participate in any discussion. In general, User talk:Gamerprof leaves an impression of a common edit warring behaviour on multiple pages. --Off-shell (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Gamerprof has never made an edit to an article talk page or a Wikipedia space page so I'm not optimistic that he will come here and explain his behavior. This might have to be decided without his participation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

In the past when I've seen cases like this, the usual outcome is a block for the non-participating editor to prevent further disruption. When the editor agrees to participate in discussion, then the block can be lifted. Not sure if that is the answer here, but it's one I've seen before. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, considering these edits, we might enlist a Russian speaker to try communicating with this editor. (though if Google Translate is even close with the translation of those comments, we might just assume this editor is here to right great wrongs... and summarily block) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is very close to the Russian original, except that he used a reflexive Russian verb for "wipe" meaning "wipe your butt with". --Off-shell (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's just shocking and abusive. I think Gamerprof's comments at that editor's user talk merit an indef, at least until Gamerprof can demonstrate that he or she understands that such abusive language as suggesting that another editor should use the Quran as toilet paper is unacceptable under any circumstances. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• User indef'd for incivility and edit warring. If they show they're willing and capable to engage in civil discussion, I'm not gonna wheel war if someone unblocks, but I'm probably not going to be able to carry that out myself. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2016 (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.

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

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.

---

Timothy Parker (puzzle designer)

A series of anonymous IPs have been reverting factual additions to this page. The page itself appears to be an autobiography, and the reverts appear to be the work of the author himself. Please see the article's history and judge for yourself.

Also read the following for background on the page's additions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/business/media/questions-raised-over-crosswords-seemingly-copied-from-the-new-york-times.html http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-plagiarism-scandal-is-unfolding-in-the-crossword-world/ Econrad (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I currently have an AN3 report filed regarding this article here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Econrad (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I figure at the very least we can add a semi-protection to the page for the time being. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 6 March 2016 (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.

Strange AfD behavior

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.

---

There seems to be some odd behavior over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Docker's Guild. There are a lot of similar IP users making similar arguments. I'm wondering if there's sockpuppetry or canvassing going on. Some more experienced eyes would be appreciated. clpo13_(talk) 05:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DGG closed it and opened a new one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2016 (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.

AHSApacheStudent

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.

---

AHSApacheStudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The aforementioned user continually vandalizes several pages dealing with 'List of programs broadcast by...' by adding false premiere dates and finale dates to various programs. The majority of the vandalism is on articles List of programs broadcast by Boomerang and List of programs broadcast by Discovery Family. He has been warned countless times, but continually ignores them. His regular violations of WP:NOR is getting annoying and a bit too much to handle. What could and should be done? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like they were blocked back in August 2015 for disruptive editing/vandalism. A look at their talkpage shows numerous warnings about unhelpful edits and I can't see where they've ever took part in a talk page discussion. By large their edits aren't overwhelmingly helpful. They do seem to have created a page for Viceland a few days before the article was created at the proper article name, but I don't see where it really impacted the article created a little after that. Some of this other edits seem to be attempts to split content off of articles and change titles without (or against) consensus. By large his edits aren't so helpful that we'd really lose anything by permanently blocking him, given that he's been repeatedly getting warnings for what looks like the same actions since he signed up. I figure that I'm going to give him an indef block. If he can make a very, very good case for himself and explain why he added false information and made other unhelpful edits, he may be unblocked. However for the time being he seems like he'd probably do more harm than good if left to his own devices, especially since he's never made an attempt to explain his actions or respond to anyone. You don't have to post on talk pages, but at some point you're expected to if you've been blocked and received as many warnings as this guy has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I sincerely hope that he/she will finally speak up. Your actions taken are very much appreciated. Carbrera (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (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.

Sitebanned editor email harassment

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.

---

Site-banned editor Fangusu has had her talk page access revoked and several of her favourite talk pages (including mine) have been semiprotected due to her ongoing IP block evasion and appeals to various users to lift her ban, in spite of very clear instructions left on her talk page regarding the standard offer. She has now taken to emailing me the same unblock requests through the site's email a user function, all of which are copypastes of the same request. It had been one every few days for a couple weeks now that I simply deleted, but she sent me five last night in the span of a few minutes, and one more this morning. I'm told that administrators can turn off a user's ability to email other users through the site, and if that's possible I would like to ask that her access to email be revoked. I can provide copies of the messages if necessary. Of course I haven't responded to her emails and I don't intend to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You had the right instinct, Ivanvector. If you had responded, the editor would now have your email address (which isn't visible through the Email this user function) and blocking their ability to email you through Wikipedia wouldn't affect their ability to now continue to email you. This is a good reminder to editors to only respond via email to users with whom they expect to have cordial relationships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 6 March 2016 (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.

... or to use a segregated email account for WP interactions. (You can leave your main email on file so initial emails come into it, but respond from the segregated account, so that potential crazies never learn your main address.) EEng 08:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest IP of a troll

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.

---

Here it is. I have many many reports to AN/I, ANV and I believe the AN noticeboard about this. Here's the latest AN/I report. Eik Corell (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2016 (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.

Admin refuses to close discussions as no consensus

WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Regardless of the repeated RFCs at WT:MFD rejecting relistings for MFD discussions, an admin completely refuses to follow policy. Can a non-deletionist follow actual policy or can we just go back to reverting his discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.121.100 (talk) 07:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Urgent block needed for sock

71.174.132.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I am in a dire need of a block for a sockpuppet who is a troll, is currently edit warring and engaging in possible personal attacks (on talk pages) at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism. There has been an ANI complaint about this troll before. I am currently on mobile and diff links are hard to work with, so if it is really necessary please let me know so I do so. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to Administrators This is a self-admitted[7] sockpuppet. I'm still for indefinitely blocking this sock even thought the page was protected. He's only going to cause more trouble when the protect expires. Boomer Vial^Holla 05:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

IP's are generally never blocked indefinitely, except for open proxies. Admins however can put it on long term semi protection, which is less disruptive to registered editors than full protection. If this IP is a sock of a currently indef blocked registered user, then editors are exempt from the 3RR when dealing with them. Blackmane (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This person is hopping in the range 71.174.0.0/16. I would do a rangeblock, but http://tools.wmflabs.org/rangecontrib is now restricted so it only outputs the last 30 edits. A /16 range is too large to block without more information. Anyone know of a better tool? EdJohnston (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

At Special:Preferences under gadgets, enable "Allow /16, /24 and /27 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions...". That shows contribs links for a range, although I only used it once to see how it works and do not know how far back it goes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I assumed your link was to xtools but it was for an older tool. Again, I don't have experience with using it, but xtools allows you to enter a start date although it only allows a maximum of 50 contributions. If you preview {{blockcalc|71.174.0.0/16}} in a sandbox, it provides a link (c) to xtools with the start date set to one month ago. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The WP:RBI approach taken on socks of this banned user might warrant action on most recent IP sock: 86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Recent edit history on any articles involved should help an assessing admin recognise patterns of disruption. Page protect on (at least) AW139 article also likely should be considered. Guliolopez (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Is any admin in a position to review this? Guliolopez (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do with this IP?

212.252.20.216 appears to be a single-purpose account who has been adding questionable material and deleting sourced information. I really don't want to keep reverting their edits. Nevertheless, I tried to have the IP discuss the changes at the TP but it doesn't seem to work. What should be an appropriate measure to take here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat?

This IP (80.12.43.175 - ANI notice) just left this on my talk page. I believe that this constitutes a legal threat, but I want to get input in case I am wrong, and administrator action if I'm right. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The IP also keeps reverting edits made to Carl-Eduard von Bismarck, which removes a reference, adds unreferenced BLP issues, and removes templates such as {{reflist}} from the article. A report has been filed at AIV. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A new user, Transparencythruth has just been created (presumably by the IP), and is now adding the same BLP issue to the article. Left a 4im warning, and an ANI notice. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That was my reading of the situation too. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked new one as a sock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Peacemaker67. I'll keep an eye out and update if I find any more. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems the article has been vandalized over the last few days from the same IP range, including Khaoz529k, 80.12.35.99, 80.12.39.28, and 80.12.51.34. I'm tempted to roll the article back to a point prier to these edits.[8] —Farix (t | c) 12:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

No objection to that: the only difference from the current version [9] is in the person data. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This was closed too quickly. I just blocked Khaoz529k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for this and this. A clear legal threat. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather - I've re-opened this thread, as your information is important and is relevant to my initial report. Thank you for catching the legal threat left on my talk page. I went through about half of that message, assumed that it was all nonsense, and went on my merry way without realizing that I missed something. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I semiprotected the article. I guess it's whack-a-mole from here on. I note that the rule of thumb that any user with "truth" in the name is here on a mission, has been shown once again to be valid. Guy (Help!) 01:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru

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.

---

Potguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Well, here we are again, and here I am posting on the dramaboard. Anyways, I think its time User:Potguru be shown the door. The user has had some issues on the past, and seems to be here mostly to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - The user recently has been editing Donald J Drumpf and Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)‎ - The user seems to be warring pretty hard, and is nothing but incivil.
The proof is not only in the content, but the edit summaries.

[10] -- [11] -- [12] - The user seems to be throwing thier toys out the pram and now asks that we "please erase every contribution I've ever made to this god forsaken shit hole!" --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 19:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the user made three consecutive votes on an AFD just to push the point. There is no question that this user is simply being disruptive and un-collaborative like a bull in a china shop. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already reported the user at WP:AIV. I agree a time out is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. They've decided that the "Trump supporters" have won and Donald J Drumpf is to be deleted. The AfD isn't over yet, but they've decided to take back all their contributions while blanking their talk page to any warnings. clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep that was an accurate feeling when written. If there were a magic button that removed all my contributions I'd click it in a nanosecond. I WAS attempting to resolve a problem of multiple articles related to the same topic. But I have been attacked by Muboshgu repeatedly, and other non-well meaning editors who are, frankly, mad that the drumpf topic is getting the amazing press coverage it did. As I said... just erase all my contributions and I'll go back to the rock I live under with people who don't hate and are not afraid to learn. --Potguru (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your solution to fixing an issue like that is throwing a huge fit, attacking other editors, etc? Instead of calmly discussing with other editors and collaborating? Wikipedia has no deadline, things take time. Staying calm and discussing is one of the core foundations of Wikipedia, and you seem to have no regard for it. I think you still have potential to be a great editor, but you may need to take a WP:WALK --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

My solution was this...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Drumpf_(Last_Week_Tonight) please carefully review the edits and my hard work before you judge me --Potguru (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

You were bold, and you made that page. Someone "reverted you" and now its time to discuss. It's the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 20:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

And only seconds ago you were wanting to show me the door... nice neighborhood, huh? --Potguru (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

dude, you want to fix the problem? Speedy delete donald j drumpf and consider recommending that the page I authored already did all the work. As you know I can't do anything right now because everyone is watching me. Your suggestion is great, now kindly act on it and take me out of this damn box. --Potguru (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

What would help is if you would stop deleting valid content from Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike your war edits mine are (most often) constructive and they build upon others work. You just revert anything I do because you don't like the subject matter. --Potguru (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits are mostly nonconstructive, which is why we're here. You delete valid material about Google Search results sourced to the New York Times, and created a duplicate article, which you then removed the CSD template from despite several warnings. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, bub, that accusation is way off base and likely the reason you pissed me off to begin with. Your indictment that my edits are mostly non-constructive is, to be blunt, absolutely absurd. Please actually look at the incredibly long list of edits I've made to this and a group of other articles and then come back here and apologize for your baseless attack. --Potguru (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

So is anything going to happen here? Or am I going to continue to wish my AIV report hadn't been taken down because of this. ANI often seems like a waste of time without any action. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What would you like to happen here? Potguru seems to have accepted the way the wind is blowing (albeit ungracefully and with a fair bit of passive aggressive grousing) with regard to the AfD. That content issue is resolved (or ought to be, any time now) with a clear merge finding. Of course their "I'm going to take my ball and go home" attitude is silly, even obnoxious, but it doesn't really rise to the level of personal attacks against specific editors, nor to disruption of a sort warranting a sanction, so why are you not just ignoring them rather than engaging/enabling? Discuss the remaining content issues (such as how much content will be merged in from Donald J Drumpf) on the talk page for Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight), and if Potguru violates consensus, then return here or to 3RR. But sanctions are meant to be preventative and not punitive, so we're not going to hand one out for an issue that's already closed--nor for PG being a purveyor of sour grapes.

I will add one caveat though: Potguru, I've noticed that you are repeatedly referring to Muboshgu as "mushu" in your posts and edit summaries, which I feel is suggestive of a patronizing (if not quasi-racist) tone. Please show your fellow contributors proper respect, whatever you feel about their editorial perspectives; WP:NPA/WP:C are non-negotiable stipulations to your involvement on this project. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to be more respectful of editors. I was angry at him at that moment in time, I think I did it twice. I will refrain from acting like a child, even when angry. --Potguru (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

PS, perhaps you could warn Muboshgu above of the same, clearly his accusation that my edits are non-constructive is an attacked based on his political beliefs and not actual fact. I'm happy to follow the same rules everyone else does but I will not be singled out. --Potguru (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Potguru: We're not going to attack people purely based on political beliefs, especially if they haven't even stated that it's due to their political beliefs. That's like saying anyone who adds negative information to the Barack Obama article is a racist. I actually support Trump, and I'm still gonna be fine however the AfD goes. Wikipedia is about building a complete encyclopedia, not tailoring it to our individual political beliefs. You're edits were most certainly unconstructive, and he was right to report you in my opinion. Reporting of behavior to the proper noticeboard, as long as the report isn't blatantly false, is not a personal attack. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If you are ok accepting his indictment that my edits are mostly non-constructive than I challenge you to actually PROVE that point, or demand that he rescind said accusation. His statement that my edits are MOSTLY non-constuctive is, as I said before, absolutely ludicrous and I will add that his accusation is slanderous. Or I can waste all the editors time and make the claim myself. I demand an apology for the FALSE ACCUSATION. The editor is not being civil, why is the set of rules he is held to different? if not different then demand he retract his attack that my edits are MOSTLY NONCONSTUCTIVE. Same rules for all, kids. --Potguru (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Ps note there is a difference between my making some non-constructive edits and the editors attack of me that "Your edits are mostly nonconstructive" -Muboshgu . Rescind that slanderous statement immediately. This is not a kindergarten parking lot. --22:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please scale back your ire a little here? A) You opened up the "constructive/nonconstructive" can or worms when you told Muboshgu "Unlike your war edits mine are (most often) constructive", B) to the extent he countered that yours were the nonconstructive edits, he seemed to be referring to the exact same narrow context of the articles/content issues in question, not your entire editorial history.

In any event, your response here, in terms of your demands for a recantation and the fact that you've opened another ANI below as a tit-for-tat, is way over-the-top. Muboshgu is allowed to have a poor impression of your editorial contributions and the best way for you to counter those impressions is to calmly present why your actions have been rational and constructive, not too launch into histrionic, bolded, capped "YELLING FITS" demanding an apology. Nor to open up new ANI threads to address a personal dispute between the two of you that could be addressed just as easily here. Frankly you are doing nothing but buttressing his argument that you're discussion methodology is hyperbolic and disruptive. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

just for fun, here's another editor assuming that (although all my contributions are cited with good sources) I must be a JERK because I put up info the editor didn't like. shouold I "tell on" this editor because he was mean to me too? "To put it simply, please stop behaving like a jerk. The infobox has no place in this article, especially since it is being used to mock the person (calling him a "pimp" and "tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa"). I mean, what is wrong with you? You're not being funny.---MarshalN20 Talk 18:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)" Maybe we should ALL follow the rules and acutually use the policies like not being biased. I didn't say he was a tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa the newspaper did and my comments about pimp are available for all to read. . You guys read the talk page, right? --Potguru (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the both of them could use a time out. After reading this, I honestly don't care who threw the first rock. HalfShadow 03:19, 7 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive Editing and Ownership Behavior

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 have been having issues with disruptive editing (among multiple other issues) by User:MontanaBW. This behavior began when I started editing the Parelli Natural Horsemanship (a.k.a. PNH) page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship about two months ago and has continued since.

As a matter of background, I am a student of PNH and have been for about 10 years. I have no other affiliation with the organization, financial or otherwise. I have never been paid to train horses or people on horsemanship.

When I found the page, it was sorely lacking in substance and was filled with anti-PNH material. Some of that material was valid criticism that was reasonably written. However, much of the text significantly overstated negative elements found in the source; some of it was written in a distinctly unencyclopedic tone; some of it was uncited and had been for years; some of it was nonsensical; a fair amount of it was distorted; some of it was outright incorrect and much of it lacked any countervailing view representing the “other side of the story.”

I will leave out the ugly details here but will summarize them by saying: I added material. MontanaBW deleted much of my material. She engaged in repeated "discussions" (which can be viewed in their entirety on the PNH talk page and my talk page) that usually amounted to little more than a conclusory rant about how PNH was a cult and Pat Parelli (the founder) was a “huckster” and a “flimflam artist.” She is certainly entitled to her opinions, but her editing should not reflect them.

More often than anything resembling a substantive discussion, she accused me repeatedly of COI, POV editing, copyright infringement, SPA and probably a few other things I’m forgetting at the moment.

I will give her credit for saying the right things in terms of principles (e.g. repeatedly referring to foundational principles such as NPOV and such). However, as she was saying the right things, she was doing the wrong thing -- deleting much of the material that did not comport with her vehement prejudices against PNH and being quit uncivil in the process.

That was more background than I had meant to put in but, in rereading it, I’m not sure what I should cut out. My apologies for the length so far.

MontanaBW’s latest ugly remark, left on my talk page, included, “Others can try to educate you, at this point, as far as I am concerned, I am done trying to teach a brick wall. You can either edit properly or get reverted.”

In turn, my immediate concern are her latest manual modifications to the page, which she called “Kept some changes, tossed some changes.” Most of the deletions on the page were of my work. Some of her modifications very nearly defy explanation, other than she has manually changed the page back into almost exactly how she had left it before others and I made changes (this is MontanaBW's last version of the page ).

In approximate order of their occurrence in the text (and omitting a few), these are the changes MontanaBW made manually to the page:

• She changed the “co-authored by” section – back verbatim to her earlier version – which gave “co-author” credit to the (non-notable) ghost writer and a photography-by credit (to Pat Parelli’s first wife). These individuals are clearly non-notable. On the talk page where others and I had been discussing it, she simply put, “Parelli's first wife also claims co-founder credit and helped him with his first book” (this is uncited…) and “Clearly, behind the "great man" are several hard-working women.”
• I fixed a misplaced period (to comport with the American style regarding periods/commas), putting the period where it belonged (inside the quotes):

from “The Four Savvys”.

to “The Four Savvys.”

She changed it back to the incorrect placement

• I fixed another misplaced period, taking the text

from “7 Games”.

to “7 Games.”

She changed that back, too.

• The same thing happened with

"Parelli Natural Horsemanship University",

• To comport with the talk page discussion (and to remove the word “now,” which is inappropriate), I changed the “co-created” sentence. She changed it back, verbatim, to her earlier version. Her version did not comport with the talk page discussion, which she hadn’t participated in (and added that “now” right back in).
• I had reorganized for flow. The text had read <program availability><program description><program availability>. I reorganized it so that it read <program description><program availability> (i.e., so the topic of “availability” wasn’t split by a different topic for no reason.) She manually changed it to (again, verbatim) her earlier version.
• A material mistake had been introduced at some point, describing “liberty” work with a horse as involving the horse in a halter and lead rope/flank rope. That is unambiguously wrong. Liberty work is…a horse at liberty. I changed it so it was correct. She manually reintroduced the error (to, verbatim, her earlier version).
• I fixed grammar. “Horse” is singular, so I changed a “they are” to “it is.” She changed it back to be grammatically incorrect.
• This is an article about an organization, not individuals. I changed “The Parellis state” to “PNH states.” She changed it back (again, verbatim).
• Another editor and I had discussed Lauren Barwick. She is a Parelli Professional (a title), so that is what I called her (and provided a citation). The other editor changed it to Parelli Instructor. That was wrong as “Parelli Instructor” isn’t a title; it’s a description. We discussed it and I changed it to “Parelli instructor,” which wasn’t as precise as it could have been but seemed to make both of us more or less satisfied. It was a good exercise is collaborative editing, I suppose. MontanaBW later edited it back to “has been coached by,” which isn’t wrong but it’s only about 10% of the story. (And, unsurprisingly, it is her exact text from beforehand.)
• I changed a period that appeared in the middle of a sentence into a comma (it had been “that it is "gimmicky and over-commercialized." sells overpriced materials”). She deleted the comma and reinserted the period in the middle of the sentence.

It is very difficult to improve an article when mistakes (grammatical and substantive) are being reintroduced in such a purposeful way. Her ownership behavior is not new. It appears to have existed not just for months but for almost the entirety of the life of this page.

Again, I apologize for the length of this post. Can you offer any assistance with this editor’s behavior?JackieLL007 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Looks like a content dispute. I see nothing disruptive about Montanabw's conduct. You might seek third party input from a variety of places listed at WP:DR. This is just not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am, upon additional review, becoming increasingly concerned with JackieLL007's conduct, having looked hard at Jackie's user talk page and complaint here. The insistence above that the article use the Oxford comma, rather than Wikipedia's own manual of style, is the sort of nitpicky complaint we more often see from editors with an axe to grind. I'm not saying that this is the case, but Jackie, you should be aware that your own conduct does not look good here. I'm sorry if this isn't the response you were looking for, but I would respectfully suggest you walk away from articles concerning PNH for now. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. If another editor makes an edit that you feel is incorrect, it can be fixed some other time. For now, though, you should focus on becoming more experienced in the Wikipedia culture in subject areas where disputes are not going to concern topics about which you feel so strongly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me in reviewing the complaints brought here that JackieLL07 is fixated on the article Parelli Natural Horsemanship. According to her edit stats She has been editing only since Dec 29, 2015 and has made 105 out of her 209 edits on that article and 28 more to its talk page. She has made 7 edits to her next most-edited article. For someone who appears to only have been editing for a couple of months, she has found this notice board quite early: it invites the question of whether she has used another account previously. Nevertheless, this is single-purpose account which seems very keen to right the great wrong done to the Parellis by our article. Frankly, looking at the sources, neither I nor another uninvolved editor, Bishonen who cleaned up some of the article, the sources just don't support the claims JackieLL07 is making out of them. This is a new editor whose only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to impose her POV on the Parelli Natural Horsemanship article, and resents the established editors who are explaining to her the problems she is causing. A certain amount of competence is required, so I'm going to suggest that that JackieLL07 turns her attention to other articles that she is not so invested in. Therefore:

• I propose a six month topic ban for JackieLL07 from Parelli Natural Horsemanship.

She can edit other articles that she has less strong feelings about while learning how Wikipedia NPOV works. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RexxS, I did revert two times over the last 2 months as a result of what, to me, seemed like a very heavy delete hand by MontanaBW. Other than that, I am genuinely uncertain what behavior from my editing would be construed as troubling. Could you provide some diffs, please?JackieLL007 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If you insist, I'll make a start with your first edits to the article. Over the space of one day, you added 5,000 bytes of text, but only one reference (http://www.jackiechant.co.nz/About/About-Parelli/ - the website of a "Licensed 4-star Parelli Instructor", hardly a reliable, independant source). Your changes made the article read more like an uncritical advert for PNH, including several HOWTO sections. Don't you find that troubling? I certainly do.

The next day, you made this edit, summarised as "Removing bias and uncited material". It seems to be an attempt to recast criticism into Parelli's terms and remove the fact that criticism is levelled by the mainstream equestrian community, including the very high cost of the courses.

Now that's just the first two days and you've made another 100+ edits to the article as your edit stats at https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=JackieLL007&project=en.wikipedia.org show. Anybody with the time to spare can peruse the edits you've made in context by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship&offset=20160304&limit=500&action=history - it's not hard to spot how many other editors have felt the need to clean up the article after your edits.

I find it very disappointing that faced with a call for a topic ban from the article, your immediate response is to say that you are uncertain about the problem. It's up to you to examine your edits and make the effort to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise PNH. If anybody else wants to see more problematic diffs, I'll adduce more, but really, nobody can be unaware of your involvement with PNH and the difficulty that must cause in viewing the content from an unbiased POV. You need a break from PNH and to get some practice on something uncontroversial. WP:SUGGESTBOT might be helpful. --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not excited about accusations of this kind while an editor clearly cannot defend herself.[13]. Jackie many of these concerns are very simple copy edit/ grammatical changes. I don't think AN/I is the place for complaints made based on these kinds of very simple edits. Work it out on the talk page without accusations, eh?(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC))
• Support topic ban, though if Jackie would voluntarily back away from the article, I would withdraw my support. I'm willing to give Jackie the benefit of the doubt that it's just inexperience rather than truly tendentious editing that has led to this mess. But if Jackie doubles down in response to this proposal, I see no other answer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban unless diffs can be provided showing JackieLL07 editing disruptively in the topic area. Being enthusiastic about one particular topic area and being ignorant, as a newcomer, of specific details of the Manual of Style, do not add up to requiring a formal topic ban enforceable by blocks. MPS1992 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban unless it is imposed unilaterally to both MBW and JackieLL07. MBW has stated outright that she failed to AGF by assuming the "I (she) initially thought you (Jackie) were (was) a paid editor". Had MBW approached the conflict in a more open manner, we wouldn't be here now. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. I am not upset that someone is putting a comma outside the parenthesis when it should go inside. I can see why you would think that complaint was ridiculous -- it would be. That wasn't my concern, though. This is not a content dispute.

Instead, my point is this: the other editor has made such a point of reverting my work that she has now devolved to reflexively changing back anything I edit. She's an experienced editor and presumably knows relatively simple things like basic punctuation. Why in the world would she go out of her way to manually revert punctuation -- several times -- back to being incorrect? Why would she manually change "horse...is" back to "horse...are"?

(Btw, not to be nitpicky, but the comma/quote placement is American standard. ["Place periods and commas… Inside quotation marks"]. It is different from an Oxford comma, which precedes the "and" in a series. The Oxford comma is indeed optional.) I would also point out that going out of one's way to reinsert a period in the middle of a sentence (where a comma clearly belongs) seems to be almost the definition of tendentious editing.

The same is true for the substance. For example, I fixed substantive errors (including one that could be subject to no reasonable debate -- that "liberty work" involves a horse that is at liberty) and she reintroduced them.

I have tried to have discussions about specific edits with this editor for several months. For the most part, she refuses to discuss specifics and, instead, goes after the editor (i.e., me) and PNH (which doesn't particularly bother me but does demonstrate her vehement POV). The one time she did share her specific concerns, I researched her points and agreed with her. I have told her repeatedly that I am happy to discuss specific edits but she does not seem inclined to have discussions regarding specifics (and, as of her last post on my talk page, flat-out refused).JackieLL007 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

• Once again, I don't see a specific problem with Montanabw's conduct here that merits intervention. If Montanabw introduced errors by reverting one of your contribs, the proper response would be to fix that specific error in a subsequent edit, and noting it in an edit summary. If Montanabw then went back and reverted that edit consisting solely of a minor, uncontroversial change in grammar, spelling, or punctuation (without a good reason, such as WP:MOS compliance), then you might have a valid argument that Montanabw's conduct is problematic. As it is, I'm just not seeing it. Please, Jackie, heed the advice I gave above and find another topic area on Wikipedia to edit rather than PNH. Perhaps come back to it after you've got the experience and track record under your belt that potential COI problems aren't overshadowing everything else. I say this as someone who came into Wikipedia during my college years trying to edit a topic related to my major and internet culture... both things that were near and dear to my heart at that time. I got very frustrated and almost didn't come back to Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe Montanabw and JackieLL007 could both leave the article alone for a couple of weeks and let other editors work on it? I'm sorry if this is not a good suggestion, but I was up late last night and got up early this morning because of real life issues, so I'm tired and my brain may not be working so well. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, I appreciate your feedback. I truly am here to add to Wikipedia (and to address a different comment, no, I am not a returning user). I think MontanaBW's edits have, as you stated, introduced the same errors on a repeated basis. Here, MontanaBW didn't merely revert the page...she manually removed all of my recent changes. All of those changes were directed towards restoring her earlier version of the page, and several of those changes reintroduced her earlier, and unambiguously wrong, material. This was not the first time for several of these errors. For example, on the substantive front, I entered correct information (e.g., regarding liberty work), someone changed it so it was incorrect, I changed it back, Montanabw manually changed it so it was incorrect...again. (As an aside, this is a fact that is not remotely controversial, so it wasn't just a war of opinions/sources. It was plain-old error that was introduced yet again.) Manually changing every last one of my recent entries does not seem directed towards improving WP. This is especially true given that her changes reintroduced multiple and patently obvious errors (e.g., the period in the middle of a sentence). Instead, it seems directed more towards either pushing me towards dispute resolution (which worked) or towards maintaining "her" version of the page.

WAF, I think that is a good idea. I'd be happy to take a break from editing the PNH page if MontanaBW would do the same. Maybe she and I could both restrict ourselves to the talk page...?JackieLL007 (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We will have to wait until Montanabw is back online to see. Somebody else posted on her talk page and said that her computer crashed and it may be a day or so before it's fixed. That looks like it will be the cleanest way of resolving the issue. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a COI in that JackieLL007 is not a paid advocate but as a student of PNH there is an indirect financial interest since PNH isn't free. We also can't rule out advocacy because of the obvious bias in favor of PNH which may make everything seem much worse than it actually is in this particular content dispute. Mendaliv was on target for suggesting DR first. ANI isn't the place for petty issues like commas, semantics, and syntax. If edit warring is involved, then 3RR is the place to take it, not here. This dispute doesn't warrant a TB but I do think a voluntary break from editing that article would help get things back into perspective. My suggestion to the OP is to request a non-admin closure and move on. Try to find another topic to Wikignome for a while. When things cool off, they can always go back and start a discussion regarding any recommended changes on the article TP. Atsme^📞📧 04:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, that's a good idea. This has been a toxic mess and I think I'll go do something else with my spare time. I'd like a non-admin closure.JackieLL007 (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2016 (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:Muboshgu

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 don't know if we've ever been here before. It would surprise me if we have not. I demand the user Muboshgu rescind his slanderous statement that My "edits are mostly nonconstructive".

I am not sure why this user is allowed to personally attack me pointing only to a few occurrences of edits during a heated period separate from a mountain of good submissions. Please demand this user stop making unfounded and slanderous claims against users who create and edit articles that the user apparently disagrees with. Please warn this user that they are required to be civil. The user has been, in my opinion, harassing anyone who added to the discussion who was not a Trump supporter most particularly me as I am the original author of an article about a contentious topic which garnered international media attention. (Yes the press wrote about the article).

I would like the user to rescind his slanderous comment and be warned not to make others. Thank you --Potguru (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edits were mostly unconstructive in this particular situation is what was meant by my read of things. To say so is not a personal attack. I'm sure you also have lots of productive edits too, and I'm sure User:Muboshgu wouldn't disagree with that. I think it's time to disengage though, because there's not a lot of value in keeping these demands up. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 00:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you speak for Moboshgu? I think you should demand that he respect me... his attack is wholly unwarranted and seemingly politically motivated... unless you've actually reviewed all or a substantial number of (at least the majority) my edits and then came to this conclusion, have you? --Potguru (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, it would help if you would post diffs/links to the edits that you have an issue with so that they could be examined and evaluated. As it is now, it seems like you expect ANI regulars to comb through Muboshgu's contributions to find where you believe you were insulted. Folks have lots of things they want to spend their editing time on and you need to bring your evidence to your complaint if you want to have editors offer their opinion on the merits of your case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Liz, thanks for weighing in. Unlike those attacking me I am not yet skilled enough to be able to point you to the specific edit. Editor's slanderous statement is on this very page, up above, in the potguru section. --02:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• You have been here before, Potguru. About 14 threads up. Unfortunately, a "mountain of good submissions" doesn't seem to include knowing how AFDs work. Compare that to Muboshgu's mountain of 140,000 edits... starship.paint ~ KO 00:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Starship paint is angry that the article exists, isn't that right starship paint? Interesting you'd take another opportunity to attack me... the original author of the article on Drumpf. Came out of semi-retirement just to tattack the subject matter didn't you? Here's the section where he starts his attack on the topic Talk:Donald_J_Drumpf#Is_this_an_attack_page_on_Trump.3F Right off the bat it is clear that he, and his chronies, are interested only in attacking me... not checking the facts at hand. Almost how I might expect a Drumpf supporter to act. --Potguru (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Potguru, this is absolutely the last time I am going to make an effort to save you from yourself, vis-a-vis a block for blatant WP:personal attacks, WP:ad hominems, general incivility, and a complete inability to WP:assume good faith. You have inappropriately opened a thread here because you felt you were being "slandered" by an assessment that your contributions were non-constructive. So if you think such an innocuous comment can constitute a personal attack, how do you think it's appropriate to ask passive-aggressive, inflammatory questions, call people "cronies" (suggesting improper collusion, another PA if you don't have evidence to support the allegation), and make comments like "exactly as I expect a support of [X; it really doesn't matter what goes here] to act"? If you want to have any chance of avoiding a block here, you need to calm down and radically alter the nature with which you communicate with your fellow editors here. If you can't do that, be ready for the WP:BOOMERANG... Snow ^{let's rap} 05:06, 7 March 2016 (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.

who to notify

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.

---

Who should I notify about the proposal to remove G13 at WT:CSD? It's about time we moved the archaic idea of deleting stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.242 (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You are likely interested in WP:RFC, however it looks like your suggestion has been reviewed by a number of editors already. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (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.

Kohs

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.

---

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/StoppingYouAgain — Preceding unsigned comment added by StoppingYouAgain (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Appears to me to be clear evidence of WP:WIKIHOUNDING by the OP. WP:BOOMERANG? General Ization ^Talk 21:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

::I don't know what it is. Boomerang against whom? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Against StoppingYouAgain, who seems to have made it their purpose to reverse any edits (even on Talk pages) made by 2001:558:1400:10:7DF8:DF25:8437:D4BA (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and then calls attention to it here. General Ization ^Talk 21:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and then struck it out. I was surprised by the reverts even on the talk page. Certainly not a new user. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:17, 7 March 2016 (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.

Hunting in pairs by Two Editors

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.

---

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two Editors frequently work in collaboration and specifically work in areas of Eastern Religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism. They frequently engage in one or more of the following actions:

1. Removing content that does not suit their “aim”.

2. Reverting edits done by “opposite group” (two people usually engage in Talk page, a third one is given the duty to revert edits)

3. Defacing Talk pages with unsubstantiated allegations.

4. Using insulting tone and threatening other users.

5. Putting “cleanup” tags on pages

6. Attacking in pairs on talk page (One person will provoke. Other will intervene and be after the opponent for using "insulting" tone).

7. Supporting each other in discussion, thereby creating an illusion of majority.

As soon as any point is made, one of these will come, taking selective actions.

This coterie involves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joshua_Jonathan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kautilya3

Examples of supporting each other:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Hindu_philosophy (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoshua_Jonathan&type=revision&diff=681775089&oldid=681612453

(Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashoka Supporting each other (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOut_of_India_theory (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murty_Classical_Library_of_India#Shortened (Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allama_Prabhu&action=history (JJ engaging in Talk page and Kautilya reverting edits.)

A Talk exchange exemplifies their thought process and Biased Point of View. Then these editors go about promoting NPOV.

"I have been researching into Hindu American Foundation lately, having seen an alarm by Vic. When I googled for "Rajiv Malhotra Hindu American Foundation," guess what pops up? [1] A fight on caste!" - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

While the HAF itself also seems to be positioned at the political right? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Not only that. The HAF makes up most of RM's political constituency, and probably continues to do so. The way I look at it, it is the fight between `bourgeois Hinduism' and the `intellectual Hinduism', while the `orthodox Hinduism' stands by to watch. I wonder what will happen when California rewrites its textbooks next time. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire in this civil war, and a closing of fronts against modernity? "The invasion of the secular," so to speak. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Bourgeois Hinduism is full of colonial values .RM is nothing if not anti-colonial. No rapprochement is possible. But it would be nice if they fought more intensely! - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent example. Kautliya posts on Talk Page of JJ:

Murty Classical Library of India ... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adiagr (talk • contribs) Adiagr (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is only a tip of the iceberg. In case a comprehensive investigation is made, my charge of "hunting in pairs" will be substantiated.

I request senior administrators to look into this issue. This has been going on for quite some time now (Almost a year since I have interacted and by that time they were veterans in this strategy).

Adiagr (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and I edit the same pages, and meet the same, endless barrage of Hindu nationalism driven "contributions" which do not aim to improve Wikipedia, but to use Wikipedia for nationalist aims. See Murty Classical Library of India, where Adiagr popped-up in defense of a non-neutral coverage of the petition against Sheldon Pollock. Adiagr, despite a meager 335 edits, has a history of warnings because of a lack of NPOV; see the history of User talk:Adiagr (warnings are consistently being removed by Adiagr). Typically, he doesn't even know the difference between a userpage and a talkpage, posting the ANI-notification at my userpage. This ANI-thread reminds of tactics we've seen before from Bladesmulti, using the boards to haunt editors who oppose non-NPOV editors, devoting their time to extensive overviews of the edits of other editors, instead of improving Wikipedia, wasting precious time of constructive editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment Note that this is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS. Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is significant overlap between these two editors. See the interaction checker. I'm not making judgements on that overlap, just noting it. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

To respond to Adiagr's points made above (and this is what I mean by wasting my precious time; I've been reading papers on genetical research to improve Indo-Aryan migration theory, and I'd like to continue that, instead of wasting my time here):

• "1. Removing content that does not suit their “aim”." - our aim is to adhere to NPOV and rely on WP:RS. Experienced ediotrs know that I oppose POV-pushing from any direction at India-related articles: Hndus, Jains, Sikhs, Tamils, even Buddhists, "my" group.
• "2. Reverting edits done by “opposite group” (two people usually engage in Talk page, a third one is given the duty to revert edits)" - so, who's the third one?
• "3. Defacing Talk pages with unsubstantiated allegations." - augh, that's a nasty one. Examples please. If I make allegations, they are substantiated. Most of them are against socks; see Talkpage:Sikhism.
• "4. Using insulting tone and threatening other users." - I take great care not to insult other editors since it is totally counter-productive.
• "5. Putting “cleanup” tags on pages" - there's nothing wrong with using cleanup tags on pages when someting is wrong with the page. Thoufgh I prefer to cure the page, when necessary. I've done quite some work on restructuring pages; see, for example, Advaita Vedanta, which was an unreadable mess before I started editing there.
• "6. Attacking in pairs on talk page (One person will provoke. Other will intervene and be after the opponent for using "insulting" tone)." - the term "provoke" is totally misplaced here.Usually, I explain my edits t talkpages, when necessay. I've met quite some provocations, though, apparently due to sticking to NPOV and RS.
• "7. Supporting each other in discussion, thereby creating an illusion of majority." - of course we voice the same stance, when we've gor the same stance. If that constitutes a majority, then apparently there's only one other voice - who does have a problem with talkpage-procedures and establishing concencus.
• "A Talk exchange exemplifies their thought process and Biased Point of View. Then these editors go about promoting NPOV." - about the HAF and Rajiv Malhotra. There's nothing wrong with an exchange on the HAF and Rajiv Malhotra. See Talk:Rajiv Malhotra#Proposal + discussion; I took extremely great care to include the various POV's, and to adhere to NPOV. Some socks did pop-up there, though. Which is a good example of the kind of POV-pushing we're facing with these topics.
• "Murty Classical Library India ... is under attack. Please take a look. I am tied up this evening." - yes, that's a nice example. The petition against Sheldon Pollock contains allegations that he is anti-India; yet, it turned out that the petitioners had selectively cited from a talk by Sheldon Pollock, giving the opposite impression of what he stands for. An extended interaction took place at Murty Classical Library of India, where Adiagr and another editor wanted to include a summary of the petition which made the same kind of suggestions, and which was written in incorrect English; see the various threads at Talk:Murty Classical Library of India. Apparently Kautilya3 made a call on me, to have a look, knowing that I adhere to NPOV, and am critical to both sides (see also the recent discussions at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory, where Kautilya3 and I disagree about when the ANI came to India). I've drastically shortened the section on this petition, since it is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.

Regarding the overlap: we're definitely not the same editor, if that's what you think. Kautilya3 is based n Britain (as far as I know); I'm Dutch. I also overlap with VictoriaGrayson, and a couple of other editors. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I already forgot (Ah! The blessings of a bad memory!): Adiagr has been socking, and wants to conceal that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua's assertion that he collaborates with a few other editors. I would like to add that this collaboration is quite similar to the one he has with Kautilya. I request EvergreenFir to kindly post details of interaction checker of Joshua Jonathan with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ms_Sarah_Welch Adiagr (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, great, Ms Sarah Welch! A very erudite editor, with a massive amount of knowledge. See our interactions at [[Talk:Sikhism]] with another persistent sock, Js82 (Js82 SPI Archive for Js82). NB: Adiagr was socking at Invading the Sacred and Talk:Invading the Sacred, a book by Rajiv Malhotra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that when your "interactions" with Kautliya on multiple pages have been highlighted by EvergreenFir, you post accusations for one page. I request admins to investigate in detail about the edit reverts done by Joshua. There are other users also with whom he collaborates, including some administrators. This group also indulges in tagging various articles that are not created by them as Start Class or C-Class or Low Importance. In case of any re-assessment, they tag article for improvement of content . Due to his sustained reverts and harassment, many part time contributors have left Wikipedia. This time I hope that this coterie would be exposed and fair POV would be allowed. Adiagr (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

regarding some of the diffs Adiagr provided:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Hindu_philosophy I gave up there, disagreeing strongly with Ms Sarah Welch.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoshua_Jonathan&type=revision&diff=681775089&oldid=681612453 what's the problem with this beautifull quote from Kabir, of which Kautilya3 said that the translations don't do justice to it? You might have referred to another comment at this thread at my talkpage, though:

"Adiagr When Kautilya3 used "we", s/he meant "editors on Wikipedia". S/He was being polite in not saying "you". S/He was defending an experienced Wikipedia editor whom s/he knows well. If you read both Joshua Jonathan's and Kautilya3's responses to you, above, they are polite throughout. Wikipedia's talk pages are not a forum. They are for discussing ways to improve articles. If you have suggestions, be specific, be polite, and support your opinions whenever possible with references to reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also see WP:AGF and WP:AOBF. Corinne (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)"

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ashoka One shared thread at Talk:Ashoka/Archive 1#Religion, in which participated several editors.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AOut_of_India_theory The Out of India theory... Sigh. WP:FRINGE stuff.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murty_Classical_Library_of_India#Shortened Murty Classical Library of India; discussed before.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allama_Prabhu&action=history what's your point here, except for extended edit-warring by yet another problematic editor?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There was good reason for me to alert Joshua Jonathan, because he created the consensus text on Sheldon Pollock after considerable discussion among all the involved editors on Talk:Sheldon Pollock (diff). I copied this text into Murty Classical Library of India (diff). It was immediately hacked to death by Adiagr (diff, diff, diff) violating every Wikipedia policy known to me (violation of NPOV by cherry picking sources and content, source misrepresentation and BLP violation), which I documented on the talk page. In addition, the user tag-teamed with HemaChandra88, whose POV edits he reinstated twice: diff, diff.

Can we have WP:BOOMERANG please? I would have reported him to WP:AE yesterday, but gave him another chance because he opened a talk page discussion. The fracas yesterday was quite ridiculous. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So, when it's Joshua Jonathan or Kautilya3 posting selective cherry picking, it's neutral POV, but when others' do it, it automatically becomes biased! Very strange, indeed. Also, kindly corroborate with evidence your allegation of 'misrepresentation'. It's only only MICL article where you are tag-teamed. I have a list of occurances when both you guys have reverted/edited each others edits within minutes. I urge mods to kindly look into this serious misuse of admin powers by both administrators so that more openness can reflect in wikipedia. HemaChandra88 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

No, JJ's text is NPOV because it was consensus text arrived at by a number of editors after extensive talk page discussion at Talk:Sheldon Pollock. You have not participated in any of those discussions, either before or after you started making edits on this topic. You have not even responded to my question on the talk page of MCLI. In fact, your talk page participation is only 10% of your edits, and very little of it is on article content. Further, most of your edits )(87%) don't have edit summaries or justifications. Some of this could be due to inexperience, but the fact that you are edit-warring on sourced content means that it is more POV pushing. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a witness to the POV-pushing to which some pages have been subjected, but the POV-pushing has come from other editors, not from user:Joshua Jonathan or user:Kautilya3. As User:Blackmane rightly noted, it's worrisome that the timing of the canvassing violation would precede this incident reporting. On many occasions, I've witnessed unsourced, POV-pushing edits made by either unregistered users, or else by others, including one of the editors noted by Blackmane. I’ve reverted these edits, or else others, including Joshua or Kautilya3 have. Managing a page’s NPOV requires reverting such edits, and the reversion of such edits shouldn’t be escalated to incident reporting like this, since these are unfortunate but often routine maintenance work and do not rise to anything sinister. Some of these pages have faced endless attacks. Were it not for Joshua or Kautilya3, those pages would have been by now rendered unsourced, inaccurate, sub-standard, and biased. As Kautilya3 duly noted, there’s often no talk page participation in discussions before POV-pushing edits are made. It certainly comes as no surprise to see that the endless efforts to undermine the NPOV of these articles has resulted in this incident reporting, because this incident reporting is precisely in keeping with the endless efforts to undermine the NPOV of those articles. Under the shadow of rules lawyering, this incident reporting would tie up two editors doing critical work to keep Wikipedia sourced and neutral, which is everybody’s most fundamental intent here. If anybody has any questions about what the impact of allowing people to push POV wars to the extreme, look at what’s become of Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It’s very apropos of this incident reporting to be coming to the fore as the NPOV of other, unrelated pages have been wholly undermined. If it takes more than one editor to defend a page from POV waring, then that is clearly material to the heavy assault that some of these pages come under -- and not a suggestion of anything else. Maslowsneeds (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am a senior administrator. I'm so senior that I forgot how senior I am. I see nothing in this supposed report that warrants any action or even further investigation. A few chats among colleagues who edit in the same topic are is the evidence--of nothing. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Propose boomerang for User:Adiagr

• Support as nom; regarding his continued (and somewaht barefaced) socking; notwithstanding his spurious attempt here to have other editors sanctioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - who are you? This is not the appropriate response, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I am still awaiting any response by senior admin to the core issue raised by me and a detailed corroboration by EvergreenFir

* There is significant overlap between these two editors. See the interaction checker. I'm not making judgements on that overlap, just noting it. (Non-administrator comment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Adiagr (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, senior administrator here. An overlap was noted. Check me with any editor who's been here a few years and you'll find a lot of overlap too. Case closed, Drmies (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• What Drmies said. Two prolific content editors with the same interests have a lot of overlap. Hardly surprising or even worth noting. Case banged shut. --regentspark (comment) 21:55, 8 March 2016 (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.

Ylevental - COI and related issues

Ylevental (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ylevental has launched a large number of AfD discussions apparently aimed at removing the idea of "neurodiversity": the opinion that some/all autism is not an illness to be prevented/treated/cured, but a different way of thinking. This thread, of course, is not to discuss that idea. The editor has nominated for deletion:

• Autistic Pride Day - "a celebration of the neurodiversity".
• John Elder Robison - an author with autism who "is active in the autism rights movement".
• Wrong Planet - "an online community for individuals with autism and Asperger syndrome." The editor decided the first sentence should state "The site has been noted for the murderers that were connected to it."[14]
• Aspies For Freedom "a solidarity and campaigning group that aimed at raising public awareness of the autism rights movement."
• Amy Sequenzia "activist and writer about disability rights, civil rights and human rights"; "a board member of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network".
• Autistic Self Advocacy Network "advocacy organization run by and for individuals on the autism spectrum".
• Autism Network International "an advocacy organization run by and for autistic people."
• Jim Sinclair (activist) "an autism-rights movement activist".
• Retrospective diagnoses of autism the included list of individuals purported to have had autism was removed by the editor because "this could be used to push an agenda".

The basic goal here is apparently to remove any indication that individuals contributing to society is a positive way may have autism. There are two exceptions to this: Hitler, who the editor repeatedly added as having autism (bumped in from of an otherwise chronological list[15]) and Jonathan Mitchell, "an American autistic author and blogger who advocates for a cure for autism." The editor has a confirmed COI with this article[16] and feels strongly this is a FA or GA candidate.

There are accusations of sockpuppetry and other COIs bouncing around on various talk pages, but I have no meaningful information on those issues. While I do not immediately see an easy solution to this situation, it seems that it will likely end badly if the situation is not discussed and addressed in some way at this point. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First, someone please speedy-keep those bad faith nominations. I'm curious to see Ylevental's comments on this. I wonder if this is more an issue of NPOV and POINT than of COI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

My original title here was not simply COI (not use how I lost it). I have amended the title as I believe this is not an either/or question. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: Are you familiar with this user and their edits at all? Or just reporting their behavior? (Curious to hear from others who might be able to weigh in on the user's good-to-bad contrib ratio or something like that. From just these AfDs, it seems they're being very disruptive in this one topic). My experience with them was over at black pride and white pride (and their bad faith AfD nom for the former) and it was not a positive experience. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up Jonathan Mitchell, an article that Ylevental created, after seeing it go to BLPN. That article has been a nightmare. Granted, that's partly because it's under constant attack by an IP sock who has been harassing Ylevental, but, if you ask me, Ylevental is no better: [17], [18], [19], etc. I was tempted to file a SPI on the IP sock who's been harassing Ylevental and close the AfDs as speedy keep, but I didn't want to deal with the drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We had a little discussion about undeleting an article named Einstein Syndrome; it can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome Lectonar (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Lectonar: -- I participated in WP:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_223#Einstein_Syndrome. What I wasn't aware, during that discussion, is that the most recent deletion had been under WP:CSD#G4 -- even though the version deleted by AFD in 2007 differed substantially from the version deleted as G4. I think: (1) Einstein Syndrome should have been uncontroversially restored, because its 2015 deletion as G4 was counter-policy; (2) that @Ylevental: didn't recognize the G4 deletion was bogus strongly suggests Ylevental is a promising, energetic newbie, who should be encouraged, and gently informed of what I suspect have been good faith mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They are not good faith mistakes. He is presently vandalising Wrong Planet by removing perfectly good material, to make a point as has been mentioned. These aren't mistakes full stop. They are intentional edits designed to press the views of Jonathan Mitchell and remove the views of those he has nominated for deletion - as has been covered in the first comment in this section. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, the user is continuing to vandalise Wrong Planet removing sourced information. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you want from me or where this discussion is going. I was cleaning up the Autism Rights Movement series, and simply marked articles that I thought didn't have enough sources to qualify or thought that they should be merged into other articles. For instance, I only found two sources for Aspies for Freedom that covered it in depth, and I thought Jim Sinclair should be merged into Autism Network International. I'll provide more information if needed. Ylevental (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Willing to note here that on Retrospective diagnoses of autism the user added Adolf Hitler to the list.DoggySoup (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was listed in the table of the article long before the user even had an account. The problem was the edit warring between Ylevental and an IP over having a separate more detailed section in the article about Hitler [20]. CatPath (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone mentioned earlier, I also wonder whether the issue is WP:POINT. The Jonathan Mitchell article, which Ylevental created, went through a bad faith AfD. The nominator was eventually banned, and the article was locked to prevent edit warring/vandalism by IPs. Mitchell espouses a view that runs counter to those in the neurodiversity movement, which includes the individuals and groups described in the articles that Ylevental brought to AfD. CatPath (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've closed a couple of the AfDs per WP:SNOW; I left a few others open as at a quick glance I thought that the discussions should probably be finished first. I personally don't think WP:SK#2 (bad-faith speedy keep) is applicable where a valid discussion can be held, but others may disagree. ansh666 09:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• The pattern is repeating at Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Previously, the editor's push was to move Hitler to a place of prominence on the list. That was eventually rejected. The editor's next idea was to remove the list or propose deletion of the article (and remove the list while the AfD was in progress). Failing that, the editor has again suggested removing the list while making Hitler more prominent. BTW - My highest regards to all involved for avoiding any invocation of Godwin here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This is correct. He is also pressing the removal of Fitzgerald completely, but he's removing a proven quote from Tesla's autobiography as a part of this - something that has nothing to do with Fitzgerald. He definitely has an agenda here and I think the only way to stop him now is to block him for a period because I don't think he's listening and understanding the problem with his editing. 101.182.231.86 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MarcoAlbani1998

Hi. I am having some problems with MarcoAlbani1998 (talk · contribs). He has had a history of problems and he has never answered a single question at his talkpage and just continues doing the same things over and over again.

Most recently he has been adding extra blank spaces when updating football matches, which itself is not a huge problem more than visual aspect while editing. More alarming is that he is not answering to any questions, despite opening three sections at his talkpage (Spaces, Spaces again and Response). He has been warned and blocked as well for disruption but nothing seems to help and I am tired of making fixes like this, this and today (after the most recent "response-section") this.

Is there something that can be done or should be done as the editor will not communicate? I do not like blocking editors for a simple matter as this and they do a lot of good, but they could at least talk. Qed237 (talk) 12:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Also the editor might have been starting to edit as IP to avoid detection (IP contributions) but I am not sure that they are the same editor. Qed237 (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Are these spaces visible to the reader? If not, what is the point of making a fuss about them?

The editor also seems to make some similar edits where they do not add spaces, this for example. Maybe they have read and partly understood your talk page messages and are now trying to comply with your preferences about where space characters should and should not be. MPS1992 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, those spaces don't make a difference as far as I can tell. This editor has made no contribs whatsoever outside of article and talk space, so that is a little frustrating... but I can't see a clear reason to compel this editor to talk right now. Can you explain why that whitespace in the template fields is disruptive? From what I can tell, it's not like this editor is only changing whitespace in the edits you're concerned about. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, the extra whitespaces does not affect the normal reader, but when editing and updating they are "annoying". They are completely not needed and only increase article size for no reason. But, as I also said I am most concerned about the lack of communication and the fact that he continues to edit the same way without reading the messages and changing behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing actionable as of yet. If your only complaint is them adding or removing white space between Wikimarkeup and inside while making other edits, then you need to find something else to complain about. You may find it "annoying" that they are adding or removing white space, but it isn't on the level of being disruptive. Some editors, like myself, will add white space into templates because we believe it improves the readability of the template. Other editors remove white space in the mistaken belief that they are "saving" disc space or bandwidth (they are actually not). And as someone who has been trained as a programmer, white space that improves the readability of whatever code or markup you are using to allow others to easily understand what you are doing an update the code/markup is extremely important. MarcoAlbani1998 probably views things similarly than I do and does not understanding why you are making such a fuss over a non-issue. —Farix (t | c) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I figure most likely that when MarcoAlbani1998 is adding the template for a new match, he is copying and pasting the template framework from someplace else that retains extra white space. That is not annoying or a problem, and if that's the sole reason why Marco got a 31h block a couple days ago, that block was incorrect. I see no evidence Marco is being disruptive, and strongly recommend that QED either provide diffs of actual disruption or move on, well out of the arc of the BOOMERANG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

From the diffs provided, I see these as pointless edits and Qed237 ought to stop making them. I have seen no evidence presented against MarcoAlbani1998 and from his edits that I could find myself, there is no actionable problem with them. Changing non-significant whitespace in the course of another edit is not vandalism, and Qed237 would do well to stop issuing warnings and WP:AIV listings as if it is. Even if it's against one's personal editing style, it's not vandalism. Even better if SQL might explain his block. I can't see why any editor should be blocked for an edit like this (assuming it's an accurate GF edit) and certainly not for suppressed whitespace. I think Mendaliv has probably hit the right explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE after not making a single discussion and refusal to answer questions has led to blocks in the past for editors. However, as suggested I will drop this now and move on. Qed237 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That link doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:NOTHERE are editors who are not here to constructively build an encyclopedia. You have not provided any evidence that MarcoAlbani1998's contributions are nonconstructive. And the question you ask, "When will you stop adding extra spaces?" is a silly question that even I wouldn't bother replying to if it was posted on my talk page. —Farix (t | c) 21:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

In October last year a report was made of an IP editor persistently disrupting the F1 project here. A block was issued for a week by user:Diannaa and two further blocks were subsequently issued by the same admin. The IP editor however has continued in much the same vein and several members of the F1 project have spent considerable amounts of time, trying to make something of his sub-standard submissions. There have been seven six recent drafts which have been found to be copy-vios two of which have been WP:TE re-submitted several times without fixing issues noted on review and also removing citation tags. There is a tremendous history of disruptive editing by this editor whose IP address changes sometimes more than once a day. He's now up to more than 100 different IPs in the ranges 92.21.240.0/20 and 88.106.224.0/20. Just some of the history of his edits can be seen at User talk:Bretonbanquet who has been one of the editors involved in 'tidying up'. We have tried several times to engage and leave helpful advice on talk-pages but it is not certain which of them he might have seen and he has been known to just blank the page. Here is a diff of him removing a talk page post by another editor and here is one example of an inappropriate edit summary, although he rarely leaves summaries. The F1 project would be grateful for any assistance you can give as we have run out of patience with this editor who has been given plenty of time and more than enough leeway to edit in a conventional manner. I apologise for the long-winded submission. Please let me know if you need any further info. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The latest series of posts on the subject at the F1 project is here. Eagleash (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier threads on the subject here and here. Eagleash (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I second all of the above, and I can say I've rarely come across an editor who takes such little notice of notability guidelines, or indeed, any guidelines. He almost never engages with other editors, and when he does it's usually uncivil; he never uses talk pages or heeds advice, and creates a huge amount of work for others. He has created large numbers of articles and templates, all of which were either copy-violations, unreadable or not notable (or a combination of the three), and all of which required rewriting, merging or deleting by other editors. To make it worse, it's hard to track the guy's activity as he is forever switching IPs; so you can't talk to him or pin him down long enough to get him to understand how things work.

This has been going on for a few months now, and some of us seem to spend all our time cleaning up after this guy, when we would rather be doing something more constructive. Any ideas will be gratefully received. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm an AfC reviewer, and another issue that was brought to my attention regarding this editor was possibly gaming the system. Anonymous contributors are not allowed to create articles directly into mainspace—that's why WP:AFC was started. However, this user has tried to circumvent the standard AFC article review process by first requesting the creation of a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, then turning the redirect into a non-notable article once it is created—effectively creating an article in mainspace. An example is with March 87P. At 20:12, 1 February 2016, the user submitted this request to WP:AFC/R, asking for a redirect from March 87P to March 87B. The issue is, at that time, March 87B was a redirect. Three minutes later, at 20:15, the same editor converts the March 87B redirect into an article, which was found to be non-notable. Then, a few weeks later, the redirect request was accepted, creating March 87P as a redirect, which an IP in the same range converted to an article about the same subject. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In relation to the above post, the same editor has recently had deleted, a draft for Wolf Williams, as it was both non-notable and also a copy vio. A re-direct already exists for Wolf Williams to the Williams F1 page. A re-direct has now been requested for "Wolf Williams Racing" , which could mean further attempt to create a Wolf Williams page. Also in relation to the March 87P page, it had to be protected after the IP edit-warred over restoring the re-direct. Eagleash (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Vicky85144

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.

---

Vicky85144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user is being very disruptive after I nominated Vicky Martin Singh for deletion, copying the article to their userpage, as well as their talk page. They're also constantly removing speedy deletion tags and overwriting the content on their talk page, despite being warned for disruption by me and other editor. Opencooper (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In addition to above, the user also copied the page into my talk page. [21] (sorry if I do this wrong). JumpiMaus (talk) 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

And my userpage. [22] JumpiMaus (talk) 20:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

They've also made another page with identical content at Vicky martin (Song Writer). Creation protection might be a good idea. Marianna251TALK 20:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Vickymartin.singh might be the same person? I have stuff to do right now, but they are either working in tandem or are the same person, it seems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like both users are sockpuppets of each other and both are Vicky Martin Singh. This is a case for WP:SPI and WP:COIN. Would it also be adviseable to salt the Vicky Martin Singh and Vicky Martin (songwriter) and Vickymartin.singh article spaces so he will at least need to go through channels to try to re-create it/them? Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• See also User talk:103.41.99.126 (which IP address geolocates to between Hyderabad and Mumbai). This random posting of the "article" on various unrelated person's user pages and talk pages is blockable in itself. If it were me I'd block both registered accounts (and possibly the IP account as well) as NOTHERE and for repeated disruptive editing, socking, userpage trolling, and self-promotion. Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've blanked the talk page. —Farix (t | c) 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked everyone but the IP address and left a note on the talk page for Vicky85144. Let me know if they try to repost the article for their talk page - if they do, then I'm going to revoke talk page access. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've been alerted that the IP has started spamming their talk page with the deleted article, so I've blocked them for a week and revoked talk page access since I assume that they'd only repost the article content. If this keeps up then we may want to look into putting this artist's name on an article creation blacklist. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 6 March 2016 (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.

EvergreenFir, I think you should modify your close, as it doesn't make complete sense as written (second sentence doesn't seem to be a sentence), and also it's clear that nothing has been blacklisted. Softlavender (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Thanks for pointing out the error! Sorry about that. In the future, I'm always open to refactoring for something like that. I wanted to mention the blacklisting because it was mentioned but never further discussed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:67.83.143.151, wp:GWAR, wp:PUSH on 2 articles, this has been going on for months, non respect of other users, treating them as "hipsters"

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.

---

67.83.143.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) We are in the situation of a genre warrior. First, he started on the Bauhaus (band) article. As many users including Mezigue and Binksternet told him his edits were not relevant, he called them "hipsters" on their talkpages. I don't need to add anything, you just have to read the history of his edits. Now he has changed of target and does the same thing on the Juju (Siouxsie and the Banshees album) article and makes attacks against Greg Fasolino. This has to stop. First, these two articles must be protected from ips and this ip should be blocked for at least a week as one can't let someone attack other longtime wikipedia users without reacting. If he doesn't change his behaviour in a near future, his ip will have to be blocked again. Woovee (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In the edit summaries, this person makes insults, for instance saying that another editor is "full of crap". This person is not here to build the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Can't we just throw genres out the window and leave them for other websites to care about? They only ever cause more hassle like this can could ever be countered by whatever meagre claim to encyclopaedic merit they may have. GRAPPLE ^X 16:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

They are actually useful for readers attempting to learn about music history. The issue here was an editor who was pushing a personal agenda, and even though his preferred genre was not only included in the article infobox but discussed throughout the article, it wasn't good enough because he has a personal dislike of the other main term, which is the term used in the sources. He not only attacked me personally at great length on my own Talk page (which i deleted after awhile as I was tired of the personal insults), but informed us that he did not care what the sources said, as the sources (major media going back 30-40 years) were "wrong" and "lazy". So let's not let one bad user who doesn't understand consensus or use of sources to sidetrack us into whether genres are useful. Thanks. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would be happy to use just very broad genres like "rock" as indeed this stuff causes endless arguments and is very subjective, but that would be a site-wide decision. In the meantime there is no reason to let a hysterical bully have their way. I also nearly reported them several times but ended up just asking for semi-protection on Bauhaus (band) because life is too short. (And also if I'm honest because I find their insults hilarious, but looking at Greg Fasolino's talk page history I now see I only got a trailer for the full-gale shit storm they are capable of.) Mezigue (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You would not believe the lengthy, LENGTHY attacks on my personal character. It's unbecoming of Wikipedia.

Even broad genres will have people arguing about the edges. I propose we cut things down to the two objective genres: "vocal" and "instrumental". --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue isn't redefining what genres to use, the issue is a rogue newbie editor who has a personal bone to pick and isn't interested in what the overall sources have to say. There's no issue with the rest of the page editors about listing several genres as noted in a breadth of sources. This one person just feels that the journalists of the 1980s "got it wrong" and were "lazy" and so he then cannot accept consensus or multiple genre listings because a) it doesn't conform to his narrowly focused ideology, and b) he does not care to understand how Wiki works. I suggest focusing on this new editor's refusal to understand consensus and use of sources instead of sidetracking on radical genre changes.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Could've just been reported at WP:ANEW. While I don't see a 3RR violation, the IP is clearly edit warring. Also I just want to say, WP:GWAR has to be the most awesome projectspace shortcut ever. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv, can I still report him on WP:ANEW ? Is it allowed to post a comment about an user on two noticeboards at the same time ? Woovee (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Woovee You shouldn't post the complaint at more than one place, you can close a request as moved to a different venue. Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you on this, Woovee. I honestly would've thought listing at ANI would get it faster. You could still list at ANEW, but it'd be stale now... the IP seems to have cut it out. If it continues, go ahead and list at ANEW. If someone complains about cross-posting, ping me and I'll be happy to jump in. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

They have no desisted in their genre warring.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said to you on your talk page Greg, there are other sources that disagree with your stance about many bands and they are quite extensive. Including NME, The_Guardian, BBC and others which all reference Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and others as Gothic bands, post-punk is often not mentioned in those sources and as such is either not a factor or is a secondary genre and not the primary genre and should be reflected as such on their pages, just because many major media sources disagree with you Greg doesn't mean your opinion takes precedence because "you were there" (in NYC, not in England) back in the early 80s just after Bauhaus broke up and Siouxsie fully embraced Gothic rock during that time. As for the rest of you, when I am putting up references and you call it "genre warring", all you're doing is stopping the references from being displayed. Mezigue, all you said about the Bauhaus page is "get consensus on the talk page" and yet when I told you I already had consensus and that no one was calling Bauhaus a post-punk band except you (you didn't even use the Bauhaus talk page to state your case before making any reverts), you then switched your attack to "the article" yet without giving me any specific reference (which can be used in talk or on the edit summary) or showing me which section to look at in what you're referring to and yet consistently sound like a broken record. As for the Hipster thing, obviously I have no proof as no one but Greg here uses their real name, but it is my opinion that Hipsters steal ideas and creativity from other subcultures and modify it in a way that is "safe" for them, meaning making all Gothic rock genre bands into "post-punk" because it's a safer sounding term than the negative connotations Goth has been given over the years, so I made a emotional opinion towards that assumption since you seem to lack the idea of getting consensus yourself Mezigue on these talk pages and instead you just revert immediately. Also Greg as I said it is my opinion that "post-punk" is a lazy music genre name (It literally means, "after-punk"), as adding "post-" to a name seems to be more stealing it for marketing than an actual genre (something contemporary Hipsters do), especially since "post-punk" (if many or most Goth bands are post-punk as you seem to claim Greg) sounds virtually nothing like Punk music (plus I asked you for musical and lyrical elements of "post-punk" and all I get is a philosophy definition from you instead of a musical definition). Who exactly coined the term "post-punk" anyway, can any of you tell me that? Allmusic is a source that didn't exist until 1991, many of these bands started in the late 1970s and some broke up before Allmusic even existed in 91' and yet you act as if that source has firsthand knowledge (as if they sent out reporters in the late 70s for a company that didn't even exist until 1991) and is the primary source of many of the supposed references that Gothic bands are "post-punk" primarily and yet *you* condemn me for giving out "unreliable sources" Binksternet? The time difference alone makes Allmusic an unreliable source to any band prior to 1991, you should be using firsthand references that existed when that band existed (like the BBC, The Guardian, NME, and others) and not secondhand information from sources like Allmusic. I may get heated about it, but I don't want any of you trying to redefine Goth bands as "post-punk" bands, no matter if you're a Hipster or not (or if you do use the genre post-punk, make it a secondary and not primary genre, especially on the band that pretty much originated the style and sound of Gothic rock Bauhaus_(band) and were the unintentional inventors of the gothic subculture ).67.83.143.151 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:67.83.143.151: It is not our job to educate you about music history or the common use of genre terminology. We do not have to elucidate every process behind how genres are used by the sources. We do not need to ascertain who was the first person to use a genre term (as if you could tell me the originator of most traditional music genres), only to demonstrate its prevalence in the sources. I actually had a subscription to NME back then so please refrain from trying to tell me what was in the paper, when I have actually read the issues as they were published. Where do you think journalists, fans and musicians like me got the term "post-punk" from? From reading the British music papers in the early '80s, that's how! Anyway, for the hundreth time, "consensus" means other editors on Wikipedia agreeing with your stance; you do not and have never had a consensus on any of these pages. Also for the hundreth time, your preferences and emotional feelings about how sources are "wrong" or "lazy" is irrelevant. Not sure what your obsession is with AllMusic but they are one of many, many sources: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-punk and educate yourself on same.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Greg, if you are editing what you consider an "encyclopedic reference site" to a certain point of view that you consider correct, then damn right it is your job to educate people what you are referring to when you claim your opinion is fact because others use this site to take information as fact (which is education!). You back it up with verifiable, reliable references when you make your case, to do otherwise is making an opinion as fact (which is what you and others do when you revert my edits despite me putting in verifiable, reliable references). My problem with your opinion is that a great deal more references refer to these bands as Gothic bands than post-punk bands, so either "post-punk" shouldn't be used with many of them or shouldn't be cited at all (or if cited, used as a secondary genre while referring to them primarily as a Gothic rock band). You also claim yourself as a journalist, meaning your job is to gather information and then relay that information to the public, meaning you're educating people to things that happen, but since you claim that "isn't your job", then stop editing on Wikipedia and try another job. Plus I just told you what my "obsession" is with Allmusic, they are being used as the primary source for many of these references despite not being "there at the time" (Bauhaus Est. 1978 - 1983 [with reformations in 1998, 2005] - Allmusic - Est. 1991, how many times do I have to write this before you say "Oh, that's what you mean"?!) like this one about Bauhaus: "Bauhaus are the founding fathers of goth rock, creating a minimalistic, overbearingly gloomy style of post-punk rock driven by jagged guitar chords and cold, distant synthesizers." and yet despite proving my case the editor (probably Mezigue) who used this reference to claim that Bauhaus is primarily a post-punk band ignored the "Bauhaus are the founding fathers of goth rock." (which means they are primarily a Gothic rock band, secondary a post-punk band), and just went with "creating a minimalistic, overbaringly gloomy style of post-punk". (as my problem with Allmusic is that they used "overbaringly gloomy style of post-punk", overbearing is opinion, in addition to the fact the writer of the paper most likely wouldn't have any firsthand experience with the genre of either post-punk or Goth rock since the company was made in the 90s. The second reference titled "Goth is dead" was made in 2005 which only used Daniel Ash's opinion about Goth "doesn't exist" yet doesn't interview the other three members of Bauhaus when they got back together for Go Away White and the tour (which I saw them play at Times Square 'Nokia Theater' [now Playstation theater] in person), meaning the writer himself is most likely biased against Goth (yet Mr Matthew Singer mentioned there were 50,000 fans to watch Bauhaus, so Goth isn't so dead after all). These are the only two references used to claim Bauhaus is primarily a "post-punk" band, one that admits that Bauhaus founded Goth rock and the other from a writer who uses the opinion of only one of the four members of Bauhaus to form a conclusion about an entire subculture that is still going strong today in 2016 (11 years after that article was written), so basically the two references the editor was using he either cherry picked or found a biased article to espouse his views (plus if Bauhaus created a "version" of post-punk, that's a new genre and it's primarily how they sound if they invented a new style themselves!) that Bauhaus is primarily a "post-punk" band. So I think I am right on this one and if "non-respect of other users" is what you consider my opposition to cherry picking information and using non-firsthand sources to change the definition of how a Gothic band is known, then so be it because I will continue push the truth and back it up with sources until you all stop trying to change history to fit your opinions.67.83.143.151 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Seemingly no amount of explanation on how Wikipedia, sources and journalism work will ever get through to you, since you're not interested in history but in promulgating a specific point of view based on a grievance you have against sources and genre terminology you dislike. So I will not respond, and let your rambling, illogical comments speak for themselves.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's only "rambling, illogical arguments" because I have proven you wrong Greg, you have no editor consensus beyond you and two others who are happy to revert edits, yet never go to the Talk page to discuss your opinion that Bauhaus is a "post-punk" band primarily. On the Bauhaus talk page the only mentioning of post-punk is referring to a band like Joy Division as post-punk while Bauhaus is considered the "Godfathers of Goth". You may disagree with this, but truth be told that is consensus and looking at that page I have much more editors making a similar claim than you three. Don't cherry pick sources to espouse your views (like that Allmusic source that I directly quoted from to use as a source), don't use minority views as your primary reason for reverting a band's genre (especially the band that invented the genre of Gothic rock, despite not yet having the genre name formed at the time), and don't try to redefine bands based solely on your opinion of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe instead of writing endless responses full of the same complaints, you should open your eyes and read what the word "consensus" actually refers to ***on Wikipedia**: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus Greg Fasolino (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: this has been moved to wp:ANEW I follow the advice given by Mendaliv here. Woovee (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for obvious edit warring. As their block log is clean, but they've hit multiple articles, this is an appropriate first step to avoid disruption. I await their reply with interest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 8 March 2016 (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.

Interpretation of the phrase "Musical comedy"

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 came across the heading "Musical comedy" on Wikipedia, which has a redirect to "Musical theater". Seeing as the phrase "musical comedy" can include a number of genres and performance styles, not just theatre and movies, I made an edit to undo the redirect. This was twice reverted back to Musical theater.

While I do understand that Ssilvers is a prominent contributor in the world of theatre on Wikipedia, I contest that in this case an error has been made as what constitutes a Musical comedy in this day and age extends far beyond the reach of theatre.

There has been some discussion on the talk page between myself, Ssilvers and some of his allies (see talk page for Musical comedy) maintain that musical comedy belongs under the heading of musical theater. But this does not apply in this day and age, one where we have, for example, live performances by artists like Bill Bailey and (in the past) Victor Borge that qualify as musical comedy and where we have mockumentaries such as 'This Is Spinal Tap', all clearly falling under the musical comedy heading but not necessarily under musical theater. I would appreciate others who have a neutral interest in this matter to comment on this.Puddingsan (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and you need to use the dispute resolution process to resolve it. Administrators aren't umpires, and aren't going to adjudicate this problem. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 10:25, 6 March 2016 (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:92.3.2.181 and User:92.3.5.49

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.

---

This lady under these IP address just called Macaque123 a wanker, a shill and a cheeky monkey who spreads lies for the Russian regime. She totally violated WP:PA three times. 174.113.214.250 (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The lady was calling Carla del Ponte a shill. If you can't read with care and attention what kind of editor are you on wikipedia ffs. Having looked at the edits made by Macaque 123 it seems its a monkey that really is only on wikipedia to spread Russian regime misinformation and its edits are spurious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.26.218 (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Macaque123 DOES seem to be pushing a very pro-Russian POV, but that doesn't mean you can go calling them names.142.105.159.60 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left final warnings for personal attacks on both IPs (or what might be 92.3.2.0/21). If they engage in incivility or personal attacks again, let us know. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:54, 7 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive editor

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.

---

Moved from WP:AN

THe user Isaiasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been replacing the contemporary (and therefore correct) portraits of various European monarchs with fanciful portrait paintings that were made centuries later. He has been told to stop this behaviour multiple times on his talk page, but is completely ignoring this, and he continues to replace portraits. Can someone step in here? Omegastar (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left a final warning on Isaiasad's talk page. If it continues after this warning, then I say that a block would be the next step. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 7 March 2016 (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 inappropriate removal of content from an editor's user space

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.

---

Why is this deletion appropriate? Shouldn't users be able to control their own pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.98.39 (talk) 04:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a not-so-subtle attack on another editor. I do not see removal of abuse as itself abusive. Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I was somewhat notified about this but the discussion has continued at User_talk:Ricky81682#Just_so_I_understand.... Other parties are encouraged to throw in their two cents. This seems to relate to the prod of Azhar Attari but I think that this is resolved for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: I wonder if this is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive915#User:EricCable WP:NOTHERE since you were the closing admin for that thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The timeline follows from that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)@107.72.98.39: We as editors don't own our user pages just like we don't own articles we create or edit. User pages belong to Wikipedia and content on them is freely licensed per Wikipedia's Terms of Use. Editors are expected to ensure that there user pages comply with relevant Wikipedia user page guidelines. Generally, users are given a bit of latitude when comes to their user pages and in most cases your user page will probably not be edited by another editor unless there is something seriously wrong with it. In this particular case, it looks like one editor was feeling a little be stressed out over some sort of content dispute and decided strike back by posting something inappropriate (see WP:POLEMIC) on their user page. I agree with Antandrus and don't think that Ricky81682's removal of the content was inappropriate.

While getting frustrated is something that happens to us all, the thing not to do is such cases is to try and lash out via your user page. It's unfortunate that the editor in question has decided to retire, but it is also just as unfortunate that they still felt the need to accuse others of harassment and bullying as sort of a parting shot. These are serious accusations and should not be made lightly, even indirectly, and may be seen as a personal attack against another editor if not properly backed up by clear evidence in support. At some point, you have to be willing to drop the stick as an editor, keep your cool and simply go and work on something else for a while when things don't go your way if you want to continue to contribute to building an encyclopedia.

Finally, since you just started editing today and your only two edits have been regarding the user page of another editor whom you do not have any history of interaction with, I hope that you are not someone trying to inappropriately use multiple accounts to continue this dispute by proxy. That would be unfortunate and will not help resolve things at all; moreover, such an attempt may quite possibly boomerang back at you in ways you fail to anticipate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If EricCable wants the material on their talk page they can revert it and tell the user to not do it. But I doubt they want it. Let the EricCable bring this to ANI if they're upset about the actions taken. Otherwise it's just another user cleaning up a user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Special:Contributions/107.72.98.39 is NOT ME. I'm trying to be Retired but I can't have people, especially certain people, accusing me of sock puppetry. I would say to the person who initiated this thread that if

1. You're intentions are legitimate, then please sign-in and sign your remarks. While I do appreciate your support, I am attempting to drop it and leave Wikipedia.
2. If you're someone who is intentionally attempting to make it look like I am being a puppeteer I hope you are investigated and dealt with accordingly.

Antandrus, Ricky81682, Marchjuly, EvergreenFir, and especially my pal Lugnuts please take notice of these comments. Thanks.

Peace-out everyone. I'm gonna to go live my life now. Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone believes there's sockpuppetry here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2016 (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.

AFD "solved" with a move: need this undone for discussion

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.

---

A few days back I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaddai (god). User:Eric Kvaalen moved El Shaddai to Shaddai (name of God) and merged/redirected the deletion target into it. This has messed up the AFD discussion because it's obscuring the whole reason I asked for deletion in the first place: while there is some speculation that "Shaddai" might have been the name of some god somewhere in the region, Judaeo-Christian religion it is not a name of God. That would be reserved for "El Shaddai", and that is what nearly every source says. At any rate what's happening now is that people arrive at the AFD, follow the link, and don't find anything tagged for deletion, and thus assume that the problem is solved. Meanwhile I'm now stuck with both a move discussion and then another AFD/RFD to get rid of the spurious claims.

What I would like for now is for El Shaddai to be put back where it came from and let the AFD run its course as such. I don't think EK had any sort of ill intent and I don't want this turned into a discussion of his behavior. I just want to see the AFD discussion put back on track. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think the three subsequent !votes show support for that redirect and move so I don't think it needs to be reversed. WP:BURO is also policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, see, this is the problem: you are now apparently the fourth person to see the move and therefore ignore the arguments made. So now you are, in effect, saying that I have to go through the bureaucracy of setting up a move discussion back to where we started so I can move up to two deletion discussions (one for each of the redirects created along the way). Mangoe (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The contents of Shaddai could have been merged into El Shaddai at any time, AFD or no. If you don't believe they belong at what is now Shaddai (name of God), then you need to make your case there. We don't keep Deletion debates open for articles that are no longer articles, and we don't have deletion debates at AFD for articles that aren't tagged for deletion - otherwise, how would anyone find the debate? now, El Shaddai existed before the AFD - so if you object to the move from that article to Shaddai (name of God), then you really do need to start a new discussion at that article's talk page because that move is entirely separate from the merits of whether what was at the original Shaddai article should or should not be deleted. Redirects per BOLD are perfectly valid ways to resolve deletion discussions, so long as they are done within policy - as this appears to have been done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This has become a moot point since the move of El Shaddai has been undone. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I bodly moved it, as there was no consensus to move and the article itself refers to "El Shaddai " repeatedly. Feel free to revert if you need to. KoshVorlon 20:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The main article is, in my opinion, properly named; at this point I'm not going to try to get the redirects deleted. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2016 (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.

Nadir Hussain

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.

---

Before I head off to bed, I need to note that a certain very promotional individual has already appeared at User:Mnadirm06, Draft:Nadir Hussain, User:Mnadirm06/sandbox/Nadir Hussain, Nadir Hussain, User talk:Mnadirm06, User:Nadir hussain, User:Nadir hussain/sandbox, User talk:Nadir hussain/sandbox, Draft talk:Nadir Hussain and other places. Can someone IAR this insanity and put a stop to this? Check the image usage to get more pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2016 (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.

Reporting 208.87.237.201

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.

---

208.87.237.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person(s) removed information and blanked a page 3 times and another replaced with "sorry"

NEVER MIND. MusikAnimal gave a 1 month block. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2016 (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 by 184.88.43.62

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.

---

• 184.88.43.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KeepingSasseHonest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is engaged in politically-motivated edit-warring and editorializing. User appears to be calling out celebrities who have threatened to move to Canada if Trump is elected US president, as this seems to be the common theme in most of their recent edits. Note also the account KeepingSasseHonest, which created three cats related to this theme. Category:Republicans vowing to leave party if Trump is 2016 presidential nominee, Category:Americans promising to leave the country if Trump is elected, Category:Republicans who will disavow the party if Trump is the 2016 nominee

Editorializing here and here at Ben Sasse through introduction of clear POV, opinionated language: "...which is ludicrous because Donald Trump has denounced shady political figures like David Duke since at least the year 2000.[23] Sasse has suggested that Trump 'thinks he's running for King' even though it is clear to even the most casual of observers that he is running for the office of President of the United States of America since the US does not have a king and kings are not elected." This smacks of trolling, but is completely inappropriate language for an encyclopedia.

This is on the heels of edit warring at Raven-Symone [24][25][26][27] despite my note explaining WP:BRD. Other edit-warring at Ben Sasse article [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]... there are more links.

Category warring at article on Eddie Griffin: [37][38][39][40]. These are the same cats created by KeepingSasseHonest.

It's clear agenda-driven and disruptive. The user has been reverted by numerous editors, but continues to foist their POV contrary to consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2016 (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.

IP making unsourced changes

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.

---

An IP has been making similar changes to the Bluetick Coonhound and Black and Tan Coonhound pages. They keep bumping up the average weights and heights in the infoboxes, and trying to add semiprotected templates when the pages are not semiprotected.[41] [42] [43] The weights and heights they are adding are not supported by the sources currently being used, and they did not source their additions in all but one case. (They claimed one of the breeds can weigh approximately 40 pounds more than it actually does.) Can anybody help with this? It has happened at least 3 times to each article, and I think on one it was more like 5 times. It's disruptive. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Revert, warn, report at WP:AIV. Editor was blocked about 25 minutes before your post here. GiantSnowman 21:25, 8 March 2016 (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:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina

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.

---

A problematic if well-intended undertaking. Yes, we need much greater involvement from female contributors, but this particular meetup is resulting in a spate of poor edits and article creations, replete with badly sourced, promotional and copyright violation edits. All one needs to do is go down the list of bios that have been proposed at the page, and read those that are newly created. I'm bringing this here because multiple articles and editors are involved, and it has the appearance of a laudable agenda that's not necessarily respecting encyclopedic guidelines. Perhaps some administrators need to communicate with the university. And have a look at the articles, too. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be more productive if you relayed your comments directly to the organizers at Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism so that the situation can change before next year's event rather than posting on ANI. I'm sure they would appreciate receiving feedback so they can improve this annual event. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. If this is the wrong place, please remove the thread. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is the wrong place because you're not seeking a specific administrative action to be taken. But I'll close the post and leave it here because I think more folks should know about Meetup/ArtAndFeminism and where they can find more information about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 8 March 2016 (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.

Edit war / sockpuppeting over self-promotional page

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! A few days ago I spotted that The American Dollar (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) had a whole bunch of issues around conflict of interest and self-promotion: the page had been heavily edited by members of the band itself, and was full of self-promotional language. I removed the most troublesome sections, but those edits are now being repeatedly reverted by a number of newly-created editor accounts (I suspect these are sockpuppets for the band themselves). I've repeatedly asked these editors to discuss the issues on the article's talk page but they're not doing so, and it's now descending into an edit war. Can an administrator please step in and deal with the page itself, and the users? Smells like content (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe how many editors are involved in this edit war. Rather than try to figure out who is most to blame, I placed full protection on the article for two days so this edit can be discussed on the talk page. This back-and-forth edit war just needs to stop right now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI filed for the SPAs. BethNaught (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Liz, and apologies for contributing to the edit war, first time I've been involved in anything like this. Have continued to post on the talk page, hopefully the other side will decide to engage constructively! Smells like content (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think when an edit war involves this many (over 5 editors), it is simpler to just full protect the page for a few days rather than handing out blocks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 8 March 2016 (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.

Socking by User:Snugglebear123 and disruptive edits by various IP addresses

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.

---

Snugglebear123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The aforementioned user has done a lot within his/her short time here. Not only has he/she continually reverted my factual edits on several Gwen Stefani-related articles (Misery (Gwen Stefani song), Make Me Like You, This Is What the Truth Feels Like, etc.), but he/she has also harassed me on my talk page. I really don't appreciate this user's intentions. Also, I have reason to suspect that the user is a sockpuppet of User:Katycat3567. Not only was Snugglebear's account created the day after Katycat's indefinite ban, but the user has edited the same pages on both accounts, left very similar edit comments on several articles, and redirected their user page to their talk page. Along with my complaint. I will also be filing a sockpuppetry report, thanks. Carbrera (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Haha, whatever man. Yeah, I'm Katycat. But I never threatened you. At least I can tell the truth. You're such a crybaby. Just because I revert your edits, you say I'm "threatening" you. Get real. Snugglebear123 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

SPI filed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Is there anything we can do now to stop the his/her editing? Snugglebear is reverting my edits and Livelikemusic's edits on various pages? Carbrera (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotta wait for an admin to block. They'll get to it soon I'm sure. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock investigation has been re-opened. livelikemusic talk! 23:30, 8 March 2016 (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.

Problems at TfD

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.

---

Can someone uninvolved please interfere at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Template:Research help. I am going to end my involvement there as I'm quite disgusted by the usual WMF tactics and misguided statements by some their supporters. The immediate reason is an editor edit-warring to keep his speedy keep close of the discussion in place, despite a lot of dissenting opinions. Apparently some editors will not even allow a TfD discussion when it goes against their wishes. Fram (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

With the discussion framed in the way it was two outcomes were possible: keep or delete. There were no real arguments for deleting the template, and misuse of TfD is a serious issue — hence speedy keep.

Whether the template should be used in the way it is, or if it should be placed where it is a fully legitimate question — but this can not be accomplished in a discussion where arguments don't touch on relevant points. CFCF 💌 📧 19:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No real arguments for deleting the template? What about "it is not about the article, so shouldn't be in the article, and should be replaced with a link in the sidebar" which can't be achieved with a template? Furthermore, it is "templates for discussion", an outcome like "keep but don't use in the mainspace" is also an acceptable result (just like "keep" or "keep for the duration of the trial" would be). But your speedy close is a supervote, and not supported by Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Fram (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm entirely uninvolved, and disagree that "there were no real arguments etc". Sorry CFCF, but I reverted your close. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• As I am uninvolved. This was a completely erroneous close. Don't do it again. Obstructing legitimate concerns from being debated at TfD is what is disruptive. BethNaught (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Apparently all delete opinions were "not valid" policywise... [44] Fram (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2016 (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.

Admitted Sockpuppetry

Please see here. And sure enough... this is true [45]. I would appreciate if an admin could help out with dealing with this, if taking any action is necessary. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that User:RokkZtar421 also has an account at the Spanish Wikipedia. He is blocked there for abuse of multiple accounts. He needs to pursue any remedies there, since enwiki admins have no jurisdiction on other wikis. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think any admin action is needed at the moment, remembering that operating multiple accounts even multiple unlinked accounts isn't forbidden under WP:Sockpuppetry on en.wikipedia. It seems RokkZtar421 was blocked as a sock of Special:Contributions/Cooler846 on es. There is also a category Es:Categoría:Wikipedia:Títeres bloqueados de Cooler846. From there we can find the additional editors Special:Contributions/AvatarLegend, Special:Contributions/AztecQuetzal, Special:Contributions/Brainpvz, Special:Contributions/Darius1551, Special:Contributions/DJSektor, Special:Contributions/ElektronikSpektre, Special:Contributions/Imperator-Quetzal, Special:Contributions/Qzhbs34, Special:Contributions/RafaxNazi, Special:Contributions/SmokeDJ. Only User:RokkZtar421, User:Cooler846, User:Imperator-Quetzal and User:SmokeDJ seem to have any edits on en and none of them are blocked. While I do see some edits to the same page which is concerning from a sockpuppetry POV, as well as the fact they seem to try and revive a dead redirect wikiproject without any real discussion or suggestion for a need, I don't think there's any clear cut enough violation of the en.wikipedia policy to require any blocks. A reminder of our sockpuppetry policy will do and this doesn't have to come from an admin. Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping troll

User:86.187.140.7. Reported many times before, previous AN/I entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Requested page protection at WP:RPP and reported the IP address to WP:AIV. Hopefully admins will attend to it soon. Only hope is to protect the page. BTW, linking to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive911#Returning_troll when referring to the original ANI report might be more useful for reviewing admins. Also just realized I spelled your username Erik Corell in the reports I made. My mistake. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Eik Corell. Please click on this link (rangecontribs) and figure out which IP addresses belong to this guy. We only care about the most recent week. Post your conclusions either on my talk page or, if you prefer, use email. As an alternative, if fewer than 10 articles need semiprotection that could be the easier way to go. If so, I would need names of the articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Editwarring to insert OR definition at Alt-right

At the article Alt-right Connor Machiavelli (talk · contribs) is edit warring to insert a specifically worded definition[46][47][48], in spite of me having pointed out that the source does not support the definition, and in spite of several ongoing discussions at the talkpage. He has already breached 3rr, but I think the greater problem is the tendentious misrepresentation of sources and synthesis in what appears to be an attempt to make this label look as if it describes a unified movement when sources are clear that it is primarily a website and secondarily a group of vaguely associated ideologies on the internet. Administrative attention would be appreciated.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Haven't you gone beyond 3RR, then, by that logic? You were edit warring, and now you're trying to play the victim. That's your WP:POV that the definition is WP:OR, we are still discussing whether or not to keep it and you've kept removing it. Wait for other editors to respond, don't WP:OWN like I said. You want the article merged into a person who is nowhere near the size of this movement. You're basically trying to say the movement isn't real, that isn't what it is, that just doesn't fly. Your edits are controversial, as seen by how even other editors disagree with you such as on talk page and have also reverted your edits. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You are the one who has reverted to a contested definition, which is not supported by the source you give. That is ownership. And yes I have also editwarred, but I have tried different definitions based on the actual sources. Whereas you revert to the same version every time. When I argue contest your misrepresentation of the source then you need to wait to see if consensus agrees with you before reinserting it. Consensus clearly does not agree with you, or someone else would have defended your definition on the talkpage. If you revert yourself, removing the definition or readding the citation needed tag you may avoid sanctions here. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Since both of you are in the midst of an edit war, I think it would be in your best interests to not edit the article until some sort of agreement is reached on the talk page. Otherwise both of you will end up blocked. Sundayclose (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a qualitative difference between trying to change something using different wordings, and reverting to ones own preferred version. I have notbreached 3rr because I have note reverted Connor's edits, I have tried new options each time.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I've been struggling to decide whether this editor is simply not that competent (see Talk:Alt-right for some confusing comments) or what, but their talk page is full of warnings. They also received a DS alert about GamerGate related pages and today they added an edit relating Alt-right to GamerGate,[49] and yesterday did something similar at GamerGate[50] after adding a 'see also' the day before.[51] Perhaps this should be at AE instead. Adding after edit conflict that WP:OWN would probably apply to Connor Machiavelli who has made 48.93% of the edits to the page. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

An example of the problems I've seen with this editor is the GamerGate edit: "The alt-right has been identified as to having engineered Gamergate.[52]" The Washington Post source only says "Bernstein points out that the first contextual use of the term came from @Drunknsage, who had been a supporter of the #Gamergate crusade against so-called "social justice warriors of the left." The Buzzfeed source only says "Alt-right provocateur, Breitbart.com technology editor, #GamerGate champion, Twitter martyr, and inveterate self-promoter Milo Yiannopoulos" In no way to those sources support the claim. If the Weekly Standard is an RS, it does say "Yet as scattered and ideologically diffuse as it is, the alt right has had real success. "GamerGate," along with the wildly successful Twitter hashtag #cuckservative, are apt displays of why the alternative right has often proven more effective at fighting progressive dogma than the traditional Republican party" although that's not quite the same as "engineered". The article is a mess and very difficult to edit at the moment. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Gamergate is another issue. You can think what you want, but I still haven't created the article, nor made the largest edits, nor edited most of the article, Doug Weller, so me having WP:OWN on this article doesn't work. Maunus, you've been removing a definition that other editors agree with, and as far as I've seen, only you've shown that you disagree with it, so who's trying to own the article, in spite of multiple other editors? We're supposed to go by what the alt-right actually is, even if some sources are outdated on the definition so they aren't as accurate, things change over time and this movement has been growing, so we should go by what is more so agreed upon, such as by how those in the alt-right itself identify as and how they define their movement. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If others agree with it then why have they not said so or reverted my edits? Is it like a silent majority thing? Maybe you can name the other editors who agree with your definition?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Denarivs is the one who created that in the article, and an IP has removed a redundancy of yours in trying to define alt-right. If you waited, it's quite possible we'd see others who would like to keep the article in proper shape after your WP:POV edits that are seeming to be an attempt at replacing information that was sourced because the source doesn't state it to the exact in wording of how the information in the article is presently worded, so you removed the source for that even and said a citation was needed, but you said in a description that if I brought the source back, you'd report me. This is just outrageous. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Well it was hard for me to wait and see what others though when you reverted within minutes. Also it doesnt really matter how many people like your definition unless they also have sources that support it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please review all of Connor Machiavelli's contributions. He doesn't seem to know how to edit without misrepresenting sources and edit-warring. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

MShabazz, also look at how old this account is, and compare it with the level of experience you people have with editing on Wikipedia, so you can make a fair judgement, I do not believe I have been misrepresenting, it is just disagreed upon because there is not enough support from the source and multiple sources on those edits, and edit-warring isn't always the fault of one side, but rather it is two parties that are involved in it, I am meaning to keep articles in proper shape. Maunus, it is because of the lowness of quality your edits on this article are that you have been reverted, yet you consistently keep trying to fit in your WP:POV in to the article. Denarivs has stated previously in a revert to an edit of you about the low quality of an edit of yours on the article here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right&oldid=708543789 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And now at the talk page Connor Machiavelli has called canvassed another editor, pinging them to come here,[53] and called Maunus a liar.[54] He's been warned before for personal attacks including my warning today, and blocked by User:Drmies for 72 hours just 4 weeks ago for personal attacks. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You warned me for something I'm not even sure about having done. The other editor is relevant to the discussion of who was right and wrong here on alt-right, since Maunus has made it about that, with this complaint about me. Maunus himself was clearly hostile to me on the alt-right talk page, so I pointed out how he was lying, I never said he was a dishonest person, so it wasn't a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor Machiavelli (talk • contribs) 21:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to respond here at length but Maunus seems to be misrepresenting his position. He made a series of barely different edits to the page [55] [56] [57] seeking to define the subject matter plainly as white nationalism or white supremacy, a position not supported by any other editor, and destroying a carefully crafted consensus definition that was relatively stable for over a month before Maunus arrived [58]. Maunus also replaced the opening sentence of the article with a quote [59] from a source he himself had said was not reliable [60] that destroyed the flow of the article and is very hard to view in good faith. I don't really have the willpower to argue this but it seems clearly that an experience editor using wikipedia policy to force his own personal definition into an article. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to clarify that Maunus has blanketed the article in scare tags [61] for which he has provided no talk page justification and is trying to move the page to a much smaller and more obscure page on a person [62]. He's admitted to hostile editing [63] and has deleted citations multiple times [64] [65]. On net this strongly indicates bias and POV problems. If you look through the page history of the article in question you will see that maunus has made almost no constructive edits or contributed any content. His claim that he is trying to remove a WP:OR definition is ridiculous; he's fighting a one man war to delete a consensus opening sentence and have his own personal definition of the topic first and foremost. Thanks, Denarivs (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know what Connor Machiavelli is arguing here; the grammar is a bit garbled, but the semantics even more: you don't have to have created an article to act like you own it, and if "there is not enough support from the source" then by definition we're talking about original research. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest someone file an AE based on this user's behaviors related to the American Politics 2 and Gamergate decisions. Or persons an uninvolved admin can review their behavior here and consider discretionary sanctions. This user does not seem to be able to constructively edit in either areas, especially the politics one. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Alright, Connor Machiavelli is still at it, with this edit which also has an unacceptable edit summary. Throw in the "you're lying" comment and the combative atmosphere in a topic where it seems they are out of their league. Someone please block for 72 hours or so; I have a flight to catch. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've been watching Connor's talk page since I left a warning in January for his edits at Political Correctness, which were rather problematic. There he tried to add the same information for about 3 days (first time and last time) and did not participate in the talk page discussion (which, admittedly, didn't ping him), though he never used the talk page there looking at the history (that seems to fortunately have changed though). To his credit, after the warning his behaviour on that page did change, he stopped trying to re-add the same information and only reverted a reversion of his edit once more. So there's some context on my (extremely limited) interactions with him.

Despite that, his edits here also seem to be rather problematic as well, beyond the 3RR that Maunus claims (I'd rather see some diffs for that but that's not my main concern). He recently reverted a good faith IP edit and called it vandalism without it even looking like vandalism (honestly, I think the IP's edit improved the page, since none of the sources seem to support the claim being made). He is using sources that don't support the text (The standard article linked doesn't say anything like that they are an "alternative to mainstream conservatism", rather that they oppose the Republican establishment). And that's just in the last 24 hours. Wugapodes (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The source did support my revert to the IP who has been warned for vandalism in the past. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just asking for a fair judgement about this. What I've argued is that I was justified in this edit war, and Maunus was not. He has made this about who was right and wrong by blaming me alone for the edit war happening. The claim that I was trying to WP:OWN is nonsensical. On alt-right my edits have been fine, if any of my edits on alt-right have been WP:OR, it is very few. I try to constructively edit, and most of them have been, so I don't see why I should be the target of criticism instead of Maunus, despite myself having not done any worse than him on alt-right, according to other editors who have been working on that article. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

On another note to Wugapodes, I know the rule, but I am not even sure if what I did breaches 3RR, or even if you can count what happened as violating the 3RR. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Connor Machiavelli (talk · contribs) has clearly violated 3RR in the last 24 hours at Alt-right. No doubt he will deny this by some grossly distorted definition of "revert". The only reason I haven't made a report at WP:3RRN is that I don't want this issue spread over more than one noticeboard. Sundayclose (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done definitely done no worse on alt-right than Maunus, I think by this logic he has also violated 3RR, since he was reverting my reverts to basically the same WP:POV article he wanted. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was told to give my opinion here by @Maunus:. I believe this whole debacle was started over ostentatious claims of original research, which I find to be ridiculous. From what I see, alt-right more than exceeds notability requirements, especially in its notice by the powerful organizations ADL and SPLC. As for @Connor Machiavelli:, I think more than one user is acting way too hostile and unfair to him. His reasoning is sound and I believe a major reason there are people ganging on him is the nature of the subject in the first place; let's be honest, many users will find it hard to take NPOV on topics like these. In fact I might have to put a calm template on the talk page. My recommendation to Maunus for example was to not pay so much mind to this and ease his temper. The article and Connor are both innocent to me.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

My apologies to you, @Sigehelmus: but it was I who requested your opinion due to relevance, just to clear things up. Unsigned edit, I forgot. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

All I have to comment right now, it doesn't make sense why I'd get blocked for the edit war that multiple editors here explained (Denarivs, Sigehelmus, myself), from based off of what we've seen here with them disagreeing with it being my fault, and have made clear that Maunus was the main aggressor in it, and then we have another editor (Wugapodes) saying it is not of main concern to him whether or not I violated 3RR as Maunus claims. Optimally, taking everything into account, I think it'd be best drop this as a misunderstanding. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 04:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

It's my opinion that there is a competence issue with Connor Machiavelli. A month ago I suggested he be given some slack as he didn't understand our polices - see Talk:American Renaissance (magazine):, but he's had plenty of time to read up. At User talk:Connor Machiavelli#Edit warring Sundayclose gave him a strong reminder about 3RR, and yet here he is saying it's ok because he was justified and another editor said they didn't care. On his talk page I've tried to explain that DS applies to articles related to GamerGate (and he thinks this article is related), and he still thinks there's no problem because he isn't editwarring at GamerGate. And his talk page comments sometimes are too confusing to understand. Then of course there are issues with content, mainly an argument about whether "white supremacism" should be in the lead, not just Connor but also Denarivs[66] which I'll take to RSN. Other eyes would be useful and might help settle things down. Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Does he have any edits that do not relate to politics or feminism? (Would look myself, but this cafe's wifi is about as secure and stable as greased up epileptic turtle on stilts so I'm stretching to do this). Topic ban could be a way to confirm whether it's him or (hopefully) just those issues. More work, time, and process, but I tend to favor those over straight blocks just in case there's a productive editor stuck on a topic that inhibits them. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller, the competence issue on alt-right isn't with me, I have already said who it is with. I am not saying 3RR isn't a violation, I'm saying I think Maunus broke it too, if I did. What was happening was not full reverts from me, so I'm not sure if you could say I broke 3RR. On Gamergate I mean I should not get an editwarring violation having to do with there, I shouldn't get one at all because of the situation having been in this certain way, I was not being the one overtly hostile, Maunus was, so that doesn't make sense to blame it all on me. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked the history of Alt-right to see if any party would deserve a regular 3RR block, but couldn't reach a conclusion. Instead, I have fully protected Alt-right for three days due to edit warring and have alerted Connor Machiavelli to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, I appreciate it. I agree this would solve the issue for now, while there is discussion underway on the alt-right Talk page. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how this will help with issues such as this edit inserting the word "leftist" although I can't find it in the sources. Perhaps you could make an edit request to have it removed. Doug Weller talk 20:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Compromised account

Hey, all -- apologies if I've missed a subject-specific noticeboard. If you'll take a look at my edit history, you'll see a bunch of totally out-of-sorts edits under my account. On the one hand, they're to the type of nerdy articles I tend to edit, but on the other hand they're just whacky in terms of content and *ugh* grammar. Coupled with my usual very low rate of edits (note semi-retired banner), this is definitely not me and something is amiss.

I just changed my password, and that's about the extent of anything I can think to do (beyond monitoring not just my watchlist but also my contributions for the next few days). Any other best practices or suggestions? --EEMIV (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have an occasional need to edit away from your home PC, it would be helpful to create an alt account for use on public machines. A very strong password involving a mix of small and large caps, multiple symbols and numbers will help.Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this is the best solution. Sure, EEMIV could get a self-imposed block while they take care of the security of their machine, but in regards to Wikipedia, this would be the least caustic approach. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warning in MarnetteD

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.

---

Edit warning. --Deffrman (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

1) This is the wrong venue. 2) I was not notified of this thread. 3) It takes two. 4) This is the article in question Sukhumi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 5) This SPA is making the same edits as 2001:e10:6840:21:20c:6eff:fe07:58e3 (talk · contribs) and Илья Драконов (talk · contribs) . 6) Although I did not take part in the conversation on the talk oage (and neither has the OP or the IP) I was reverting to what I read the consensus to be of those that did. 7) I will stop editing the article and have taken it off of my watchlist. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well this looks on track to be the quickest-ever boomerang action. I notice that Deffrman has also edited his talk page to alter the substance of the comments of another editor (Tenebrae), which is of course unambiguously disruptive behaviour. I suggest you two (MarnetteD, Tenebrae) file and SPI, since you seem to most familiar with this SPA's activities. It might be faster and lead to a more lasting resolution than 3RR. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Just filed the report on the 3RR board. Alas, didn't see the above two comments while I was filing that report. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:25, 10 March 2016 (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.

Anon vandalism on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol

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.

---

Could you please block 59.148.208.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who 4 times vandalised AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol article? Thank you. --Rlevente (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

7 times. --Rlevente (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2016 (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:Smith josf

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.

---

User:Smith josf is most definitely a spambot. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already reported the user to WP:AIV. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Already blocked. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You guys are fast! Thanks, everybody. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Another tech support spammer -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:03, 10 March 2016 (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.

Misquoting reliable source at Killington Ski Resort

After being warned, User:73.69.86.109 reinserts a claim that the summit of Killington Mounntain has an elevation of 4241 feet, right next to a footnote which leads to a data sheet from the National Geodetic Survey that the elevation is 4229 feet. I note that the address is static IP address from near Killington. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it belongs to the marketing department at the Killington Ski Resort, who want to make the stated elevation match their marketing magazine, which contains 4241 in the title. Whoever is making these edits evidently has no concept that it is dishonest to misquote a source. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Potguru request

Recently, I blocked the named editor for 72 hours for casting aspersions and for disruptive editing. For context on this editor's behavior, please review the relevant ANI threads ([67], [68]) and this this AfD. Since then, the editor's talk page shows no indication that the editor acknowledges the problems with their behavior (see the unblock request, this response, and this implication that my block or interactions with the editor were entirely motivated by my wprivileged status as a white male). However, the editor has productively edited and worked with others. For instance, see this interaction they had with another editor in creating a list article, or their many contributions to cannabis-related topics such as Synthetic cannabinoids or Cannabis dispensaries in the United States.

A few editors on the editor's talk page have requested the editor be indefinitely blocked and that talk page access be revoked based on the current behavior. Furthermore, Potguru has expressed that my decisions were not justified. I'd like to hear what others have to say on these circumstances. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the productive work on cannabis, might a topic ban on anything relating to Donald Trump be appropriate? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I hate to see a new editor with plenty of potential burn out and burn their bridges so quickly. They've received good advice on their talk page, but in their zeal to contribute, they may have overlooked it. I think an indefinite block is unnecessary, and would shut out worthwhile contribution. The topic ban you suggest would definitely stem the main source of disruption. Willondon (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I also want to call out this recent comment from the editor. Some of it still feels like the editor is dedicated to creating a battleground, but parts of it appear to be very honest account of feeling frustrated in a contentious topic area. Many of us have made mistakes, poor judgment, and have hastily and improperly tried to fix things when the editing gets hot, myself included, so I get it. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would normally have dismissed some of the histrionics as typical behaviour of a recently blocked behaviour. However, the most recent edit that casts aspersions based on race are completely unacceptable. While their interaction with Anna Frodesiak does show they are able to work with others, I just don't think they realise that throwing accusations around implying some sort of racism is involved hurts their case more than not. If they continue with these attacks, I would support an even longer block, not necessarily indefinite, but with talk page access revoked so they have some time away to think through what got them blocked without giving them the ground and a shovel to dig their own grave in. Blackmane (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC).

Reposting from the editor's talk page:

Since I cannot talk there, I will talk here... while I still can. I think you rushed to merge the pages and you did not include a great deal of information. I think your causing me to only be able to talk here is punitive. I am allowed to speak on my talk page, yes? no? I am not disrupting the "system" or any articles at this time. As I said far above my defense is... I am not being disruptive. I am, however, attempting to defend myself in what I can only call an extremely hostile environment. I still contend your addition of three citations hardly qualifies as a "merge". (please consider the merge I did which I cannot find on the page Donald J. Dumpf (Last Week Tonight) from the deleted archives to see what I consider a legitimate merge. Or see my merge of synthetic cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids. Also note the reason I pointed to your whiteness is that you are acting like the research says you will... you will use cold/hard "system facts" against me... because I'm new and I don't understand nearly the quantity of things you do about this incredibly complicated system. note I never said White Men had "privileged status" but your assumption I did kind of made my point. Read white guilt it is fascinating stuff. --Potguru (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear, oh dear. I am sorry. I should have been more mentoring. I've been busy off-wiki these days and only made a handful of edits each day. I will post at his talk. Maybe I can guide him onto the right track. Again, sorry for my negligence. I read some of this during the past few days, but thought others would...., well, you know...be able to guide him onto the right track. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm with Muboshgu on this. Let him serve out his block, and then topic-ban him from anything Trump-related. Don't indef at this point. pbp 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• I am uncomfortable with the language this editor is using to attack other editors. It's one thing to disagree with rules or content disputes. It's another thing to imply bias based on any creed/color/gender. This sort of behavior, along with the insistence at the top of their talk page that a "non-white non-male" administrator be the one to deal with them is... insulting. Can someone please explain to this user that such insinuations are wrong? --Tarage (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• For my money (and just for the record, I do not edit either political or med related articles at all), the behavior shown by this user is entirely unacceptable. Playing the victim card constantly; thowing for lack of a better phrase, temper tantrums by making hugely unconstructive edits like blanking and insertion of talk into an article; editing while blocked (see discussion on the user's talk interspersed with the rants about the block); continuing IDHT (specifically in reference to the discussions on the user's talk page today). The block should be extended for editing while blocked and continued NPA violations, TP access revoked for the duration and a clear indication given that further abuses will be met with a swift indeff. It is past time to stop pandering to crybabies around here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think its time yet for an indef..I am with Anna Frodesiak - I think this user has potential to be a great editor, but I think they need to take the time to read and understand our five pillars and core policies again, especially on the idea of consensus, and working with others. I do however surrpot a t-ban against Donald Trump related articles, the language the editor is using is concerning, and I highly doubt they can edit articles like this from a neutral point of view. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note however based on the current behavior on thier talk page, 72 hours might not be enough. But I would be willing to give them the WP:ROPE --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 00:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose indef ban for now. Note that editor's account is only about two months old. Their lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works (WP:V, AFD, GA, merging/moving/redirecting or picture copyright) is yet forgivable, but needs to be sorted out. (tag User:Anna Frodesiak) However, a strong warning on their attitude (prone to anger, accusing other editors of conspiracies) is in order. starship.paint ~ KO 01:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• I also oppose an indefinite block, but Potguru may need a little more assistance in learning wiki policy. I don't really support a topic ban either, unless he persists in his behavior after his block expires. epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggested getting a mentor on their talk page. That might help. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• What I see is someone who thought a lot of their hard work had been thrown away by the redirect of their article without merge - they did not realise that the content is still in the history and that the closing editor only has to judge the consensus and not do the actual merge. The response was bad and should that attitude continue to future events then they might not be able to work collaboratively, but before we consider that I think a little patience, sympathy and help could save the day and help retain a productive contributor. I oppose a topic ban at this point, and instead I think we should give Potguru the chance to merge those articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, having now read all of the latest on Potguru's talk page (and seen the cooler head that I was convinced was there), I'd say there's a better case for an unblock now rather than any tighter sanctions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

  • • I disagree with whatever you mean when you say he should be allowed to "merge those articles". The merge is done. The one article exists, as per the result of the AfD. Nothing more needs to be done there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
    • And to be clear, I'm not sure we need a topic ban. It's an idea though that an admin should consider, or we could give the editor one more shot without restrictions, but with a mentor. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Recommend t-ban from at least Trump stuff, if not all American politics, as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBAP2. Though I just looked at their past 100 edits... those talk page comments are beyond ridiculous. I'm not convinced this user can be a constructive editor given their behavior the past two days. Others are advocating for ROPE, which is all fine and dandy, but it should come with the caveat that this is their final chance. Abusive edits based on race and gender (even if against white dudes which I have a higher tolerance for tbh) should not be taken lightly. While I sometimes understand the frustration, a similar future episode should result in an immediately block imho. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic

Livelikemusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has reverted productive and properly-cited changes to the article for the page Britney: Piece of Me. After said changes were reverted, the page was subsequently locked, and changes were instructed to be made through the discussion page. Multiple edit requests have been made through the talk page by multiple users to fix a range of errors spanning from content to spelling/grammar. This user is likely not alone in removing meaningful edits. The introductory paragraph for the concert page, for example, remains unusually short and not up to par with regard to formatting when compared to similar pages for different concerts.

There remain a vast number of grammatical and spelling errors on this page, in addition to significant amounts of missing content for the updated 2016 concert. This issue has been ongoing for months. The current administrators of the page with access to editing privileges have failed to hold up their duty to certify that the material published on the page meets minimal spelling/grammar/content standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldrige95 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There have been three edits to Britney: Piece of Me in the two weeks, and none of them were from either you or Livelikemusic. I'm not sure what the problem is here. If the article has grammatical errors, then post an edit request on the talk page. You can use {{Edit semi-protected}} for this. Alternatively, you can perform them yourself after making two more edits, after which you'll be autoconfirmed. If you include diffs of disruptive behavior, we can address that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The only edits I am aware of reverting were mass-addition of images, to follow NFCC#3, or removal of information that was not verifiable by way of a reliable source. And as far as I am aware, this is far from being disruptive. Not to mention, the user, instead of asking either on the page-in-question's talk page about the edits or other methods, immediately came to this board (months after edits happened) to make this report, and not even notice me properly of it? Seems to be this might be a case of someone owning their own edits and making this report as retaliation for their edits being undone. Fail to see how this is my acting in "negligence" or "blatant disregard" of the article, etc. Not only that, but to threaten a closing of my page over this seems in-civil and that this user may not be here to edit constructively, and is making this more of a personal vandetta for themselves against an editor. livelikemusic talk! 23:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

ParkH.Davis and Peyton Manning

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.

---

ParkH.Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few weeks ago, consensus was reached on the Peyton Manning talk page to trim down the "controversy" section, remove the BLP violations and undue weight, and work together to improve the article. This move has been tendentiously opposed by ParkH.Davis. They took the issue to the NPOV discussion board (see here, where numerous editors tried to explain the violations to them. ParkH.Davis also took it to the dispute resolution board and WP:ANI (here). However they just couldn't or wouldn't understand why they were wrong, and included several BLP violations in his ANI report. After numerous editors and administrators patiently explained the issues to him, he went on a pointy spree or removing controversies from Tom Brady's page, and was blocked by Administrator Swarm [69].

After returning, they created a separate article on the sexual assault allegations, fraught with numerous BLP violations. I brought the issue to the WP:BLP noticeboard, where clear consensus is against ParkH.Davis here. Due to their seemingly complete inability to understand BLP, ParkH.Davis has continued to stymie useful discussion with a weird representation of why they're right.

This diff [70] should be suppressed from the record, and in my reluctant opinion ParkH.Davis should be prevented from continuing to edit the article. I have tried to be patient with them, but there is a point where it just isn't productive. ParkH.Davis has now attempted to blank the article [71]. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." [72] There is no reason not to discuss the allegations. Why is this article being allowed to be whitewashed? It is clear that there is a systemic bias issue here and all mention of the allegations against Peyton Manning are being systematically deleted. Peyton Manning must pay his PR folks good money to play around on Wikipedia all day. ParkH.Davis (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Persistent disruptive editing, constant soapboxing, repeated BLP-vio's (including defamation and page blanking) and clear refusal to engage in any productive discussion. Editor has just come off recent blocks and has multiple warnings. Certainly a block is in order, and if not indef, then a topic-ban from all BLPs should be added as well. - ^theWOLFchild 23:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• This outrageous behavior by ParkH.Davis regarding the Manning article has gone one for a month. He's been editing five months and has already earned three blocks, including the one he just came off a week ago for disruptive editing to prove a point. Until today, I wasn't able to figure out why he absolutely refuses listen to anyone and has seemingly misrepresented all the policies, guidelines, and issues involved. His overwhelming bias seemed to cloud everything he said and did. But after reading this addition to his user page today, his motive became very clear. He is on a personal crusade and wants to use Wikipedia as his venue. When questioned about it, this was his response. And now the last straw, he has just blanked the Manning article 11 times (so far) in the past hour. This editor is not here to write an encylopedia, but rather to cause complete chaos. Tracescoops (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 23:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Kinda crazy to have this going on this long in a BLP with no admin action. Just sayin'. Arkon (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed! - ^theWOLFchild 23:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Great point. I'm sure many other editors thought the same thing. Tracescoops (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• This editor has now been blocked indefinitely. However, should he become unblocked, I still believe an all-BLP topic-ban is in order. - ^theWOLFchild 23:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. But I would be very surpised if he's unblocked based on his outrageous behavior and, most importantly, his clear motive. Now that is what you call a smoking gun. Tracescoops (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess someone can close this now. Please suppress this diff as requested []. And yes it is sad that this BLP issue lasted for as long as it did without any admin action. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK, there was an admin, but s/he was off-duty, since s/he was editing the article. In fact s/he inserted the edit proposed by Mr. Ernie on the talk page, which restored information about the allegations about Manning, information which was then removed by ParkH. Davis--after ParkH. Davis complained there was nothing in the article. Their explanation? There's no agreement on the talk page (I think there was some agreement). And then Davis starts clamoring that there's a whitewashing--after they removed the information themselves. In the process, they prevented me from reinstating it, given 3R, and thus doubled up on the keeping out of information. They could have been blocked for incompetence in basic logic, as far as I'm concerned. So what we have here is an editor who illogically removes pertinent information about a sexual harassment case while clamoring that there's sexual harassment. Bravo. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• As I was involved in the discussion on the noticeboard, I don't feel right to do this myself, but I think we need to have revdel on the history of Peyton Manning sexual assault controversy (which now redirects to Manning's article), which this user had created and has been shown to be inappropriate by many other users. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I had intended to request this myself, but forgot. Tracescoops (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I just wnted to chip in and say I endorse the block and BLP topic ban, even though I am more inclined to add more on the controversy than to maintain the current status quo.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:02, 11 March 2016 (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 threat

Hoyalawya has included a legal threat on User talk:98.169.244.220. User has been notified of this ANI discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I had previously reported them to ANEW. GAB^Hello! 03:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the user's comments rise to the level of a legal threat. I read it as there may be legal consequences to the organization as a result of the post, not that the organization will take action and cause legal consequences to Wikipedia(ns). That said, I don't think the user is quite grasping that this is a neutral encyclopedia; they're having issues with WP:OWN and WP:COI. They could probably use some extra guidance. —C.Fred (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I translated it differently when I first read it, but I see how your interpretation of it could be correct as well, C.Fred. I will leave it to your fine judgment; if my interpretation of the message was wrong, please accept my apologies. I will gladly accept my ten lashings :-P ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound quite like a legal threat to me... GAB^Hello! 15:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a little light for a legal threat. This edit summary comes closer, though I'm not sure if it's a threat or a concern that the information might create liability for the subject (basically, same as C.Fred says above). The request to delete the article is probably not going to happen. An NGO that old with close ties to the UN is public enough to not meet our "requested deletion" criteria, and is probably notable besides. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That user also reverted 5 times [73], so a 3RR block would be appropriate as well.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The user hasn't reverted the article since they were issued the 3RR warning. We do give leeway to new users when they haven't been warned. Once they are warned and they still persist in the behavior, they would be blocked. However, I will say that after this and this, they are clearly here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTHERE to contribute to an encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Goodness gracious. That's frustrating. My reading of what Hoyalawya is saying boils down to this: COC is working on rebranding, and the Wikipedia article is not consistent with COC's new brand image. Hoyalawya probably has pointed out factual inaccuracies in the article, but the complaining about the FTC and D&O insurance makes no real sense. At worst, Hoyalawya is complaining about something that might at some point in the future if there's a lawsuit about something that no Wikipedia editor could reasonably foresee, if some party to the suit attempts to use the Wikipedia article as evidence of COC's organizational structure, might require COC's lawyers to raise an objection. This is the rationale being given for demanding an immediate deletion of the article, and it makes about as much sense as someone working for Macy's arguing that we're harming them by not putting the registered trademark symbol next to every mention of their brand names. It just looks to be pretext for a brand identity complaint. Well, we'll see how the AfD goes. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopper

86.187.174.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Administrator Noticeboard entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: - Stalingrad (2005 video game) was protected by MusikAnimal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Pinging EdJohnston. You asked about a rangeblock the other day so thought I'd alert you to this new development. IPs related to this I know of so far are based on edit summaries and article type:

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat from Dcleland101

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.

---

See this diff (article now deleted). Reporting threat here per WP:NLT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User has been notified of this ANI thread. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That and the page created screams a quick block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

CSD'd page for G10, and reported user to AIV as a VOA. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked this user indefinitely before seeing this report. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Good enough ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:48, 11 March 2016 (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.

89.100.93.156 and Russian Federation

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.

---

89.100.93.156 has basically been an editor whose single purpose was to mindlessly replace instances of "Russia" with instances of "Russia Federation" in several articles, despite the fact that the article on Wikipedia is Russia per obvious WP:COMMONNAME. They have been asked not to do that, but the only response so far has been to continue edit warring with threatening-sounding edit summaries such as this.

It seems clearly not constructive to me and I've dealt with it to the extent I could. LjL (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I've slapped an AN/I notice on their talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm well aware of the requirement, but I forgot. LjL (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the same disruption pattern is continuing without an acknowledgement of this report. LjL (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Gave a final warning template on user's talk page, for what it's worth. But your next stop might be WP:AIV at this rate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:21, 10 March 2016 (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.

Reporting 2602:301:7796:AAA0:70D0:36:EB7C:DDA9

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.

---

2602:301:7796:AAA0:70D0:36:EB7C:DDA9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person has been removing large chunks of stuff. Im not sure if it is vandalism but I was hoping an administrator take a look. Winterysteppe (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I can't tell what hte heck they're trying to do... they added 54000+ bytes and then proceeded to remove chunks of it. I've warned the user and going to WP:RPP for the page. Hopefully they'll stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Look at their first edit and Google some phrases and look at the names--LaMarcus Aldridge played for Texas. They copied the entire chunk from Texas Longhorns men's basketball and then started tweaking it--that's not a good idea. Really, I should nuke the whole damn thing, but then the poor schmuck has to do it all over again, so I have a better idea: I'll leave it for the next admin. Drmies (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yikes. I think in this situation, the best resolution is to revert to an earlier version, prior to this flurry of large edits today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 March 2016 (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 talk with Wikipedia Policy on the page

Hi, on User_talk:Synthelabobabe21, the person has a Wikipedia Policy header on the top of their page. That probably does not belong there, right? Can I remove it? What sort of notification should I give about it? Thanks In veritas (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Don't think so. I've removed them. (WP:OWNTALK) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Sir Sputnik

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 received this warning from User:Sir Sputnik about this edit that I made. My edit can't conceivably be construed as vandalism, so the warning constitutes an attempt to prevent discussion by someone who disagrees with "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" and "asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express", both of which form part of the definition of wikilawyering. This is not the first time that this editor has tried to prevent me from expressing an opinion that differs from his (I assume from the "Sir" in the user id that this is a he rather than a she), so I would ask that action be taken to prevent such harrassment. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Sputnik's warning was unwarranted, but so are your accusations of "harassment". Nothing to see here, LAME etc. Both move on. GiantSnowman 20:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer a response to this by an uninvolved administrator, i.e. someone other than a member of the football wikiproject who makes the same "fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL" comment without explanation in every deletion discussion about a football player outside of Western Europe, most of which are started by User:Sir Sputnik. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved. But hey IP if you know me/WP:FOOTBALL so well why don't you log back into your account rather than hide behind an IP address? GiantSnowman 22:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, including those who choose to reveal their IP addresses rather than use a silly pseudonym. I am certainly not "hiding", so please withdraw that comment. And yes, you are involved, because you took part in (if you can call making your usual uninformative comment "taking part"), the discussion in which User:Sir Sputnik seems to think that I should be given a level 4 warning for making a logical argument. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Giant, slumming is fun, I suppose. One gets tired of it after a while, though, and if there is a real account, the editor shouldn't be outside of article space, or so I'm told. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved. Wikipedia's definition of vandalism is very clear, and the edit by 86.17.222.15 was certainly not vandalism and the warning was unwarranted. But at the same time, I don't see anything rising to the level of harassment or that needs any admin action. Listen to the big cold guy and move on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This was the result of a simple mis-click in twinkle. I had intended to warn the IP for incivility. Apparently, I did not properly click on the drop down menu of warnings, which meant that it defaulted to option 1, the vandalism tag. My bad. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

But it was not incivility either. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• There's clearly nothing wrong with your comments in that discussion and certainly nothing that merited any sort of warning for any sort of misconduct including incivility. So...you're free to remove it and carry on. That's really all there is to it. Ignore the empty warnings. Sputnik, it's not helpful to issue repeated templated warnings to an opponent in a dispute unless there is a serious or clear-cut violation going on and there definitely wasn't one here. Please stop bothering this user with warnings and focus on the discussion itself. Can we all move on? Swarm ♠ 07:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• As long as Sir Sputnik takes that message on board I will no longer feel intimidated from taking part in discussions, so agree that no further action will be needed. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• It would be nice to get a confirmation from User:Sir Sputnik (who I note has been editing for the last few hours) that he has taken that message on board so that we can close this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think Sir Sputnik "gets" it though, judging that he still maintains "a warning is in order". IPs are humans too, and Sir Sputnik's behaviour is just another example of the overall environment the causes decline in editors because of the hostile environment. Suggest not to close this yet. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Sir Sputkik's silence is becoming deafening here. Maybe he hasn't watchlisted this discussion, so could someone ask him if he wants to respond here? I don't think he would take kindly to a request from me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• What is supposed to happen when the subject of a report here fails to engage with the conversation, despite carrying on editing? Do we wait for ever before doing anything? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's clear to everyone that the warnings aren't warranted and I do agree with Ohana above. That being said, if he refuses to cooperate in this thread, I don't believe there's anything we can or should do at this moment. It's apparent that everyone who's reviewed the situation is in agreement that the warnings were inappropriate and I hope the point has been made. People may get a message without acknowledging they were wrong, and if that is the case, then great. Worst case scenario, WP:ROPE comes into play. If he ignores the input here and continues issuing intimidatory warnings without justification, then it would cross into seriously actionable territory, IMO. This incident itself is regrettable but not that severe. If it persists or proves to be a pattern, that would be another story. Swarm ♠ 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well then, I suppose this discussion should be closed. I note that such a refusal to take part in discussion, rather than just throw around templates and boilerplate links to policies, is typical of the behaviour in deletion discussions of both the subject of this discussion and the involved administrator who tried to close it down three minutes after I started it. That behaviour certainly feels very much like harrassment when you're on the receiving end, and I'm sure that many new editors would just walk away from Wikipedia rather than bring this to wider attention as I, as an experienced editor, have done. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2016 (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.

Search engine submission

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.

---

A quick Googling of "search engine submission scam" finds that it is a common practice to scam unwary site owners into buying search engine submission services that are wholly unneeded. A set of IPs are persistently edit warring to keep our search engine submission article reading like an advert for such services. - SimonP (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for two days as most of the additions were from IPs. I'll Watchlist the article (maybe others can, too) to see if this starts up again in 2 days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - SimonP (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (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.

Request to remove incorrect redirect

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 have renamed the article "African Court of Justice" to Court of Justice of the African Union as this is the correct name for this body (which was intended, but never really created). However, apparently I have made an error. I marked "Talk" on the assumption that both the article and the talk page (which had not yet any content) would be renamed. But the result was that the article was renamed to Talk:Court of Justice of the African Union. I have tried to fix this by renaming it again to Court of Justice of the African Union. This succeeded, but unfortunately an incorrect redirect remains: Talk:Court of Justice of the African Union. I do not think I can repair this. Can administrators solve the problem? I am sorry for my mistake. Paul K. (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I fixed the redirect on African Court of Justice, but Talk:Court of Justice of the African Union needs to be deleted so that Talk:African Court of Justice can be moved to the new location. I have marked the page for CSD G6 in the meantime. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 17:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Paul K. (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page so the remaining move can be done.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 13 March 2016 (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.

IP here to troll gay sex subjects

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.

---

• 174.1.101.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is here for the sole purpose of denigrating gay sex.

A few diffs:

• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• Oh here is a little defamation added in dif
• back to denigration dif

I warned them to stop it here. They argued. I told them to knock it off.

Today they were right back at it: dif.

This user is WP:NOTHERE and only here to troll. Please indef. Jytdog (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't indef block IPs, and this one is dynamic. But the same person seems to have been on this IP for at least a few days, so I've gone for a one-week block. Please feel free to leave me a note if they start up again once the block expires and I'll impose a longer block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just an additional comment: It's perfectly acceptable to debate the use of images in sex-related articles and that's not why I have blocked, but this editor went beyond that into outright homophobia and personal attacks on BLP subjects. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hear all that. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2016 (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

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.

---

Not sure if it's appropriate to block an IP from editing its own talk page, but currently-blocked long-term legal threatener User:81.101.104.252 is still posting elaborate legal threats at User talk:81.101.104.252. --McGeddon (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A clear legal threat against Wikipedia editors in general and User:JamesBWatson in particular. That IP has never made an edit on any subject but the Tube challenge so there's no obvious collateral damage from a talk page block. Meters (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. That's the worst grammar I've seen in quite some time. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2016 (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.

Competence and the meaning of the word "plurality"

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.

---

User New Speech Killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose editor who takes the view that it is in some way improper to refer to the conventional method of electing e.g. members of the US House of Representatives using the word "plurality" because the word "plurality" has other meanings. This has led to a lot of repetitive comments on various talk pages, including weird insinutations about other users' political beliefs, and the same few edits being made repeatedly. A number of other editors have tried to engage New Speech Killer, but the effect is nil. I have run out of patience for this, so here I am. Diffs follow:

Repetitive, unsourced, weird edits to Plurality voting system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):

• [74] (before registering an account)
• [75](before registering an account)
• [76]
• [77]
• [78]

Ditto, to Template:Electoral systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):

• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]
• [84]
• [85]

The weird talk-page business, including repeatedly restoring a comment to a user's talk-page against that user's request:

• Long ranty comments
• repeated restoration of comments

I will notify the relevant users in short order. --JBL (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Clear pov pusher here to "right great wrongs". The user name alone suggests disruption. Indef seems appropriate. Might consider going to WP:RPP if it keeps up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Has done similar actions at Plurality (voting). See:

• [86] (before registering an account)
• [87] (before registering an account)
• [88]
• [89]

Thanks for looking into this. User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I can say from reviewing the {{help me}} request on this issue, I was struck by the following: In this message (just over a month ago), New Speech Killer said Consensus is not a good think, the good thinks is objectivity and honesty. I believe you know that the best consensus is between mafia like members. This apparent disregard for consensus-building in the article-building process has been followed in the month since with reverts rather than discussion. My interpretation is that the user wants the article to be what they feel is right, in spite of consensus. I gave the user an edit warring warning from the thought that it would be a last warning of sorts before an indef or maybe even a topic ban would be sought, but in reviewing this post, I wouldn't have a problem with action being taken now based on the evidence. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 22:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. In my view, this is a disruptive and tendentious SPA who has taken part in Edit warring, personal attacks, rejection of consensus, attempting to right great wrongs, refusal to listen to what others are saying, refusal to edit in accordance with "verifiability not truth", refusing to drop the stick, blatantly using Wikipedia as a soapbox for their personal views, and refusing to collaborate in a constructive manner. Given the impressive breadth and severity of their transgressions, I think the only preventative recourse here is to block indefinitely; they quite simply need to become familiar with, and agree to abide by our content and behavioral policies before being allowed to edit again, period. Executing this right now. Swarm ♠ 00:07, 12 March 2016 (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.

Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy - Whitewash of a political article 9 years after the fact?

The article Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy was subjected to extensive revision in November/December 2015 by a single editor Bonewah. While I do not wish to assert lack of good faith by Bonewah, the effect of the revisions were to blunt or whitewash the political problem the article described. We had extensive discussions and arguments 9 years ago about this politically hot article, and did what we could to forge a consensus NPOV article (we=myself and a handful of regular editors). The issue that puzzles me is how we can forge such an article after tremendous effort, yet some years later a single editor can appear and undo the essence of the article - I am concerned about this particular article, but find the situation to be a general problem. Perhaps the article needed revision; it was a difficult article to write; and it is to Bonewah's credit that he was willing to take a fresh revision of the article. Nevertheless, we seem to have a new (hydra-headed?) problem on how to accurately reflect the politics of the issue. An editor Yellowdesk has been the long-term caretaker of the article, but it appears that he may have at long last given up defending the article. What I puzzle about is how to preserve articles long-term, when they are persistently attacked with attempts to spin them in particular political directions; long after regular editors have moved on to other things (either in life or wikipedia). Why does a single editor have this authority, long after main development of the article? I thought this incident warranted some advice from experienced editors. Bdushaw (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Bdushaw, it is an interesting question that you pose, but I'm afraid this is really not the forum to discuss it. This board is reserved for discussion of specific acts of unambiguous disruption and other behavioural problems which need to be addressed by admins or the community at large. Your question does not so much concern an accusation of bad-faith editing in this instance as it poses a pragmatic issue of editing relevant to the project as a whole. If I may suggest, if you are looking to resolve the instant content issue, you should consider WP:RfC, WP:NPOVN, WP:RSN, or WP:DRN, or a relevant Wikiproject. Alternatively, if you wish to discuss this issue in its broadest strokes, good spots to solicit broad community input are WP:VPP, WP:CD and, again, WP:NPOVN and certain Wikiprojects. Best of luck in either event! Snow ^{let's rap} 12:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems like regarding issues like these as one-off problems doesn't fully acknowledge editors' efforting to protect pages from attack. What is the point of reaching a knowingly false sense of consensus on a page over and over again, if pages can be predicted to come under endless, subsequent attack ? It's being implied here that editors have to monitor pages for attack. And then you have instances, like above, where that monitoring triggers prejudicial incident reporting. It's not just for this article, mind you. I checked WP:VPP with an open mind, and this issue is discussed there, with no solution, either. Rather than passing this issue off, can we have a substantive discussion ? Because the problem is systemic, the solution must be systemic, too. Maslowsneeds (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want an article to be stable, my recommendation is to make sure the article isnt terrible. The article in question is a long desultory mess, as is common in articles that are written while some "controversy" is unfolding. Also, you would do well to at least try and engage me in the talk page before claiming that the article is under "attack". A bit of good faith would be appreciated here. Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is not whether the problems on the page are transient ("one-off") or whether they are reflective of systemic issues. The fact remains that this is a content issue, not a behavioural one, which are meant to be examined in this space. The OP was clear that he doesn't see bad-faith in the attitude or behaviour on the part of the other editor here and without such a factor, there's nothing that can be accomplished here. There are plenty of community spaces which will be perfect for dispute resolution as to the particulars of this article or to host a discussion about the broader issues the OP is concerned about. ANI is not one of them unless/until someone's actions violate our behavioural guidelines and begins to disrupt the article or talk page in that way. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can provide diffs to indicate disruptive editing, it might be appropriate to request content dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a request for formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• You can certainly dispute the large-scale removal of content from an article but you're making a serious accusation of biased editing against an established editor in good standing, and you've provided exactly zero evidence to support your claim that a problem even exists. This is not the way to collaborate on this website. There is nothing inherently wrong with trimming down articles and it's borderline comical to say this user should abide by discussions that took place a decade ago—as we all know, consensus can change. If you're seeing actual problems you should specifically point them out and explain what's wrong and discuss how you can work together and seek dispute resolution if necessary. However this is clearly a good faith content dispute which is being discussed, and not something that requires admin intervention. Swarm ♠ 08:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Upfront, I acknowledge that this posting was not the best approach to the problem; apologies. To be clear, however, I did not accuse - my posting was about the general problem of how political articles get spun after the interested editors have moved on to other things. The effect of Bonewah's edits was to downplay the seriousness of the incident the article describes; editor Aquillon has restored most of the article. Bonewah's repeated statements as to how terrible the article was and how he did not see what the main problems of the incident were, together with the subsequent lengthy exchanges with editor Aquillion on the Talk page ("Lets get started -- fallout section" and below; those sorts of all-too-familiar exchanges are what I did not want to get into all over again), do lead me to the opinion that Bonewah is a bit disingenuous. If he doesn't understand the nature of the political controversy, why is he making major edits to the article? There are lots of new references to consult understand the issue, besides the wikipedia article. But the essence of the problem is often never really explicit - metaphorically, after the article is written, the lights are turned off and the editors have left the building, the white washers creep in, and without editors maintaining vigilance the nature/POV of the article can change dramatically. One obvious change to this particular article was the removal of the word "unprecedented" in the lead sentence (now restored) - the word and what it represents was well cited and a key factor to the original controversy; the word was removed and restored numerous times as the article developed. One factor is that most often links to supported references are no longer available, so the argument is that such references should be deleted, hence justifying content removal (example in "Lets get started -- fallout section" Talk section). Part of my concern is motivated by my experience with the related article on Bradley Schlozman where the editors Boxcutterman and Art88m3 , both single purpose accounts, whitewashed some of the pointed elements of that article; see the Talk page. Another example is the discussion of this controversy in the related article Alberto Gonzales, that bears little resemblance to the controversy described by this Dismissal of USAs article. In the end, and happy to have this incident closed with no action, there may be no solution to the problem other than continued vigilance, or to quietly let such articles drift in POV. The nature of politics is the endless battle! Bdushaw (talk) 09:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record this diff documents when the word "unprecedented" was removed. Just above this change is a note admonishing editors not to remove the word "unprecedented" without discussing on the Talk page. Bdushaw (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it is indeed to some extent the case that if it is important to you to see a particular version of content preserved, you will have to be vigilant on the matter. That doesn't necessarily reflect a "systemic flaw" in the Wikipedia model so much as a consequence of the basic reality of the project. We don't lock down articles once we think they are "perfect", we keep them open so that additional future sources/understanding, or just practical augmentations, can be applied. But that's not to say that you are without resources if you feel that a certain issue of consensus or another sound editorial decision is being undone. You have several content-oriented noticeboards you can take such issues to, you have (especially in this instance) numerous Wikiprojects where you can recruit perspectives, you have mechanics like WP:RfC and WP:Third opinion to solicit outside opinions, you have central community spaces like WP:Village pump and WP:Central discussion to discuss the broader issues you are concerned about here and, perhaps most germane to the article in question here, you have available to you numerous avenues of WP:Dispute resolution to hopefully help you and the other editor come to a reasonable middle-ground approach that might very well result in an article that suits both of you as superior to what is there now (it's not unheard of).

My personal suggestion is that the best approach to the present dispute is to first try an RfC. If that somehow fails to generate a useful consensus on the disputed content, take the issue to WP:DRN. If that fails because one party or other is being obstinate or you just can't seem to see eye-to-eye, take the matter to WP:NPOVN. I would say that, following that path, it is virtually impossible that you won't come to some functional consensus along the way. But the ultimate point here is that ANI is not a content-oriented noticeboard. Unless you are alleging (and can support with diffs) a disruptive pattern of behaviour on the part of another editor, there's no point in a thread here, and we won't be making any content decisions in this space. Best of luck, though. And if you try RfC and get too few responses, please feel free to ping me to the discussion and I will cast an !vote. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. By way of feedback, I did try to carefully read the instructions at the top of this page; forgive me, I do stumble around on wikipedia sometimes. But perhaps the instructions might be modified a bit - e.g., highlight that this page is for behavioral issues or requiring active intervention or remedy, or even just add RfC to "Are you in the right place?". Bdushaw (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threats and disruptive edits by User:MehranRazi

Implied legal threats and disruptive edits articles involving the surname Mehrān: Mehrānids, House of Mehrān, Mehrān Razi, Shapur Mehrān, Golon Mehrān. Seems to object to the English spelling used in article names but continually restores desired version and refuses to discuss on talk pages.

Implied legal threats:

• [90] article edit summary
• [91] user talk page content and edit summary

warned for legal threats [92], but made additional implied legal threats:

• [93] article content
• [94] article edit summary

3RR violation:

• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]

Ping User:HistoryofIran for following: HistoryofIran has suggested that this user is a sockpuppet of a blocked account:[99] [100] [101] [102]. Presumable this is Special:Contributions/106.187.96.166 and comparing the edits and edit summaries it does appear to be likely socking. Meters (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• I blocked MehranRazi for 60 hours for disruptive editing--here, edit warring, combative editing, legal threats (borderline, maybe, but still). A smarter CU than me should probably look at the account and the IP, and also at another account, Jay-Rastgo. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

173.174.98.84 and 32.97.110.60 edit warring in Mexican free-tailed bat

We have a problem with edit warring by two IP addresses which I believe are the same person - both IPs are located in Austin. Both are trying to add what they claim is a local name for a species to the lede of the article. The support is essentially confined to blogs. There have been four reverts in 24 hours and 42 minutes. [103], [104], [105] and [106]. This has been discussed in the article talk page, with both IPs participating, one indicating he fully intends to keep reverting no matter what.

I'm at three reverts I can't revert again, I'd appreciate it if an administrator could look at the situation. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sent request to WP:RPP EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose I should have started there. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• OK, semi-protected for a week, long enough to hammer out a consensus on the talk page that the source is indeed weak--if that's the case. IP hoppers should not get an unfair advantage. BTW, while you're at it, can you rewrite that lead and get that Bacardi and state mammal nonsense out of it? :) Drmies (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: if state desserts are seen as worth mentioning in the articles about desserts, example Whoopie pie, why are state mammals not worth mentioning in the articles about mammals? Or was it unsourced? Why do birds associated with states get special exemption, see the lede of Bald eagle (a featured article) and also Eagle#Heraldry. If I should be making a separate conduct incident regarding this aspect -- persistent POV editing preferring reptiles and birds over mammals -- please let me know. MPS1992 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the old WP:WHOOPIEPIEEXISTS argument... That article is not a very good article. As for WP:THEARGUMENTOFTHEBALDEAGLE, the bat is not to the states of Oklahoma and Texas as the eagle is to the US, for a whole bunch of reasons--one of them being that the eagle and the US have been connected historically since times immemorial, and not so for Oklahoma. Quick, come up with a symbol for Oklahoma! ...covered wagon? chicken fried steak? a football? Also, I personally prefer mammals over birds, so that's just madness... (Finally, I don't think state-level stuff belongs in any article like this, but it certainly shouldn't be in the lead.) Drmies (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The late 18th century is not "time immemorial"! I will assume good faith on your protestation of preferring mammals over more reptilian creatures. This can be closed. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed to stop block evasion by Cnslrken2

A range of IPs is doing the same stuff as indeffed User:Cnslrken2. From November 2015, a few IPv6 addresses showed up to remove redlinks. Then Cnslrken2 appeared 2–3 weeks ago to remove redlinks at the same articles.[107] All of these changes were reverted because of the idea found at WP:REDLINK (we are supposed to be encouraging people to write new articles to build the encyclopedia.) After lots of edit warring to remove red links at multiple articles, reverted by many other editors, Cnslrken2 was indef blocked. After that, a lot more IPv6 addresses took up the same activity on the same quirky group of articles:

• List of deaths in rock and roll
• Michigan J. Frog
• Az Yet
• Bobby Bland
• Miss Prissy (Looney Tunes)
• List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters
• Natalie Cole
• Looney Tunes: Spotlight Collection
• Miranda Lambert

Here are the involved IPv6 addresses:

• 2001:558:6007:71:1D73:C89:31B2:941 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 3 months)
• 2607:fb90:47:c4da:39c3:3b6f:ed33:7bed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 1 month)
• 2607:fb90:45:7ec:81f8:d3ae:63c8:7d29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 31 hours)
• 2607:fb90:1d96:49bb:42ab:9533:68d8:7e91 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 36 hours)
• 2607:fb90:4e:a5bd:dedf:78ed:df2c:a0fa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d14:d43b:6c92:fb3e:b3e6:2e2c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 2 weeks)
• 2607:fb90:43:39d4:12c0:8bbe:bc9c:c087 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:48:82bb:e6:4481:3fb2:90b9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:4c:4aef:a148:2945:5b2f:c949 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 31 hours)
• 2607:fb90:1d16:1902:ea72:c4b6:dae8:30b7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 31 hours)
• 2607:fb90:1d78:e7c8:6117:c246:728a:22c1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:41:819e:2d0e:1d0f:e2e1:9b77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:45:7d18:61b8:8d30:9ee5:5e6a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:43:660a:d7a8:3dc6:d8bd:6bda (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 12 hours)
• 2607:fb90:1d33:1bba:c17e:37e5:7ae4:de5c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:41:819e:2d0e:1d0f:e2e1:9b77 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:4b:4f60:2f74:aefe:f8c0:bdae (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d78:e7c8:6117:c246:728a:22c1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d08:1373:c723:1c1f:7936:c6f6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d08:1373:c723:1c1f:7936:c6f6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d74:1191:abe0:2fdd:93e5:1182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:47:41c0:b518:f257:a83e:80c7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d88:9594:2f42:7c6b:9d78:b1ed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d35:f661:b496:2d30:12dd:eea5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d08:1373:c723:1c1f:7936:c6f6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 2607:fb90:1d1b:f133:5813:91f9:6eef:451d (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 48 hours)

There are also some IPv4 addresses doing the same stuff, but in widely separated geolocations:

• 76.20.169.162 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.111.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.110.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) (Blocked 31 hours)
• 50.153.110.182 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.108.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.110.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.109.56 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 50.153.110.128 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.87.114.88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.87.114.102 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 66.87.114.122 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

It should be noted that some of this person's edits are constructive, especially at List of deaths in rock and roll. Pinging Ghmyrtle and Materialscientist who are both familiar with this disruption. I think we need a lengthy rangeblock on the main IPv6 group, and some kind of IPv4 rangeblocks. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to Binksternet for raising the issue here. My problem is not so much with the individual edits themselves, which are often relatively minor - removing redlinks in particular - and sometimes constructive, though I first became alerted to the problem when they repeatedly and without explanation changed birth dates at Dave Bartholomew and Freddy Cannon. The problem is that the editor has never left an edit summary, and has never responded to comments or criticism - simply changing addresses at will and continuing with exactly the same behaviour, though on a growing range of articles. It's extremely irritating. Other articles where this has occurred include Esther Rolle, and a long list of Looney Tunes-related articles. Aditionally pinging KrakatoaKatie who has also tried to deal with this problem. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: Adding 2607:FB90:1D8D:48EB:FB0F:3D52:A50B:7FD7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Example of constructive edits here - but still block evasion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Drmies just semi-protected the above-named articles for three months. Let's see how that works. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocking those IPs is going to be of limited use. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, the list of articles this person has edited is way, way longer than that list. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Solaire the knight and Trolls from Olgino

Solaire the knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been really disruptive at the Trolls from Olgino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page. He has been warned multiple times against edit warring, POV pushing and attacking other editors, but to no avail. He doesn't seem to speak English, which is not a problem per se, but makes it nearly impossible to understand his comments, which near gibberish (here, here, here). He fails to propose changes in the talk page or work towards a consensus. He only stopped edit warring after being threatened with a ban from an admin. I've tried working with him in the talk page, proposing multiple compromise positions (here, here, here), but he refuses to work together. He's removed sources from the article as well (here, here, here).

He's also been offensive to other editors multiple times:

• "What a sweet agitation of Ukrainian activists"
• "trying to hide behind the links?"
• "pretending not to understand what it was about"
• "using such populism ignore the Wikipedia rules and powdering my brains demagogy"
• "Over rough demagogy I have not heard"
• "turned to walk around and demagoguery"
• "if you're too shy , I repeat"

Thanks. UCaetano (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• In fact , we are dealing with a confident attempt to squeeze me out of the article with the help of provoking war revisions (using the rollback flag ) , walking in a circle on the discussion page of the article (users that break on monologues about " Putin's lies" , then disappear after direct questions on the content of the article , suddenly ceasing to understand me )the leading natural wild arguments so that I have to have to ask them if they think I'm an idiot , that just use such arguments . Or even openly ignoring my attempts to start a discussion first, using a formal occasion. Members are well aware that I badly speak English , so try to make the discussion so viscous and boring , so I escaped and went to the person, accusing them walk in a circle Solaire the knight (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  UCaetano is demonstrating destructive behavior by claiming that source that only retranslating other original source contributes to the article. Thus, I see the actions of participants or as an attempt to roll back each of my editing , so I got stuck on the article talk page , or spin it to the level of war to further I been blocked. Solaire the knight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you cannot convince to community of your point of view then you don't get your way. This is the same standard we apply to everybody. Nobody is forcing you to edit war. It may just be that you won't get what you want here. HighInBC 17:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And if the community does not want to listen to ? And users principle, would roll back my edits and wash my brains on the talk page, until I was tired and I did leave, slamming the door? I have often seen such destructive behavior in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia , but did not expect that this will be to indulge in the "model " of English. Or should I look calmly , as a participant plays with me , immediately responding to my every remark , but disappearing or ceasing to understand me , when I ask a direct question about the sources of the problems ? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For example , here this request now appeared only because the return to the article links, obviously duplicating other references can hardly carry anything other than provocation of war edits. As a result , not having received the expected pullback from me , the participant just decided to get my block the other way . Solaire the knight (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It is still YOUR responsibility to convince other editors and reach a consensus, and do it while being polite, respectful and productive. I know how hard it is, I've been in endless discussions like those before (you can read this one as an example). That's how WP works. UCaetano (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to jump like a little puppy in front of the users even if they openly sabotage the discussions, including with your submission ? No, I 'm not going to be humiliated in front of a man who does not go to advance the consensus , besides breaking the rules, starts war-edits and ignores the arguments. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This sounds like battleground and competence here... --Tarage (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont understand you, what what do you mean? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COMPETENCE are what Tarage is referring to. You might also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. MarnetteD|Talk 18:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You about it? I know this rules. But then what to do if the participants openly mock me, sabotaged every attempt to begin my discussion of sources and somehow raise the question of the neutrality of the article ? Or need to be more destructive and arrogant than they ? : D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solaire the knight (talk • contribs) 18:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a beginner and enough to Wikipedia to know about any "attain consensus " and " assume good intentions ." That's just they do not work when in front of you are engaged in POV-pushing Solaire the knight (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You may know the rules, but you sure as heck are not following them. Saying people are 'openly mocking' you is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your broken English raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. And yes, your instance that everyone else is wrong, and that only reliable sources you like should be counted is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to step back, or you will be blocked. --Tarage (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not ascribe to me the thoughts of others . I somewhere said everyone else is wrong , or that you need to use only those sources that I like , how do you do this? I say only one thing : silly talk about the beautiful and kind-hearted things , when the opponent is banal torpedoes discussion rolling away your every edit and provoking you to rollback war. I wrote to the Russian Wikipedia 4 good articles and solved many conflicts , I know how a consensus is reached . But I will never be easy to respond to that , as a member of sabotaging the work of the article , in every way trying to bring me to collapse or be brought under lock. And the rest , you know,that the level of language proficiency does not allow me to seriously engage in a long and difficult discussion on what exactly the participants and hope . Solaire the knight (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This I what I don't get about our behaviour policies and their implementation. Here we have a fella who couldn't consruct a cognizant English sentence if his life depended on it. When someone like that comes here and starts pushing POV, why do we discuss it endlessly? He is not capable of making a useful contribution and is disruptive. RBI. John from Idegon (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet, what we see here a blame, that I can't construct a sentense, and the blame starts with "This I what I don't get"... no comments. I don't mentioned that all this blame is "ad hominem" as is and such behavior is not acceptable at WP. --Solaire the knight (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Note Stk just refactored one of their posts. Just one more example of the WP:COMPETENCE problems. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In the English Wikipedia edit posts now forbidden? Solaire the knight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"And the rest , you know,that the level of language proficiency does not allow me to seriously engage in a long and difficult discussion on what exactly the participants and hope ." Then do not edit the English wikipedia. I vote Block because the editor clearly cannot communicate in English enough to pass WP:COMPETENCE. --Tarage (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Indefinite lock for the level of knowledge of the language ? You remind me of Ukrainian Wikipedia , where one user has called me to block for the post on russian on your user page , which was not against it, and we were talking in Russian to speed up the solution to the problem . Solaire the knight (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

You have not read WP:COMPETENCE, which requires competency in English. By your own admission, you do not have this, therefor you should not be editing here. Period. --Tarage (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I read everything , but the first time I hear that for the bal level of the language in the discussion , you have to open insult , persecute and block . At the moment I do not know enough language - I do not climb to write articles and am making contributions at the elementary level only Solaire the knight (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE does not mean "Only edit articles that you can understand." Half of editing is being able to discuss changes with other editors. You cannot do this, and you refuse to understand this. Therefor, you must be removed from the project. --Tarage (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

How much I learned today of the English Wikipedia . It turns out , it is not only not allowed to edit comments , but also the possibility of openly offend you , ignoring all the rules of " the inadmissibility of abuse " , calling for open persecution in your address. Some are good and tolerant people Solaire the knight (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: don't throw Competence bricks around, as this is exactly not the thing to do when one has read the essay. Btw, the article is now fully protected for 3 days. All participants are invited to make ample use of the article's talk-page. Lectonar (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And this good idea. Well, I thought my knowledge of the language is already sufficient for the discussion . But apparently not, judging by the insults and aggression of some participants . Well, it removed for further analysis of the sources or enhance the linguistic level. Thank administrators Lectonar and Ymblanter. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Solaire the knight left a message on a user's talk page here today saying "I've realized that you masturbate on your proficiency in English". Quite the potty mouth on this disruptive editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

And to say that I later deleted the post , considered excessive - religion does not allow ? Oh yes, he immediately decided to pursue the users and for that track any of their posts. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this user fails the WP:CIR principle, and not just with regard to his incredibly limited capacity with English; although it's probable that his inability to understand and comport to our policies is exacerbated by his language difficulties, there's also strong evidence of an WP:IDHT mentality, more than a little recourse to incivility, and definitely a failure to accept the consensus-building model of this project. I'm not familiar enough with ru.wikipedia's policies and community to know if his attitudes comport with their guidelines or if his perspectives would reflect a problem editor there as well, but without a doubt this all amounts to disruption and an inability to interact in a collegial fashion here. Under the circumstances, I'd (reluctantly) support a long-term block, with the editor advised to work on their English skills in the interim and return with an attitude that embraces and understanding that they have to form consensus here. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the Russian Wikipedia rules were suddenly much tougher than here. For example, we have strictly prohibited to roll back using the rollback flag. If you would like other members of the above required to block a beginner due to indirect causes , in our section you would have already received warnings for gross violation of Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia: Civility. Also, we can not delete from the page discussing recent comments ,especially with the rude comments to revision like " thrash disposal". About circling in the discussion ,war edits without argument and ignoring direct references to the sources of the problem , I will not even talk. That is why I have the impression of deliberately destructive behavior of my opponents , not because I allegedly have " problems with work in a team " Solaire the knight (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

But , summing it all seems easier to make me the scapegoat , hanging on me all the discussion of the problem , because I " newcomer" and no one fill sorry for me. As for the rest , I am sorry for the big clumsy text, big size very hard for my english level Solaire the knight (talk)

Related discussion: WP:COIN#Russian Wikipedia trolls. Since this is already at AN/I, it's an admin matter now. There may be other articles involved; Reuters The Guardian reports Russian "Wikipedia trolls" [108] associated with Latvia. Something to watch for. John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everyone that have other point of view and not blindly follow official DoS point (according to which we must have seen already a lot of chemical weapon in Iraq) - is payed kremlin troll. I need not to forget recieve my monthly payment! However, if you are so suspicious, you can ask the administrator User Ymblanter, he knows me personally more than 7 years Solaire the knight (talk)

Just adding more info, it's worth looking at his comments on the talk pages of editors involved in this (and other) discussions: here, here, here, here, and including removing content from other user's talk page here, and reverting changes by another user to that user's talk page here. This is a systematic behavior of pushing a POV, not trying to build consensus, attacking other editors on their talk pages instead of sticking to the discussion and claiming to be the victim of discrimination, edit warring and POV-pushing by other editors. UCaetano (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You could not stop watching my contribution , clinging to each post ? Especially when you cling to each of my remark , treating any of my words in my defense as " pushing the POV " and " an attack on the participants ." Thanks in advance , I hope you remember that the wiki rules prohibit the harassment of user. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Solaire, I just read all this. Please listen. You are not communicating well, because you do not write clearly in English. In addition, you are fighting, instead of collaborating. If you do not change (stop fighting and start collaborating instead), we need to topic-ban you. This is because of your attitude and your behavior. If you do not agree to change, I will propose that you are topic-banned. You have 2 choices: 1) change your behavior, or 2) be banned. What do you choose? Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Good evening :). In advance I apologize for my language level . Well, I've said that I want to at least take a wiki - holiday to adjust the language level and leave all conflicts . As you can see - my edits are quiet and relate only to music. Ideally, I would at least is now closed conflict over this article, because I am well aware that my current English is low , and the experience of the relationship in the English wiki community I do not have. I can communicate well with participants , if they do not make a monster out of me at the slightest mistakes through inexperience. In general, if you wish, I somehow chose the first option. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of this is just confusion as to Wikipedia processes. At User_talk:Nagle#Slander, Solander the knight says I'm attacking him for what I posted above. I'm just passing the buck. I regularly work COIN issues. Since this came up both at WP:COIN and AN/I, I'm pointing out in both places that AN/I has the issue and we can drop it at COIN. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, kind of, but it is not just confusion ("hey can you tell me why you wrote that?") it is aggression based on confusion, and this is the approach that makes this editor disruptive. confusion is not a bad thing (I am confused sometimes!)... it is the going for the throat. Your throat! Solaire the knight do you see what I mean? We all understand the language problem... that is not so much the issue. It is your aggression. It is one thing to acknowledge making mistakes and saying you are willing to change, but please just let me know that you understand that it is your aggression that is the the problem. (maybe it would help if you changed your user name to "Solaire the monk", to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground... that is just a joke by the way) Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see , I even now trying to provoke. Another thing, since everyone says to me, I 'd rather spend the time to rest and pulling the language level than will participate in a senseless conflict. Cheers everyone, hope I haven't been too annoying.Solaire the knight (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

What to do about tens of thousands of unnecessary parser functions on user talk pages?

I'll keep this short as I'm not sure I'm in the right place:

The template {{Welcome to Wikipedia}} was poorly coded for a substantial length of time (now fixed), which resulted in large quantities of unsubstituted parser functions being added to many user talk pages.

This search suggests possibly thousands of pages being affected, and those that are, will have around eleven nests of 1 * parser function acting on the result of 1 * module invocation.

If only half the total user talk pages from that search have 10 of these nests each, that's around 100,000 unnecessary wastes of server resources! This guesstimate is ballpark.

Prior to the poor coding, the template was not leaving unresolved parser functions behind, the wording of the substed result has been altered over time, and unfortunately my suggestion to add a tracking link years ago went down like a lead balloon - so it isn't trivial to find the broken ones (manually).

So, with that said, I ask:

1. Should these stray and unnecessary parser functions out in the wild, be fixed?
2. To do it manually would be insensible; is there a currently approved bot that can be tasked to do the work?
3. Would it be acceptable to set about fixing these things by use of the API in a semi-automated fashion?

etc.

If this matter should be discussed elsewhere, please advise. fredgandt 01:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Although you may get an answer here you should ask the same question at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) Fred_Gandt. MarnetteD|Talk 02:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do MarnetteD. Cheers. fredgandt 02:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Massive reverting of edits plus WP:OWN

Apologies if this is in the wrong place, while I was once a frequent editor, I tend not to edit much now so my knowledge of process is a little rusty and also my use of wikimark-up. A few years ago, there was length discussion on List of unlawfully killed transgender people about the nature of that list (and it went to AFD a couple of times) - the consensus was that people killed *because* there were transgendered makes a specific list, People killed who *happen* to be transgendered is a indiscriminate list in the same way List of unlawfully killed red headed people. The page was cleaned up on that basis. Over time, people have been added to it who have committed suicide, where there is known killer or motive or were killed because they were driving a car that it was thought was attacking a military base. I went through over the last couple of days, improved some aspects, made suggestions for where separate articles should be made and removed anyone who doesn't fit. Rab_V doesn't engage with any specific edits, he just block reverts all of them so no improvements can be made. There is an existing consensus on the talkpage that was hammered out after it went to two AFDs so it's frankly frustrating that one edit can stop clean-up that would prevent it going to a 3rd. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(I've notified them of this discussion as required). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The scope of the article seems to have been changed since Cameron Scott edited the article. I did not initiate this change, but the current version of the scope has been up for years. This newer scope, including those killed irrespective of cause, has been discussed several times over a couple years on the talk page by multiple users without any consensus forming against it. This version of the scope was also in place during the most recent AFD, where the mass consensus was keep and several editors saying the article was clearly notable. You can check the version from the most recent AFD nomination to see Cameron is incorrect in stating the version he prefers went through the second, most recent AFD. In all conversations within the last couple years, there has not been a consensus that the scope should be limited to people killed because there are transgender. I am merely reverting edits since a single editor is changing the entire scope without an attempt to form a consensus among editors of the article on the talk page. In fact, not a single editor responded to their post on the talk page before they changed the scope of the article. I have commented to Cameron on the talk page that I agree with some of the changes they make, but those changes were made after they had made numerous, unilateral changes to the article's scope and I'd prefer we work from a previous, stable version of the page first. Rab V (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting removal of racism

• White pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Black pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• EvergreenFir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• James J. Lambden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not sure why this user is doing this, but I have been trying to remove racist text from both black pride and white pride. This user is trying to keep the racist text inserted in the article in both places. It is alarming.

• reinserting racist text repeating the trope that the Black Panthers committed acts of violence (the source doesn't say that)

• reinserting racist sources into the white pride artice

Please advise.

jps (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a frivolous complaint. I'm involved in the dispute on White pride. jps has been warned about edit warring; when that failed and he was unable to gain consensus he brought it to RSN without alerting the other editors involved, and now he complains about the (entirely appropriate) behavior of this editor. Repeated implications others are motivated by racism should not be allowed to stand. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit history and user page seems to indicate that you are here because of GamerGate. Is that true? jps (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and treating these pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You start edit warring on white pride ([109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]), refer to edits by James J. Lambden as "white supremacist" ([116]) (which to me reads as saying the user making them is either making white supremacist edits or is one themselves, and when requested to clarify you refused [117]), meet resistance by myself and James J. Lambden, and then after discussions on the article talk page and even after my attempts at compromise ([118]) you go to WP:RSN. You didn't notify me or James J Lambden and you misrepresent that way the source is being used ([119]). It seems you did this in an attempt to win battle and went as far as to insinuate that I am promoting white pride ([120]) and call me suspicious ([121]).

You appear on black pride ([122]), out of nowhere, but only after encountering me at white pride, and try to remove a sourced comment claiming that it doesn't refer to black pride, despite it being mentioned 9 times in the source and even in the title. During your renewed battle today, you go to black pride again to remove it claiming the source is now "terrible" adding "Awful. What's your problem?" in your edit summary ([123]), referring to me. You are casting aspersions, following me, treating these subjects as battlegrounds, and resorting to chicanery to "win". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

One note: while the heart of this is a content dispute (typically dismissed from ANI quickly), I argue this is a behavior issue. Please review the behavior of parties here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are reinstating racist content on Wikipedia. Just stop it, please. It is damaging the encyclopedia. jps (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what I mean by WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would have been happy to further discuss the use of WP:BIASED sources and quotes from WP:FRINGE views, but that's part of the content dispute. I'm going to hold off until this behavior issue is addressed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You keep reinserting racist wording and biased sources. I'm not sure why you are doing that. Appealing to alphabet soup doesn't change that fact. You haven't explained why you are doing that and seem to indicate that you are going to continue. A good rule of thumb is that content that is racist should not be in Wikipedia. If someone says content is racist in good faith, it's probably a good idea to remove it until it can be determined otherwise. But you seem to have other ideas. And you are short on explanations for it. jps (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that you are going to "hold off" is eerily familiar. You said that yesterday. Yet it seems that when the racist content is removed, you can't help yourself and put it back in. Why? jps (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me know where that "rule of thumb" is located. We cover racism and racists quite a bit, as well as their opinions. Also, accusing users of being a "famous GamerGater" is very inappropriate and amounts to a personal attack ([124]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:HARM. There is a HUGE difference between describing racist opinions and including text that is explicitly racist (such as text that is only sourced to American Renaissance (magazine). I don't think people who are GamerGaters think of it as a personal attack. It is a question and a legitimate one given that user's edit history. WP:AGENDA driven editors are a problem. This is part of the reason we're here. jps (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please provide the diff where I said I'd hold off. I don't recall saying that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

[125] jps (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the diff. And I'll point out I did keep my distance for what it was worth. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Was it this revert or this revert that constituted "keeping your distance"? jps (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

48 hours and no further discussion on the talk page by anyone? I was waiting for other opinions. But yeah I disengaged for 48 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The sad thing is that the consensus at WP:RSN seemed pretty clear, but you decided to go shit all over that, didn't you? It's like you were upset that things didn't go your way or something. Can't you see how I might find this to be problematic? jps (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresented the issue. Cannot form consensus based on that. Once clarified, I pinged all the users for their opinions given the context the source was used. Had they all agreed it was still inappropriate, that would be consensus and I'd be 100% okay with that. But instead it went here and you continue your problematic behavior on RSN ([126]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My darling, the issue is clearly stated and the question was answered. Just because you think you have some hidden insight into how the issue "really is" doesn't make your opinion true or gospel or whatever. Instead, on the basis of your own high opinion of how right you are and how wrong I am, you go ahead and come back from your "disengagement". Your behavior is the following: reinsert racist content on Wikipedia. Disengage. When consensus forms to remove racist content you re-engage and reinstate the content declaring that none of the people could possibly understand the issue so you'll have to explain it to all of us and, by the way, insult me while you're at it. That's the behavior I'm seeing. It's not pretty. jps (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not at all an accurate representation of events. This complaint should be closed with the complainant, who seems determined to antagonize, cautioned. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what you're adding here. It is interesting that you do not answer any of my questions but now want this discussion to be closed. Close examination of your edits show that you engage almost entirely in GamerGate related activity. I know it's fun revert Ryulong, but that's not really helping matters all that much here at this encyclopedia. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding a single contribution of yours that is beneficial to Wikipedia. If you could point out your proudest work, I'd be interested to see what it is. jps (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I feel like this is an elaborate troll, except implicating support for white supremacy is not funny, neither is wasting volunteer time. If jps can't contribute appropriately to the topic he shouldn't be allowed to contribute. This area is subject to discretionary sanctions (American politics 2.) James J. Lambden (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

All you do is reinstate the same material. Why do you do that? Is that appropriate contributions? What is your goal here? jps (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Entirely inappropriate insinuations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think not. The user appears to be WP:NOTHERE to help this project. jps (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is something quite ironic in an editor with 35 entries on their block log referring to an editor with a clean block log as "NOTHERE". John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that someone with 35 entries on their block log is necessarily WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia? jps (talk) 05:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

When two editors have roughly the same number of edits and one has a clean Block log and the other one has your block log, logic dictates that one is doing more to build the encyclopedia than the other. Blocks are indicative of a lack of cooperation, an unwillingness to accept guidance and numerous other issues that are not conducive to building an encyclopedia; whereas a clean block log indicates a good Wikipedian whose Nain interest is the project, not their agenda. Btw, HARM is an essay about using people's names in an article and totally off point. An on - point link would be NOTCENSORED, which is policy. John from Idegon (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Our esteemed colleague James J. Lambden does not have the same number of edits as I. Please peruse his contributions and see if you find any that you think are redeeming. It's true, I am uncooperative at times. I do not enjoy seeing racist text reinserted at Wikipedia. Should I cooperate and allow that to occur? Some might say yes, but thankfully, God's house is a very, very big house. You are correct that WP:HARM is an essay, but you should read it closely about the principle it is describing. Not everything is always as it seems, grasshopper. jps (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that someone with 35 entries on there block log who is still here is most likely very "HERE". AIRcorn (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I advise a temporary topic ban for jps. Dingsuntil (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with LauraJamieson's calling this IP an "unhelpful" troll and then hiding/masking their contribution to this discussion with a hat/hab tag. First, she hides the IP's !vote which is both rude and a clear violation of WP:IPHUMAN. Second, the IP provides a link to an old block discussion involving jps aka I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc aka ScienceAppologist which certainly is quite relevant to recognizing a pattern of behavior by this user. I urge other editors involved in this discussion to open the hat below, unhide what Laura masked, and look at the links provided by the IP and make up their own minds. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (uninvolved) As has been pointed out, the root of the conflict is a content dispute which, if nothing else was up, should be closed and relegated to the appropriate talk pages. The dispute has since evolved into an edit war, accompanied by accusations of racism and sexism (GamerGate) which remain unsubstantiated. Since User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc(jps) asks foradvice, I will provide some

• Calling people racist or sexist, or implying it, is not helpful in any way shape or form. It's a personal attack and grounds for a block.
• Having an extensive block log is not tantamount to WP:NOTHERE per se, it may also indicate a lack of competence regarding the important issue of reaching consensus with other editors. I have the distinct impression that the latter is more of an issue than the former.
• If you are going to write about unsavory subjects like any kind of supremacism, expect unsavory sources. If you want to describe opinions held by white supremacists, white supremacist literature is quite reliable, even though the claims made are not. If I want to write about views held by nazis, Der Sturmer is a pretty good source, as is Mein Kampf (see Rudolf Oldens Hitler der Eroberer for an example of how it's done). If you want to describe the actual history of the Turd Reich, they most definitely are not. A book on the NSDAP] which does not quote or reference the filth they spewed, is not worth the paper it's written on

That was the issue, here. A white supremacist was quoted to describe views held by white supremacists.

So, the advice I will provide is: remember that we are here trying to compile an encyclopedia and do not treat the project as a WP:SOAPBOX or a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Racism and racists exist and it is the goal of the project to accurately and neutrally describe the phenomenon. If you cannot distinguish between a description given and an opinion held, then I would suggest there's a WP:CIR issue, here. HTH, HAND. Kleuske (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Block for User:jps agreed. A period of time away from the project might perhaps cool his crusading ardour. 08:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)08:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)— 151.230.65.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Likewise, I WP:AGF and do not use contemptuous language, such as addressing editors as 'darling' or 'grasshopper.' It is also noteworthy that instead of attempting to defend his position, he resorts to personal attacks. This, I suggest, says much about his attitude towards WP: that it is a battleground for him to 'win' on. And for an astromoner, your maths is rather lacking. In actuality, 85.7% of my edits (inclusive of this one and one that changed a single byte) have been 'outside this topic.' But we thank you for gifting the community yet another example of your attitude 11:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• • How long have you been a member of the community? What made you decide to haunt this page? And you've got some delightful trolling attacks on our projects, I see. We'll let others decide what to do with you. WP:DFTT. jps (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this sums you up better than I could... 12:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you should start a user account? Or do you just log out when you decide to do your trolling? jps (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am undoing this hatting--sorry, LauraJamieson, but I do not see evidence of trolling. As for the matter at hand, jps is of course a well-known troll according to some, and a well-known pain in the butt to others, and a well-known editor to yet others. As it happens, their comments about GamerGaters and what not are completely unacceptable and, jps, I will be more than happy to block you for it; it would be an honor for me, since I'm the only admin who hasn't blocked you yet.

  What, you were asking me for my opinion? I have one, of course: jps is absolutely correct in their Black pride edit: that's a terrible source, and it's a terrible idea to use one single article from one bad source about one particular incident to tar this topic. They were also wrong in their White pride edit--it's a terrible idea to not have that content, properly formatted and contextualized. Joshua, have a great day--stay out of trouble. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Estee sch - promoter

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.

---

Estee sch (talk · contribs) appears to be WP:NOTHERE. He has only created promotional sections. The subjects being promoted are likely the editor's business. Could also be paid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2016 (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.

Anonymous editor persistently using ridiculous edit summaries

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.

---

This is not a huge deal, but since we have a warning template for it... 86.167.238.34 persistently uses ridiculous edit summaries such as No Killing, Gammon, Family fortunes, Indo, Death rap, Goslied, You nerds, Ducks and some and Weath, which I warned him about yesterday. Since then he's made another 14 edits with similarly ridiculous summaries, so he clearly didn't get the message. I'm pretty sure I've dealt with this editor in the past, under a different IP address, and he could probably do with a gentle "nudge" in the right direction. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's really rather original _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Original perhaps but still disruptive. I have also warned the IP but they persist with these ridiculous summaries! Robvanvee 11:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive? Are you serious? Edit summaries are often useless anyway, like "comment" or "reply." And we don't even usually warn people for using deliberately misleading edit summaries. As long as the edits themselves are constructive -- and the ones I checked were -- we should have better things to do than going full-Vogon on a new editor making constructive edits. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Boris. In light of all the serious problems administrators need to deal with, silly edit summaries don't seem like something to trouble admins for help with. Deli nk (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Likewise, agree with Boris. I think most people have better things to do than chastise someone for using the word 'Ducks' when making a constructive edit that includes the name 'Donald'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This particular editor has had his share of not-so-constructive edits, like multiple unsourced additions to BLPs, twice reverted by an admin.[127][128] That wasn't the only one. This was another reversion by an admin. I'd like to assume that "Lost Angeles" and "Actir" were accidents but, as I said, I'm pretty sure I've encountered this editor before and he did do some sneaky, subtle vandalism like that. I can certainly appreciate Robvanvee calling the edit summaries disruptive. When you are doing a lot of cleanup work and you see an anonymous editor making edit summaries like this, you tend to think the worst (especially with edits such as this) and it can be quite distracting from the task at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the Jonathan Spratt reversion was bad faith. His birthplace was already sourced from the WRU website itself as Neath, and his full name (and birthplace) could be googled within 30 seconds from ESPN. Evidence of reversion by 'admins' is not evidence the info added was actually wrong. I could spend some time checking his other edits but since it is non-contentious info I have no reason to. If you had actually checked the info added you would have spotted it too. Unfortunately since your complaint seems to be 'Anonymous editor adds information with an edit summary I dont like', clearly actually checking the info added was irrelevant to your complaint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously now, you are complaining because someone added a BLP's profession and mis-spelled 'Actor' in the middle of a lot of other information, and thats 'subtle sneaky vandalism'? At this point you need to get a grip because that is blatantly assuming bad faith and a ridiculous accusation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's actually a LTA IP-hopping editor. They use ranges that are too varied and large to block, so WP:RBI has been the name of the game for years. The additions and changes they make are never sourced and if they are reverted they simply revert back again, from another IP, with an equally inane edit summary. If you want to check every single one of their edits to verify the material being added or change, that's your prerogative. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well yes, I just did. And its not vandalism from the ones I checked. So why did you link WP:RBI? Not being sourced does not make edits vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, it wouldn't be stretching interpretation of policy too far to consider it a form of personal attack. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:06, 14 March 2016 (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.

IP-hopping troll, continued

• 86.187.130.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP-hopper back on a new IP: User:86.187.130.71. You can find the ANI report on the IP here. Eik Corell (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. BTW, I'm asking around to see if anyone can help you with the comments/questions in that previous thread. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Drmies for a 31-hour block of the new IP. Since the 86.187.0.0/16 range is full of good-faith anon contributions, rangeblocks are tricky. We may need to do single-IP blocks for a while. Suggest that WP:AIV might be willing to do these single-IP blocks if you make a report there and link to the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• The way BT (and most other UK-based ISPs) allocate IP addresses makes it very difficult to stop this sort of nonsense. As EdJohnston said, the ranges are too busy to block, and unless the abuse is severe, it is unlikely that the WMF would be willing to file an abuse report with the ISP. I think that, unfortunately, RBI (via AIV) is probably the best that can be done at this time. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This eagle is watching you, BT.

User:86.187.172.7 is the latest IP of this IP-hopper. Eik Corell (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ha, already blocked--they were picking on me. How dare they!

  Also, two birdies whistled a tune in my left ear. One said you could ask the WMF to file an abuse report but they didn't give you much hope; I can add that the WMF seems to have a higher bar for what constitutes severe disruption. I wish they lowered that bar for people like this. The other, a giant eagle that tweeted in a distinctly midwestern accent and pulled a banner that read F L O Q U E N B E A M, suggested an abuse filter could be made. I hope that some smart person who knows abuse filters can help you out with this. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I've reached out to a number of admins, still waiting to hear from some of them, and one did ask for a list of IP addresses which I did provide, so now it's just a matter of seeing what's gonna happen I think.

By the way, new IP: User:86.187.174.225 Eik Corell (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just saw them. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Eik, I hope that you don't mind - I've combined the two threads into one to keep the discussion together. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Drmies might be on to the best suggestion - an edit filter. Rangeblock isn't ideal and there are quite a few pages that would need protecting (better imho given the width of the rage being used now). But an abuse filter would be a decent solution. Perhaps file at WP:EFN? Samwalton9 might be able to help. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you can drop a request at WP:EFR with the relevant details I'll get to it soon; I've been meaning to go through all the recent requests for a while now and will likely do so within the next week or two. Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Current events pages

The following current events pages do not exist:

An administrator should start moving the pages, suppressing redirects, from "Month Day, Year" to "Portal:Current events/Year Month Day" for the above dates, and then copying the section "Month Day, Year (Day of the Week)" of "Portal:Current events/Month Year" to make the above pages look like other current events pages (i.e. Portal:Current events/2004 December 3 would be copied from Portal:Current events/December 2004#December 3, 2004 (Friday), etc.). Also, the following require a history merge:

• July 1, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 1
• July 2, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 2
• July 3, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 3
• July 4, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 4
• July 5, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 5
• July 6, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 6
• July 7, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 7
• July 8, 2003 to Portal:Current events/2003 July 8
• January 1, 2004 to Portal:Current events/2004 January 1
• January 2, 2004 to Portal:Current events/2004 January 2
• December 1, 2004 to Portal:Current events/2004 December 1
• December 2, 2004 to Portal:Current events/2004 December 2

Pinging the following users:

• Anomie, the owner of a bot who moved some day pages in December 2009; see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 35.
• Fram, who moved many pages for days in 2005 in September 2007.
• Jackninja5, who created the ones that need a history merge.
• Jj137, who moved September 13, 2004 to Portal:Current events/2004 September 13.
• Lifebaka and Tavix, who turned the "Month Day, Year" articles into redirects (e.g. in Special:Diff/218547251 by Tavix or Special:Diff/212466130 by Lifebaka).
• Waldir; see User:Waldir/DateMatrix.

GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for pushing this forward, GeoffreyT2000. Shall we coordinate ways to distribute work, or perhaps try to get most of this done by bot? If we divide the work in small batches we can then individually "claim" parts of what needs to be done to avoid conflicts or duplicating work. What do you think? --Waldir ^talk 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for letting me know about this. However, I can't really do much because I've got school. Jackninja5 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy

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.

---

• On May 20th 2015, I was topic banned here [[129]] by @Awilley: for 6 months. The locus relates to three broad subjects (1) alternative medicine, (2) WP:MEDRS and (3) Human medicine articles.
• I applied to have my TB lifted here [[130]]. @Dennis Brown: carefully considered the discussion and decided that my ban should be re-visited in 3 months. This was primarily, I believe, because at the time I was involved in an Arbcom case, rather than non-adherance of the TB (Dennis, I hope I am not misrepresenting you here). I am now (re-)seeking to have the TB lifted.
• During the last 3 months, I have not edited any pages in the area of my TB, or entered into discussions about them. I cannot recollect any comments from other editors that I have come close to violating the TB, or attempted to skirt the TB. I also cannot recollect asking either of the closing admins, or others, for advice regarding the extent of my TB during the last 3 months – indicating I have consciously stayed unambiguously away from the topic areas.
• I believe that when admins are looking for evidence of why a TB should be lifted, they are wanting to see constructive editing in areas away from the TB. I will not repeat the evidence I presented at my previous request, rather, I offer the following as evidence of my constructive and non-disruptive editing behaviour during the last 3 months.

Created: Grimace scale (animals)

Major re-writes: Pain in crustaceans, Bile bear, Hair whorl (horse)

Others (examples): Killing of Cecil the lion, Emotion in animals, Personality in animals

Community discussion or edits: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

• My TB has successfully prevented the topic areas from being disrupted by myself for the last 9 months. During this time, I have reflected upon how I caused disruption in the topic areas and I have adjusted my thinking and editing to ensure that going forward, I will not cause further disruption. The topic ban has achieved its objective and I request it now be lifted.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, I'm inclined to support, but just for clarity, could you briefly elucidate on where you feel you departed from MEDRS, why your behaviour became disruptive in those instances where you discussed these policy/content matters, and what you'd do in similar circumstances moving forward when there is disagreement as to the quality of sourcing for an article pertaining to either conventional or alternative medicine? Snow ^{let's rap} 22:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to. Nine months ago, I was concerned about the way that WP:MEDRS was being applied to alt.med articles (but not conventional medicine). I began trying to understand this by making a series of "Is this source MEDRS compatible?" postings. Editors did not like this and I accept I made a series of pointy, disruptive edits. I failed to listen to consensus. I now understand MEDRS more fully and the objectives it is trying to achieve. In the future, I would not make pointy edits, and I would accept consensus well before my edits became disruptive. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to support as well given the statement above. However, I am also with the past history of those involved with MEDRS at ANI and would not be too surprised if a number of editors from that dispute arrived to make statements against the lifting of the topic ban, or at least a blanket unconditional lifting of the topic ban. To address that, DrChrissy, would you be willing to agree to a probationary period of a fixed number of months, say no less than 1 and no more than 3, during which any reversion to the behaviour that caused the topic ban to be imposed would result in the re-imposing of the topic ban. After this period, the ban would be unconditionally lifted. Does this sound palatable? Blackmane (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am not entirely sure what this suggestion entails. If my ban was unconditionally lifted now and I was to revert to my previous disruptive behaviour, I would fully expect to be brought back to AN/I where I would have the ban reimposed and very probably broadened. Perhaps I am missing something about your suggestion. I am not opposed to it, but please could you elaborate on what you are suggesting for that 1-3 month period, compared to an unconditional lifting of the ban. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

After some thought and re-reading, I see how it would seem confusing nor does it make a lot of sense. I'll amend the qualifier to mean that within the 1-3 month time frame, reversion to behaviour that lef to the ban will result in an automatic reimposition of the ban. After the 1-3 months have lapsed a new ban would require a new community discussion. Is this clearer? It may unnecessarily complicate things, but I'm just tossing ideas around. Blackmane (talk) 02:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine that if I were to revert to the behaviour which led to my TB (and for probably a good time longer than 1-3 months), admins and the community would be on my case immediately and come down on me like a ton of bricks. To my mind, after receiving a topic ban, there is already a "mental probationary period" where extreme caution needs to be used when returning to editing in that area. If my TB is lifted, I would, in fact, be editing under a self-imposed probationary period. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

In good faith, and on the strength of DrChrissy's commitment above, I'd also support a lifting of the topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support lifting ban, with or without Blackmane's qualifier. To be fair, I am not super familiar with the disputes which led to the ban in the first place, though I did review the discussions linked above and I've seen plenty of other highly contentious discussions centered around both MEDRS and alternative medicine. In any event, I'm going to take it on faith that DrChrissy is being genuine and not just paying lip-service when they say that they understand where their behaviour crossed the line into disruption in the past and that they will exercise greater caution in recognizing where consensus is against them in the future. They seem to have stayed busy improving the project in other areas during the ban and where I've seen them active in the past, my best recollection is that they had a measured and neutral perspective and were willing to entertain middle-ground solutions. Putting all of these factors together, I feel I can support the lifting of the ban, notwithstanding the fact that there are parties who strongly opposed it at the six-month mark. I'd add only that I'd caution DrChrissy to step lightly in these topic areas at first, and back away from contentious discussions for a time. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Partly on the basis that I find some of the editing being pointed to as a good example, such as the second part of the extensive diff [131] to stray from the point of the actual article, presumably to implicitly express an opinion. (Personally, I basically agree with the implied opinion, but I still regard introducing other types of animals into the discussion and adding the boxed material not to constitute NPOV editing.) (& similar in some of the other articles; again, that I mostly agree with his apparent positions in these also is not to the point) DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply My re-write of the Pain in crustaceans article and the diff you mention involved lifting content from the Pain in fish article. This content has been developed with other editors involved and discussed at the Pain in fish page. It has not raised concerns of being contentious or POV. I am trying to help build a suite of articles relating to pain in non-human animals and it seems to me that providing similar introductions and background information (involving other animals) in these articles is exactly what an encyclopaedia should be doing - giving a generic feel. If I have strayed too far from the point of the article, I apologise, but this has not been disruptive - there have been no complaints or concerns raised at the Talk page. DrChrissy ^(talk) 01:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@DGG: Thank you for expanding on this at my Talk page. There is a win:win:win possibility here. You are of course free to edit the Pain in crustaceans article. Why not edit the article to remove the perceived POV. I will not contest these edits. WP and yourself "win" by having improved the article. You will then be able to strike/amend your oppose vote as there will no longer be an outstanding issue. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, the same problems affect the Bile Bear article also. As I also said there, I find it too stressful to work on articles such as these which I have a strong emotional view. I found it difficult to even read them carefully enough to comment. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

But you have suggested I am pushing a POV and as a consequence you voted to oppose the lifting of my TB - how can I address your concerns if you do not change, or indicate, the edits leading to your conclusion? Perhaps you could indicate which edits of mine at Bile bear are giving you cause for concern? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support lifting the ban. DrChrissy has acknowledged his mistakes and said he wouldn't repeat them. He is a proficient editor, and I believe that in the spirit of editor retention and ways the project would benefit most, lifting the ban makes perfect sense. Atsme^📞📧 07:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from previous closer I won't speak on the merits nor give an opinion on this vote, but the primary reason for revisiting after 3 months was because almost 2 out of 3 people supported lifting the ban, but a full reading of the discussion showed no consensus for a change at that time. Because of the closeness of the discussion, and the heat of the ongoing Arb case, it was my opinion that reviewing in 3 months, after the Arb case was over, was the most fair thing to do, and I support the idea of reviewing now that the heat is lower and no cases are pending. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support in good faith. From what is written above, it would seem that this editor has learnt from the TB. It should be fully understood that a return to problematic behaviour will result in a swift reapplication of sanctions, and maybe additional ones too. Let's give this editor a chance to show that they have learnt from a past mistake. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I do not know the background behind the alt medicine topic ban, but I have interacted recently with Chrissey after the GMO case. In January this year his GMO topic ban was extended, in part due to this edit. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support in good faith. Everyone deserves another chance, and I trust that DrChrissy will make good decisions. Lets take this monkey off his back and let him apply what he has learned without any bars or cages. It's the logical thing to do in this situation. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The same behavior that lead to the alt-med topic ban later led to the ArbCom GMO topic ban and a separate widening of that ban. The fact that this editor gets topic banned, moves to another topic, gets topic banned again, blocked, etc. coupled with constantly challenging these bans indicates they are not yet able to realize how disruptive their involvement in these topics has been when they keep getting banned. The alt-med topic ban should remain as long as DrChrissy is continuing the same disruptive behavior in other controversial topics since those bans have come so recently. This ANI close only 3 months ago reiterates this problem whenever DrChrissy tries to appeal their topic bans. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

E/C :Your argument is dismissive of the closing admin who indicated my TB could be revisited in 3 months. His closing statement makes it totally clear that he had taken the imminent ArbCom decision into his carefully considered summary, yet he chose to specify 3 months rather than 6 or otherwise. Furthermore, your unfounded comments "constantly challenging" and "continuing the same disruptive behaviour" need to be supported with diffs. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(After the edit conflict) Kingofaces43, you have just provided a diff to the very TB that I am seeking to have lifted...I am unsure of the logic here. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read what Dennis Brown had to say in their third paragraph of the ANI close. The main reason why your ban wasn't lifted was that you were continuing the same disruptive behavior as before. Guess what's happened since that last appeal? You've had new topic bans, been blocked, etc. for the same battleground mentality. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The above is a good example of the tendency to completely ignore warnings, topic bans, etc. and act like they've done nothing wrong. The evidence is already covered in the various topic bans. I'm not going to re-amass diffs of all the times they've repeatedly tried to test the edges the topic bans as that's been rehashed in previous administrative actions already (though see DrChrissy's recent talk page archives for examples). The recent added on topic bans and blocks should speak for themselves at this point that the behavior isn't improving and the topic ban needs to be continued to prevent further disruption. We for instance can't cite WP:AGF in supporting removal of the ban when these problems have continued regardless of what the editor says at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Editor's battlefield behavior and faux-naivete has not changed, it's remained constant throughout. There's no reason I can see to lift this block, or any other active sanction on DrChrissy, for that matter, since it's a sure thing we'd be revisiting it (or some other sanction) soon enough. This editor simply does not know how to edit without constantly pushing a POV contrary to the Wikipedia ethos of NPOV. BMK (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

E/C ::Please provide evidence for the alleged "battlefield behaviour" and "faux-naivete". DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(After the edit conflict) and please provide evidence of where you believe I have been POV pushing. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially given the parallel ban by ArbCom for identical behaviour in a related area, GMOs (the similarity being the collision between belief and science). I have yet to see this user admit that they were wrong about anything, which is the biggest source of problems with him. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC). Addendum: The involvement in WP:RSN offered as a justification for lifting the topic ban, is actually the exact opposite: DrChrissy opposes the systematic removal of material sourced to predatory open-access publishers, who use wallet review instead of peer review. Guy (Help!) 23:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems like you have not read the thread. I stated above "Editors did not like this and I accept I made a series of pointy, disruptive edits." and "I failed to listen to consensus."[132] DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"I failed to listen to consensus" is semantically equivalent to "I was right but nobody else agreed". Feel free to show an example or five of substantive issues of content where you have been persuaded to change your views based on comments form others. The primary cause of the two bans were ban was WP:IDHT and WP:RGW. That's what you need to address. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

With respect Guy, there have been occasions where I was quite convinced that I had the right of a content issue, despite being in the minority. Recognizing that the right thing to do there is to accept consensus even if you aren't altogether convinced that an error isn't being made doesn't seem like a flaw to me--point in fact, it seems like crux of the local consensus process. I don't think we can require an editor to demonstrate that they can be won over to another view on content in order to prove that they can contribute constructively. We only need to know that they will not derail process or otherwise behave disruptively when they do disagree. Perhaps I'm missing context here (I'm unfamiliar with the ArbCom case in question), but IDHT is more of a behavioural consideration (for those who can't see where they are being disruptive) and not an approach to content discussions. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, we all do that. The problem for me is that this user has never as far as I can tell acknowledged that any criticism of their actions especially) or their edits is actually valid. It's always all about someone else. And trying to maintain WP:NPOV on any page where this editor is active and has a view at odds with the scientific mainstream, is a Sisyphean task. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Guy, perhaps your inability to provide evidence to support your argument is because there is none. I have not expressed a view that is at odds against the mainstream since the Topic Ban. How can I prove that I have not done something? If you have evidence that I have been pushing POV, please provide this for the closing admin.

By the way, an example of my acceptance that I do get things wrong and I do apologise is clearly evident on my Talk page, here.[[133]] DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

E/C After Guy's addendum. You are seriously misrepresenting me - yet again. I am opposed to the systematic removal of (some of) the sources without giving due consideration to how this leaves articles. This concern has been expressed by other editors and some have even said your behaviour in systematically removing these sources is damaging to the encyclopaedia. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support lifting the ban, per WP:ROPE. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support per AGF. Keeping the ban in place at present time would be punitive rather than preventative. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as WP:AGF. For the nay-sayers, consider it WP:ROPE if you need to. I agree with Kindzmarauli's assessment that bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I assume DrChrissy knows they'll be under heightened scrutiny after an ban is removed and will work on further altering their past behavior into something more constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll comment here on this general "AGF" trend just because your comment is the most recent, but what makes you think this time will be any different? We've given DrChrissy repeated WP:ROPE offers only for them to be topic banned, and topic banned again with next to no rope after that. They've been given chance after chance after chance only to continue combative behavior in other topics to the point they always have some recent additional sanction in another area when they come to appeal here. I'm not seeing how people can say AGF when the actual very recent behavior pattern of this editor tells a very different story. AGF is not a suicide pact when we know an editor has only been continuing disruption elsewhere and continues to make comments here ignoring that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. DrCh received a community ban on a specific subject, and his behavior then led to an ArbCom ban on another subject. When DrCh abused that ban, it was made more forceful. There has yet to be a circumstance where DrCh's editing has improved as a result of a sanction, he simply moves on to another subject and/or edits around the edges of the ban.

"AGF" is not a suicide pact, once an editor has shown that they do not deserve our good faith, we're under no obligation to continue to extend it to them until they have shown clear signs of understanding their past errors and correcting them in their current editing. There has been no such sign with DrCh. This appeal is simply one made at the earliest opportunity provided by the ban: he simply bided his time and here he is, with no evidence to present of having changed, the same-old civil-POV-pushing battleground editor he's always been. BMK (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The smoke hasn't even finished rising from the last messes this user started yet. Mabye in another six months. Jtrainor (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jtrainor: please would you expand (provide diffs) on what "messes" you believe I have started. I don't remember seeing you contributing to the subject matter of my topic ban. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Jtrainor is under no onus to do so. This is an appeal by you for lifting a ban you have already received, so you have to show us that you have changed, we are under no obligation to show that the ban remains necessary. If you do not present such evidence, the ban remains in effect. I have seen no such evidence - certainly that you haven't edited in the area you're banned from isn't applicable, as that's exactly what a topic ban means. If you had done so, it's likely that the ban would have been made indefinite. BMK (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that any editor can come along here and make any comment regarding my behaviour without there being any need to provide evidence. There might not be an onus here, but there is such a thing as moral responsibility for our edits. By the way, I provided multiple pieces of solid evidence for constructive and non-problematic editing in my opening paragraph. Did you see that? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll note that except for your usual coterie, the only "support" votes have been based on AGF and ROPE, not on any kind of awareness or analysis of your actual editing -- and yet you have asked none of those people for diffs and examples showing how you've changed, preferring instead to harangue those of us who actually follow your editing and are aware of your behavior patterns. This is not a court of law, and WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, your appeal is to the court of public opinion as represented by those who frequent these noticeboards, and if you cannot convince us that you are deserving of having your ban removed, it will not be. That's the bottom line, the onus is entirely on you, no matter how many times you attempt to foist it off on the people who disagree with you. But please, do keep it up: the more disagreeable and combative you show yourself to be, the more people will understand the true nature of your editing. BMK (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC) (Sorry, did not sign properly.)

I agree with above unsigned editor. You've come here to ask the community to do you a favor. Most people would approach that request with an attitude of helpfulness, making it easy for the community to give you what you want. Instead, you are being argumentative, and showing more of got you TBs in the first place that being IDHT and BATTLEGROUND. So, simply based on your behavior in this thread, I would oppose lifting your Tban. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support good faith lifting of the ban. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia and not about endless punishment. DrChrissy is a good editor who by his own admission sometimes lets his POV shine through his writing and sometimes presses points too far, but he is working on both. So why not assume good faith and give him another chance? --I am One of Many (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The idea that DrChrissy is a good editor is contradicted by the fact that he's currently under two topic bans, one imposed by ArbCom. I think DrChrissy is fine as long as he steers clears of areas where his beliefs collide with science. That's GMOs and quackery, which are the two areas from which he is currently banned. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course DrChrissy is a good editor. I have looked as some of his articles and he is an excellent writer. These topic bans have nothing to do with his quality as an editor but rather with his behavior regarding certain topics. This distinction is often confused here, but it is very important when considering lifting topic bans. If an editor is not a good editor, then there is really no gain for the encyclopedia in lifting the ban, and considerable downside. If an editor is a good editor, then the upside benefit may exceed the downside risk. He is a good editor, so we should assume good faith and see what happens. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As per JzG and BMK, given the same behaviour in other topic areas and subsequent sanctions, I would want at least 6 months non-problematic editing in *any* topic area before considering supporting it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The way we decide if a topic ban should be lifted is, in part, to see if the editor has demonstrated an understanding of why they were banned and show an ability to avoid those pitfalls in other topic areas. This has not happened. I have watched the several appeals of their GMO topic ban and the total lack of clue exhibited there, so much so that the ban was expanded. The same type of behavior is being exhibited here by challenging each of the oppose !votes. Just search on DrChrissy in the AE archives for many recent examples of recent dead horse beating. Jbh^Talk 13:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unfortunately, DrChrissy does not do well in editing these sorts of contentious topic areas (first acupuncture and alt-med, later GMOs). They have the regrettable habit of personalizing content disputes, and then jumping to abuse of talk pages and Wikipedia processes when they don't get their way. It is less than two months since DrChrissy's last block expired, which he received for an abusive and spurious AE filing against an editor with which he had an interaction ban (imposed as part of the GMO arbitration, IIRC). If DrChrissy could consistently stay away from even the edges of all of his extant topic and interaction bans for 6 months – without incurring any new ones – then it might be appropriate to consider easing his editing restrictions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I was going to offer a weak support based on a recent interaction I had with DrChrissy, where he was across the issue from me but seemed to concede points and seemed to try to work towards a solution. However, after coming here and reading through this thread, I see that they continue to argue with anyone who criticizes them. Blackmane's advice below is very good advice, but unfortunately in my case, it came too late. Note that I say "weak" oppose because I don't have a sizable history with them. My impression from this thread and our last interaction are at odd, and it wouldn't take that much in the way of a demonstration of good faith for me to change my mind. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. I think DrChrissy has learned their lesson about the disruption. They have made some very good contributions to several articles that I've seen, and undoubtedly more that I haven't seen. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 16:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. First line of request misstates the ban. While editing other areas during this ban, DC collected another indef topic ban on GMO. That ban carried a 12-month revisit. That does not speak well for editing in general or a return to any contentious area in particular. Under these circumstances, I believe ROPE is not appropriate. I want to see an extended period without trouble. Glrx (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - The response to nearly every Oppose !vote is itself evidence of battleground behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose You regularly argue in the parapsychology-related threads here, which touches on a violation of your topic ban.142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support lifting of TBAN. Most of the opposing voters are demonstrating an appalling lack of good faith. Everyone deserves second chances. --Ches (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. I consider myself a Wiki-friend of DrChrissy, and I was one of DrChrissy's strongest defenders during the previous request for lifting the topic ban – and I really wish I were not commenting here now. But inasmuch as I do agree that DrChrissy's recent edits have been improved, I've been forced to conclude that this is because of the topic ban, and not a reason to lift it. Almost immediately after the previous request was denied, DrChrissy got blocked at AE over issues with the ArbCom topic ban, and DrChrissy lashed out at me just before being blocked, in a way that demonstrated a lack of growth and that cannot be dismissed as frustration. I hate to be saying this, and I am unlikely to reply if DrChrissy replies to me here. But the best interests of Wikipedia are met by leaving the topic ban intact. Sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose problematic behavior in other topic areas after the topic ban, I think suggest that the topic ban remains warranted. Three months strike me as a very short period for demonstrating improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. DrChrissy's recent advocacy for predatory publishers in RSN does not give me confidence that the reasons for the topic ban have been moved past. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Manus and Guy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Case Study. Below is an exchange between myself and DrChrissy. I found it to be very disappointing. Rather than deal substantively with the potential problems with what may occur when editing pages on alternative medicine, the user found it fit to argue about what the right way to describe proper controls are -- an irrelevant matter when it comes to the basic critique that the studies referenced lacked basic controls. (Side note: our own article on the subject reports that "these terms have different meanings for different people".) I'm not sure what precisely the motivation was for the user to go in this direction, but suffice to say it is highly indicative of previous interactions I've had with the user when involved in discussions around similar issues. My conclusion is that DrChrissy is likely to introduce bad sourcing and then argue in tendentious ways about that in articles related to alternative medicine. If you think that this isn't the case, then perhaps offer a different interpretation of the interactions occurring below. I'd be very interested to read it. jps (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Replying because I have been asked to My motivation for the exchange below is simple: self-defence and courtesy. Your postings almost always ask a question, make an incivil comment about me, or challenge my competence. If you continue to ask questions of me, I will continue to answer them as a matter of courtesy. My motivation for going in the direction of blinding was because you raised the issue! You never asked me for a critique of the 4 papers - which were put forward by another editor and I stated I neither agreed nor disagreed with them as sources because I have not even read them!

You are correct this is a case study. It very clearly shows your approach to railroading editors by asking incessant questions, moving the goal posts when you do not get the answer you want, and a refusal to acknowledge your lack of competence in editing medical/veterinary/alt.med matters. The latest indication of this is that to hopefully support your misuse of scientific terminology, you directed us to a WP section based on publications from 2001 and 2006; if you were competent with WP:MEDRS, you would know that such sources are not MEDRS compliant!

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's pretty combative and accusatory. So your position then is you did nothing wrong in the below exchange? jps (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin This is clearly getting way off the subject of the thread. JPS has chosen not to deny my assertion that he is not yet sufficiently competent with WP:MEDRS and scientific research terminology to edit medical/alt.med/veterinary areas. Instead, he chose to to ask yet another question that is so broad it is totally unhelpful. If JPS asks specific questions related to my TB, I am more than happy to answer these. Otherwise, I suggest our interaction is finished. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is normal to accuse someone who asks a yes or no question of being too broad. Maybe you think the question was problematic because it was begging the question or something, and if that's what you see, I apologize. It was truly meant to be an honest question as to whether you think that you behaved appropriately. My guess from reading between the lines is that you do think you behaved appropriately. To be clear I do think this question is relevant to your topic ban as many of those who are opposing are doing so on the basis of a concern over whether you truly recognize what behaviors got you into all this hot water in the first place. If you cannot get along with me (and I have no intention of staying away from the alternative medicine pages to be clear), do you think that I will be the only editor that you cannot get along with? Is our interaction indicative of how you will handle conflicts with other editors in the areas of alternative medicine in the future? jps (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for close

Threads about lifting bans typically run for 5 days (and they're also usually posted on WP:AN, not WP:AN/I), and this one has been up for 7 days; plus the thread keeps getting diverted. I believe an admin should take a look and determine what the consensus is here. DrChrissy deserves that, at least, rather than just allowing the thread to simply scroll off the board without a definitive determination of his status. BMK (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Have I posted this request to the wrong noticeboard? DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Generally, requests for lifting of community bans, etc. are posted on WP:AN, but if one is posted at WP:AN/I and has attracted enough responses there before someone has the opportunity to move it, they are generally left in place to avoid disrupting the discussion. In the future, AN is probably the best place to post such requests. (ArbCom sanctions should be appealled at WP:ARCA.) BMK (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice and reason for lifting ban

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.

---

DrChrissy I highly recommend that you refrain from responding to every oppose. Rather than support your case, it would very much likely turn otherwise neutral editors against your appeal or turn those would have supported into opposes. BMK makes an excellent point that you would do well to take note of. Blackmane (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of collaborative editing. I would like to point out that User:Guy and User:DGG (who have both opposed the lifting) have both edited collaboratively with me on Bile bear with no problems whatsoever. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? I don't think so. This is an article where objective scientific opinion and your beliefs align. Try providing an example where science contradicts your beliefs, where you have worked productively with pro-science editors, and (crucially) where you have changed your opinion in response to evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Replying because I have been asked to. Wow! Can a question be anymore loaded than that. You make a totally false assumption that science contradicts my belief systems. Can you provide evidence to support your assumption? I have already supplied multiple pieces of evidence that I have worked in productive collaboration with other editors who, like myself, are pro-scientists. Would you like more examples? As for the third part of your question, I'm rather surprised you asked that. Surely you know it is not my opinions that matter - it is my editing behaviour that matters.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

More evidence of collaborative editing - Alligator gar - DrChrissy rephrased a couple of sentences and drew my attention to use of the word anecdotal in the lead which actually motivated me to seek better terminology. [134] I reverted believing anecdotal was the best choice. I trust his judgment in so many ways regarding animal behavior, and just wanted to mention that I am still looking for ways to improve the article based on his suggestions. Yes, he is a valuable contributor and his expertise regarding veterinary topics and animal behavior is a plus for WP. I've seen where some of our Project Medicine team members oppose lifting the ban because of edits he made regarding fringe/ps topics like acupuncture and the like but his edits referenced animal behaviors not human. I'm not sure the latter makes a difference - I never professed to be a scientist or medical expert - and I equally respect both sides of the argument but then the issue of placebo is called into question where animals are concerned, and I would think an animal behavior expert may have some insight from which all of us can learn. Atsme^📞📧 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Query: What is the reason for requesting the lifting of a ban? What articles would you like to edit and why? How can you help in these areas? (Note that I think that replies to this question here should not be considered as a violation of the topic ban.) jps (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Excellent question, jps. I will support it not being a violation of his TB if DrChrissy responds directly to your query. Atsme^📞📧 14:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no specific plan or agenda of articles to edit if this ban is lifted.

The reasons I want this TB lifted are so that I can further improve the encyclopaedia and simultaneously lift the frustration that I have been editing with for over 9 months. Please bear in mind that I have been warned I am to make no comment whatsoever on these topics - not even to mention them on my Talk page or Sandbox. So, I have had to avoid deleting, adding or commenting on these areas, or sections of any pages discussing these, whilst editing productively in widespread topics.

Many articles I edit in animal behaviour and welfare science have an underlying overlap with aspects of my TB that may not be immediately apparent, but I have had to be careful to avoid even mentioning them. I offer examples in each of the substantive areas of the TB.

• alt.med: I have recently been editing the Bile bear article. Bile bears are kept under horrendous conditions for the purpose of collecting bile and their gall bladders, which are used in alt.med. Despite User:Guy's repeated assertions that I am pro-quackery, I am not. Far from it. I am very much against quackery and pseudoscience, but especially where it negatively impinges on animal welfare. In researching material for the article, I have found many sources where the quackery around bile products is robustly debunked. However, inserting this would be a breach of my TB. I believe this is a net loss to the project. To add to the complications, an editor (User:Guy) has been adding alt.med content to the article. So, this initially felt like I was a submarine trying to navigate an underwater minefield, but then, along comes a destroyer and starts dropping depth charges on me! The article Dog meat (humans eating dogs) is similar to Bile bear in that there are absolutely ridiculous claims about "magical" benefits to humans who eat dog flesh. It would benefit the article and project if my TB was lifted and I am able to make the edits indicating how ridiculous these are.
• Medicine and health: Recently, the article Equine-assisted therapy and associated articles underwent major editing or re-writes. I am aware of much of the literature on anthrozoology (scientific study of interaction between humans and other animals) and I felt I could have benefited the articles with this knowledge. However, given the overall intent behind the articles (human health), I felt this was within the scope of my TB so I did not make any edits. Again, I feel this is a net loss to the project. A similar article is Assistance dog. I also edit heavily in articles on Pain in animals, Pain in fish, Pain in crustaceans and Pain in amphibians - again these articles would be improved if I were able to make edits relating to the science of human pain, but the TB prevents me from doing so.
• Wp:MEDRS I have no desire whatsoever to edit this page. I often engage in discussions elsewhere about the suitability of scientific sources. The subject of MEDRS frequently arises in these discussions and again I must adopt a "submarine in a minefield with a destroyer overhead" approach. I have over 20 years experience of publishing scientific articles in mainstream science journals (including Nature) and I work on several scientific journal editorial boards. I feel this experience is invaluable in these discussions of sources, but I frequently remain silent because I am aware that some people are wanting to play "gotcha" if I mention MEDRS. Lifting my ban will allow me to improve the project in this area.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

So, I think the concern of many (including myself) is that you would be inclined toward slanting Wikipedia toward credulity regarding alternative medicine. This seems, to me anyway, to be part of the reason you were topic banned in the first place. What would be unfortunate is if this ended up happening because we'd all end up back here and things worse than topic bans would be on the table. I cannot tell from what you've posted above as to how likely that is to occur. You know that you and I have had our fair share of clashes and I got the impression from those disagreements that you are much more accommodating of alternative medicine than I am. That's neither here nor there, but the question for me is how likely are you to, say, start writing content that endorses as evidence-based such questionable practices as veterinary acupuncture (to pick one of many possibilities out at random). I have been made aware that there seems to be a higher tolerance of "alternative medicine" within certain veterinary communities and it isn't clear to me whether your perspective is that this is a WP:MAINSTREAM approach or whether it is just an example of how certain credulity can creep in without decent evidence. The approach at Wikipedia should be one that doesn't accommodate peculiar beliefs that have insulated themselves from evaluation. It is my fear that this will be the direction in which you will go. Can you see why? jps (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS, while I respect your scientific knowledge, I still think it's only fair to equally respect DrChrissy's knowledge. My experience regarding alt or complementary treatments is limited; therefore, whenever I'm involved in writing, reviewing or ce an article that includes such information, I have long since learned to always look to MEDRS and high quality RS. In the case of equine treatments, I actually do have some knowledge based on 40+ years of vet bills, and also working with Texas A&M to help develop embryo transfers in horses. I am not a veterinarian and being a skeptic of sorts while still maintaining an open mind to unlimited possibilities, it's just good common sense to do the research. I have very limited knowledge about acupuncture in humans - I don't believe it works - but in order to respond here, I did the research because horses aren't human. At that point, I would look to DrChrissy for his expertise. I found the following sources that would easily pass MEDRS regarding acupuncture in horses: Science Direct, Texas A&M, American Association of Equine Practitioners, and Journal of Equine Veterinary Science. I imagine those articles would speak volumes to why DrChrissy should have his TB lifted. It actually never was a case about his expertise, rather it was about his insistence and behavior in his attempt to convince others that he knew what he was talking about. The aforementioned sources support his views. Having said that, I also believe he has learned his lesson regarding his persistence in trying to convince others and that there are alternative ways (no pun intended) to support what he writes in an article. Atsme^📞📧 17:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, you are probably doing more harm than good with your comment here. The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies in no way passes WP:MEDRS, for example. However, if this is the kind of source that DrChrissy intends to start inserting into the text, then I would not be very pleased to reopen the cans of worms. jps (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@jps I think you have misunderstood me. The examples I gave above were to indicate that when I am editing those or similar articles, I know that I could further contribute positively to them, but I am prevented by my TB. Effectively, I am leaving articles "unfinished" which can not be benefiting the project. I am totally disbelieving of almost all forms of alt.med. I am not sure quite how to state this more clearly but in, for example, the Bile bear article, I would like to write (perhaps in a slightly more encyclopaedic tone) -

"The cruel bastards who keep these wonderful, sentient mammals in such horrendous conditions, do so because some poor, deluded idiot believes that drinking bear bile will make his erection last longer. This belief is complete bullshit, as shown by (insert multiple WP:MEDRS sources here)".

I believe firmly in producing balanced articles. Unfortunately, many animals are used in alt.med and I feel that a balanced article would provide information about this, countered by mainstream science to indicate the nonsense and quackery that is associated with the purported benefits. I do not see what is wrong with this approach.

Editing articles which have alt.med sections was, and will remain, a tiny part of my editing habits. Even a cursory glance at my User contributions page here[135] will convince you that I edit many, many articles which have absolutely nothing to do with alt.med. The project has nothing to fear from me.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. What I'm trying to figure out is whether you intend on inserting sources such as the ones suggested by Atsme above (e.g. sources such as papers published in the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies). Because if the topic ban is lifted, you would be free to do that. I'm already rather dismayed that Atsme is implying that this is a perfectly acceptable action. Do you think it is? jps (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS, you clearly have misgivings about those sources. Perhaps you could explain why. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS, rather than focus on only 1 of the 4 sources I used as examples, what about the other sources, such as American Association of Equine Practitioners, or Journal of Equine Veterinary Science? Do they also not meet MEDRS requirements or qualify as RS? I actually didn't filter them as I would when citing an article rather it was simply to example the coverage of equine treatments. It would appear to me that providing 4 sources on the topic would carry some weight. Atsme^📞📧 19:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: here's a book review in another vet journal The Veterinary Journal. The book review concludes, Acupuncture has increasingly become more generally accepted due to its positive results, which have been supported by scientific studies and conventional neurophysiological explanations. Xie’s Veterinary Acupuncture is a comprehensive tome and helps to further demystify the Eastern aspects of this therapy. I can certainly understand it if our MEDRS guidelines were written specifically to accommodate veterinary medicine/treatments but MEDRS was written for humans, not horses, dogs and cats. Surely you will agree that the variables are wide and far reaching. Your focus appears to be on human applications which further substantiates the need for animal experts like DrChrissy. Placebos do not effect results in animal studies. Atsme^📞📧 19:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC) ^{College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida which I would think is credible, and only one of many applying this practice. 20:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)}

Shallow justifications all and I am not going to be drawn into a long discussion as to why, for example, double blinding is needed in veterinary medicine (that you don't realize this is indicative of some really shoddy critical thinking skills). I understand that pseudoscience is attractive. Hell, the San Diego Zoo had a feature article on how they cure arthritis in koalas with acupuncture. The point is, though, that there is zero scientific basis for the existence of the things that acupuncture requires for it to work. Now, that acupuncture happens in the context of veterinary medicine is undeniable. But claims that there are reasons to believe it is effective, evidence based, or anything more than a waste of money are extreme WP:FRINGE opinions. I get the impression that neither you nor DrChrissy understand this from the way you are accepting of poor sourcing on the matter. If you cannot understand that the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a fringe journal, there is no way you should be editing Wikipedia articles on the subject.

Competence required means in part that you have to be able to sift the best stuff from the bullshit. This is especially the case when writing Wikipedia articles. I don't see that this ability is here and thus it is not a good idea for you to edit anything related to alternative medicine.

jps (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS - I do not understand your use of the term "double blinding". Double blinding means both the researcher and the subject are blind to whether they are administering/receiving a treatment or a placebo. So in human studies, the researcher giving the pill to the human does not know whether it is a treatment or a placebo. The person swallowing the tablet also does not know whether it is a treatment or placebo. In veterinary science, how would the dog/cat/horse know whether it was a placebo or not? It is already blind to the study. Unless Dr Doolittle is a reality. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends on who administers the treatment as to how many blindings it is. Call it total blinding if you must. jps (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow the first part of that - perhaps you will be willing to expand. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Double blinding means that neither the person who is involved in setting up the trial nor the people who are involved in the trial know whether the treatment is the one being investigated or the placebo. In the case of a researcher who administers the treatment directly, blinding to the researcher implies blinding to the patient regardless of whether the patient understands or not. It's still "double blind". This is arguing over a vocabulary point, though. Many studies that are reported for alternative medicine outcomes on animals are not blinded at all! jps (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree this is a point of vocabulary; it is, in fact, central to robust experimental design of treatments for both humans and non-human animals.

I think we can both agree that "blinded" means "has NO knowledge of whether the administered drug is the treatment being tested or not (and therefore has no preconceived expectation of the results)". The opposite of that is " has knowledge of..." So, a double-blind trial means neither the researcher or the subject has knowledge. A single-blinded study means either the researcher or the subject does have knowledge. Logically then, a study which is "not blinded at all" means that both the researcher and the subject "have knowledge..." It is of course entirely possible to train animals to learn that e.g. red pills=good and blue pills=no effect, but this would totally confound the study. What you seem to be suggesting is that in the alt.med studies which are "not blinded at all", these are confounded because when administered a drug, animals have knowledge of... whether it is the treatment or not, and the likely effects this will have on their health. Perhaps you can suggest a mechanism for how they posses this knowledge? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm even more convinced it's solely a matter of vocabulary because any discussion as to whether an animal has knowledge of whether the treatment is a placebo is not even something I thought of considering. I'm not sure why you think anyone would make such an assumption! Applying operant conditioning of the sort you suggest would be outright fraud. jps (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is not operant conditioning, it is associative learning - very different terms in animal behaviour. Which is also the problem with your comment above. Blinding, double-blinding, triple-blinding and non-blinded are specific terms (not vocabulary) relating to robust experimental design. The article blind-experiment might help you understand these. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: You stated above "double blinding is needed in veterinary medicine (that you don't realize this is indicative of some really shoddy critical thinking skills)." The human administering is the researcher, the non-human animal receiving the administration is the subject. You are clearly indicating that you think the animal needs to be blinded in some way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You sure are getting tiresome here. Either you really do not understand the point I was making, or you are just in this for scoring points which I don't understand because I'm not sure what you hope to get out of this since it is your appeal. Let's avoid jargon and get on the same page. It is important that neither researcher nor administrator of a treatment (they are often not the same person) know which is a placebo and which is not. This is never the case in any study done about animal acupuncture. jps (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it extremely rich for you to ask for extra space to ask questions of me and then call me "tiresome" for answering them. This is clearly baiting, because you realise I have made transparent your lack of critical thinking and understanding about the design of medical studies. Jargon is there for a reason. It prevents misunderstanding and misuse of terms between experts in the subject area. Your interpretation of what double-blind means is wrong. What you are referring to is triple-blind. In the past, you have made incivil comments about my competence - I now leave it to readers to judge yours. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS - regarding the sources issue. Please note I have not said whether I would accept or reject those sources. Of course, ultimately it all comes down to context. I have never heard of the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies before today and I asked you a direct question about why you find it a fringe publication. I remain uneducated about this journal. Please give a direct answer to a direct question. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is journal for true believers in acupuncture. jps (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference is between a "true believer" and a "believer" but notwithstanding this, the use of the journal would depend on the context. Rather ironically, this is exactly the lesson I learned from my topic ban. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS - I concede to your expertise regarding the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, and struck it. Please consider it gone from this discussion. Now then, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're trying to relay is that all veterinary articles in all Journals regarding equine acupuncture suck. Correct? And your evidence is based on human trials, correct? Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Efficacy trials are only relevant if you have don't have strong priors against a regimen. Unless carefully controlled, they give no information if there is no functional mechanism. The pseudoscientific basis for meridians is the killer. jps (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps during the trials, vets should discuss symptoms with their patients and have them sign a disclosure. 😆 I also know that treatments we wouldn't imagine to be successful on humans are incredibly successful on certain animals - canines and equines specifically. For example, chocolate can kill a dog whereas a bit of chocolate and a cold beer does wonders for me. Horses like beer, but they curl their noses up at a delicious Ruth's Chris steak. Turpentine on the soles of a hoof work wonders, but I doubt it would work on my toenails. Just saying. Atsme^📞📧 23:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this has all gotten off into a tangent here that is, at best, only abstractly related to behavioural issues of the single editor that are the main point of this thread. Not withstanding my !vote above, I tend to favour an editorial approach of deep skepticism when weighting MEDRS-based claims, so I understand the concern here--and the impulse to examine these issues at length in the context of considering DrChrissy's past (and probable future) behaviour. That said, I think it's clear that each of you has come to a determination as to where you think the lines of appropriate editorial behaviour in this regard lay and how you think DrChrissy will approach such matters. Since none of you seem likely to be swayed to change your !vote at this point, and endless cycle of lengthy posts about the nature of MEDRS in the context of alternative medicine can only serve to further clog this thread, on a forum that is not the best place to discuss these matters at length. So unless one of you has further evidence to present relevant to DrChrissy's immediate case, what do you say we cap this tangent here or move it to someone's talk page? Snow ^{let's rap} 00:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Snow - I had drafted the same thought but got caught in an edit conflict. I for one am happy to see this capped. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this is the typical desire, but it is something of a shame because I think we were just getting down to the point of actually figuring out where the distance lies. For example, Atsme above compares the canine sensitivity to theobromine to an idea that maybe energetic meridians exist. It's exactly this kind of back-and-forth that is useful, but essentially never occurs on talkpages be they article or user because the context of such venues is not to deal with the underlying issues. Here we have a useful opportunity to actually dialogue because the stakes are higher, and it seems to me one of the problems with Wikipedia's WP:BURO is that productive conversations get shut down as unproductive as tangential when they're really the consequential point. People may know that I think ultimately behavior matters far less than competence with content. For the record, I have not voted (and will not be voting) in this game of let's find a rule. jps (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that you two shouldn't have this conversation or that it's per se unproductive. But ANI is not the place for--indeed, is arguably the very least appropriate space on the entire project for--protracted discussions on approaches to content. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are derailing a productive discussion. ANI is not the place for a lot of things, but they happen here anyway, and not bureaucracy advises that good things should be allowed to happen regardless of the rules. This section is short by ANI standards, and the above back-and-forth is the closest I have ever seen to a meeting of minds on an important issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And the reason this meeting of the minds can't take place elsewhere?

The only derailing here I see here is the hijacking of a thread that is meant to be deciding the status of the sanction of a particular editor. There are a literally hundreds of talk spaces on this project where this side discussion would be appropriate. ANI is not one of them. This is not a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY matter, it's a practical one. This discussion is nowhere near a groundbreaking or unique one with regard to resolving the countless issues of how MEDRS intersects with alternative medicine. Nor is it anywhere near a conclusion in its own right. On any given day ANI has between 20-50 threads composed of between 250,000-600,000 kb of text. That's if we keep it to essential discussion about behavioural issues and away from tangents like these. This thread already has an excess of 100 posts... This is just not the forum for this manner of content discussion and pointing that fact out is not a matter of some sort of blind obsession with technicality, however devoted you are to thrashing this out. Once again, no one is saying this a bad discussion to have (I wouldn't have had variations of it a hundred times myself if I didn't think it was an essential function of editing on science-related articles). But there's absolutely zero reason why it can't be had elsewhere, and it's ANI 101 that it doesn't belong here...Snow ^{let's rap} 10:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just pointing out that if this discussion does continue elsewhere at the moment, and I believe it should continue, my TB will prevent me from engaging in it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion here, as part of the unban request so DrChrissy can participate, would be valuable to understand how DrChrissy may behave if the ban is removed. For what it is worth a productive discussion could influence me to reconsider my !vote and possible others would reconsider as well. TL;DR - lets use the space to let them discuss the original tangent rather than waste space arguing another tangent about whether they can continue with the original tangent or not. Jbh^Talk 19:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Replaced edit which was reverted without comment by Keith D Jbh^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert Ermmmm...an editor's posting has just been reverted here [136] by another editor. What's happening here, please? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That sometimes happens on AN/I as the result of an edit conflict. It's a bug that I assume is due to it being such a high volume page. If ithappens again, just restore the reverted material and drop a note on the talk page of the editor who caused it, just to let them know. It's rare -- unless the editor is a troll or otherwise disruptive contributor -- that such reversions are intentional. BMK (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On his talk page KeithD says it was a mistake, probably made when he was attempting to delete something else entirely. BMK (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I would very much welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion or others relating to my future editing if the TB is lifted, however, I would not wish to alienate those who might oppose this suggestion. I shall wait to see further comments. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Personally I'm appalled that we give people TB. It's highly contagious and many forms are drug-resistant. EEng 15:56, 13 March 2016 (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.

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.

Tachlifa of the West

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.

---

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa the Palestinian and the latest page move [137], please can somebody mediate so an edit war does not erupt. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• 1) You are not allowed to edit in that area.
• 2) The translation of Tachlifa of the West in aramaic is Tachlifa of the West. Your editing is POV. You can see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa_the_Palestinian. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was not notified of this ANI, as per policy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi_violating_ARBPIA_TBAN Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Chesdovi is currently topic banned from this Area [138] from 2012. There is no reason to mediate a dispute in an area they should not be working in at all anyway. A relevent WP:ARE request has been opened at [139] so there is no need for further action here. Chesdovi you can request that your topic ban be lifted at WP:ARCA. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

How is a 4th century rabbi related to the 20th century Israel-Palestine conflict? Am I also banned from editing Cherry tomato? Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

you are still violating your ban. when you translate the words of the west into Palestine then you make it into the relevant dispute area

No; you are making it part of the ARBPIA area. It's not automatically included, why should it be. Is everything named "Palestinian" includeed? Not at all. Why should it be? You, who take offence, are drawing this innocent article into the an area of dispute. Chesdovi (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The guy's name is "of the West." When you change it to "the Palestinian" we must use your history to see why you're doing it. You don't change someone's name. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that I may not use the term "Palestinian" instead of "Westerner" about a man who lived in Iraq? Chesdovi (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Article titles need to reflect the person's name, not your POV. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

See talk. And how lucky you are that now the page reflects your POV! As long as your POV prevails, everything is okay. You are incapable of editing in a a neutral fashion. Why did you not discuss your proposed move at talk? Why do you prefer unilateral moves? Chesdovi (talk)

• Comment There are only two possibilities. Either Chesdovi is incapable of understanding the topic ban, or is wilfully ignoring it. Adding "anti-zionism" to over 20 articles and changing "Israeli" to "Palestinian" when topic banned from ARBPIA are obvious violations, as is the conflict here. As Chesdovi apparently cannot understand the topic ban, I fear the only solution is to indef the user. A person who violates his topic ban more than 20 times in an hour yet feigns innocence either cannot or should not edit. Jeppiz (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think it is you who do not understand the limitation of the TB. Why does a citron grown in Israel have to be related to the conflict? Why does the Western Wall have to be related. Everything can be related if you want it to be. Chesdovi (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Over the past weeks, a number of users and a number of admins have pointed out that you don't understand your topic ban. So either everybody is wrong and none of the admins understand topic bans, or then you don't understand it. If you don't even understand how changing "Israeli" or "Palestinian" violates a topic ban for everything connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, then you just prove my point that you're incapable of understanding the topic ban. That's why a block is the only solution, I'm sorry. I have nothing against you, don't remember seeing you on WP before you opened this thread, but I don't think I've seen such obvious TB violations on this scale. Jeppiz (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Over the past weeks, a number of users and a number of admins have pointed out that you don't understand your topic ban." I do not recall. Please show me. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• This seems like a simple matter. There is an WP:ARE opened. If you think this is not covered by your topic ban then go explain to them how.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And it would have been much easier had the article been edited to say "Tachlifa of the West lived in Palestine" or something like that, while being POV, still isn't as drastic as changing the guy's name. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

But that would be a TB violation according to you, would it not? You find using the word "Palestine" "POV" in each and every case! Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said that, but when you change the title of the article to suit your POV then you are in violation of a TBAN, similarly to what you are doing now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

May I remind you that the page name was created as Tachlifa the Palestinian and changed by two editors with a history of pushing anti-"Palestine" POV in all its various guises. My page move was not based on "POV" related to the conflict. Please see talk where you will find my reasoning. Nothing about Israel/Palestine conflict! You are unforgivably dragging this issue into the IP arena. Chesdovi (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop editing, your continued editing is violating your TBAN. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Can someone close this? This just a pissing contest and it's over at WP:ARE for review. @Chesdovi: until the WP:ARE is closed you should stay off the page. @Chesdovi: and @Sir Joseph:, before either of you go to move the page again open an RFC and place a move request in it. Get a consensus and then move the page as opposed to edit warring.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tefillin

There is an editor who insists on initiating an edit war at Tefillin. [140]. Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yawn, see above, user is tbanned. You may revert a tbanned user. And again, you need to notify user of ANI action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Arab-Israel conflict is the area of my TB, not Judaism. Some Jews may wish to smuggle explosives in their tefillin to bomb the Dome of the Rock, but that does not preclude me from editing this page. That would be too broad. Some common sense here, please. Sir Joseph is of the opinion that I can not add information about the Western Wall to an article about Tefillin because I am banned from Arab-Israel conflict. It seems his real concern is giving Women of the Wall a mention in the article, and he is using my TB as an excuse to expunge the women. Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1) You didn't notify me of the ANI , so clearly you are trying to hide something. 2)You are adding WOW because you are trying to insert a POV of delegitimatizing the Western Wall, similarly to what you did at the Western Wall article and that got you TBANNED from there. Why don't you wait until your AE is finished and then you can ask for clarification. In the meantime, read up on policy. This is the second ANI you filed without notifying me. You can be warned for that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Did this not suffice: [141]?

2) What does "women of the wall" and "delegitimatizing the Western Wall" have to do with the conflict between Israel and Palestine? Chesdovi (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that doesn't suffice, how am I supposed to know that's an ANI request. Stop editing for your own sake until the AE is resolved. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiding notification in the form of a diff is a cop out. Don't be lazy and use the {{subst:ani-notice}} template like everyone else does. Blackmane (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2016 (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.

WP:Threats

One of the strangest groups of threats I've ever encountered. Here. About editing Wikipedia articles on Singapore politicians. I've done nothing about this, as I don't know how to react. But Wikipedia needs a heads up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been here before, at the time. See this and this. I believe there's been no new developments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and thanks for the insight. Damn socks. Glad to see you are on top of it. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Distributive editor sock pupertry investigation without progress , disruptive edits and 3RR ignorance continue.

YuHuw like his suspected predecessor Kaz staring from 8 January 2016 trying and claiming to connection between Khereid tribe and Russian Karaites.The style is the same multiple edits on several pages,ignoring request on other users to revert to concensus version. 3RR rules are violated constantly,arguments are ignored. The usual his reverts explanation is : "User:Ancientsteppe puppet POV pushing" without any additional argument.Sometimes he also distorts original meaning of the RS or used non RS for his claim.

E.g here he removed Kheraid consensus page name claiming that the persian name of the tribe is 'Karaites' while most of the sources use name Kheraid or Keraites.He also removed the consensus map of Kheraide in spite of objection of other editors. As you can see below also 3RR is totally violated:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Here the similar on the Qaraylar page where he claims without any RS non consensus meanings of the word ignoring any arguments of other editors without any meaningful explanation. 1)Here and

2)here and

3)here and

4)here and

5) here

Above are only several examples. The same phenomena may be find almost on every page that he has edited.

While Sockpuppet his investigations has no progress in spite of his new anonymous IP edits the reasons of Kaz's block are still relevant also for this "new" editor. You are invited to look at additional examples here Please consider. Неполканов (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what this is all about, but from the message YuHuw left on my talk page, I don't have the impression his attitude isn't constructive. I'm not sure the same can be said of Неполканов. Notifying Bkonrad who also seems to have had dealings with him. --Midas02 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on this as the issues seemed rather obscure and far beyond my ability to verify. My only involvement was in terms of the disambiguation page content, which reflects article content (i.e., sources and references go on the article, not in the dab page and disputes about whether an article should describe a particular term should be addressed at the relevant article talk page). older ≠ wiser 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added some RS on Midas02 page and also on Russian Karaites page trying to approve that the YuHuw edits actually part of his disruptive agenda. As you can see above his 3RR violation related not only to Неполканов edits but to 4 other editors reverts of his non consensual edits. Неполканов (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, much of what I am about to write has already been covered here [142] and here [143]. It is a bit long but that is what happens when things are allowed to pile up over time.

Неполканов (i.e. NePolkanov) has opened this case here in response to the "call to arms" on the mastermind's page here [144] described by User:Bbb23 as "blatant canvassing"[145].

NePolkanov is pushing the POV propagated by blocked puppets of blocked User:Ancientsteppe as was pointed out to me by User:Dbachmann here [146]. Specifically User:Ancientsteppe and his puppets tried to pass off the modern Mongolian family name, "Khereid", as the "correct" name for the Keraites and this mistake is now ubiquitous across all sorts of Wikipedia mirror-sites having been left unchecked for years despite being unheard of before User:Ancientsteppe and his puppets started spreading that idea throughout Wikipedia -especially in images created by commons wikipedia editor User:Khiruge which do not get as much critical attention as text edits.

I came to be harassed incessantly by his close friends (who take breaks from wikipedia and come back together at the same time) as a result of my joining in to reverse the spread of User:Ancientsteppe's unique ideas. He has revealed more of his POV bias (by explaining that Nepolkanov means not Polaknov) to those of us who have become informed about the subject areas which he has successfully managed to monopolize since he appeared on Wikipedia to help his team's mastermind -see his edit history below and you get the idea very clearly.

So anyway, they called me a puppet of "Kaz" [147] and eventually opened a case for me where you can see in the edit history [148] other now blocked puppets of blocked User:I_B_Wright have also been very active in the past [149]. It seems maybe puppet investigations attract puppets.

Nepolkanov's method as you can see from his very short entire edit history over the past few years here (solely dedicated to "Kaz" issues) is to call anyone who touches his projects in a way he doesn't like a puppet of User:Kaz who I have learned a substantial amount about since they first called me Kaz in early January this year.

Nepolkanov has also inferred that user to be a pedophile providing enough personal details about him on the investigation page over time that any one of us can go and kick the doors of his home in if we feel so inclined. In fact that inference was first posted on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz page while (also ironically pointed out by Nepolkanov's team) the person he is identified with was campaigning for general elections in the UK last year. Supposedly he must have scheduled time to fly to Mallorca just to upset Nepolkanov at the same time. Not too difficult if we believe Nepolkanov that Kaz is rich enough to control the internet [150][151]. But hold your horses because he also said not so long ago that Kaz is not really a pedophile [152] although I can find no evidence of the article on the web except mirror-site copies of what Nepolkanov wrote of course because the Puppetmaster is so rich that he controls the internet. Although it should probably be born in mind that Nepolkanov does also have a history of inventing URLs and evidence outside of WP which doesn't exist when you click on them (try them on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz page and for example here [153] conveniently archived as is so commonly done not always by bots to hide evidence concerning that team's work a topic worthy of discussion in its own right later perhaps).

Also let's not forget that he repeatedly says that I am Kaz so that for the past few months when he says Kaz anywhere he means me which baring the previous paragraph in mind is more than highly offensive. Apparently, Kaz's personal vast wealth is also how Nepolkanov explains me away as another manifestation of the Phantom menace, Kaz, too since apparently he flies from the UK to wherever is necessary in his private jet to hide his true location (since use of proxies was apparently ruled out), just to annoy Nepolkanov. Holding that thought in mind, despite what he believes is "my" vast personal wealth and power he also says that I am a ridiculous autistic his words not mine which not that I have anything against autistic people, is clearly meant by his use of "ridiculous" as nothing but another personal attack.

Alternatively sometimes Nepolkanov says Kaz is Israeli and other times not. So I suppose he can be (just like the use of RS as you will soon see below) anything he wants him to be as and when it suits his purpose. In fact the puppet allegation he presented against me is overflowing with such irreconcilable contradictions. Perhaps he will soon say that either Kaz or me also has supernatural powers. Honestly if it wasn't so unhinged and if not for the fact that the user really believes it, it would almost be hilarious. Perhaps some people are just so bored that trolling Wikipedia has become the spice of life for them.

As for his comment about misusing sources, let's look closely at an example. I brought a source to the Karaim language page which he removed as what he calls "outdated RS fakes" or "lies" in talk pages and numerous edit summaries [154]. Apparently it was not about Crimean Karaites although his team clearly indicated that they believe Russian Karaites are Crimean Karaites [155]. Then he explained to me that Russian Karaites are in fact Subbotniks on the Talk:Keraites page and now here he uses the same source which I originally provided. So first he said it was not RS and now he says it is. While originally he was right there is no reference specifying to Crimean Karaites were meant in that source (especially since the Russian Karaites lived in Astrakhan where Tatar languages have long been used alongside Russian) he now says again that those same Russian Karaites are indeed Crimean Karaites (as it suits him). Yes, pretty weird. Yet he says I am the one who fakes evidence from sources? Hmmm. Well he also calls Douglas Morton Dunlop an outdated RS fake when it suits him too so... :/

He also accused me of building up a content fork at Talk:Karait although it was not, he himself has created at least two content forks recently for example here [156] and here [157] and a few months ago here [158] and here [159].

If one wants to make a project of it you can find too many cases of disruptive editing by Nepolkanov and his team but be aware that you could spend a very long time on it. I did start when I was first accused of being Kaz, but after a few days I simply found it nauseatingly boring. Anyone who spends a little time reading through his edit history and interactions with his team mates and those they accused of being Kaz will find it enough to realize they are not worth time bothering with as WP:DENY makes very clear. That's why I don't spend time dealing with all the problems they insert into all their articles all the time now. The truth about the subject [160] is in the published books available in the libraries and often online, which experienced editor User:Dbachmann taught me the value of using a translator to work through slowly but surely. These trolls may be able to dominate content on a few articles in the fields that interest them here for a short time, but in the end their agendas do not have any impact in the academic world. Truth can be suppressed in one place or another for a time but in the end it will always be found out. YuHuw (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

‎User:Wikinewseditor at the Kolkata Derby‎ article

Wikinewseditor (talk · contribs) has continued to edit disruptively at the Kolkata Derby‎ article, removing sourced material and adding unsourced material, despite multiple warnings, and I'm not sure what should be done. The editor does not communicate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I think they need a stern warning from several people at once, if they're not listening to one person. Their contribs that I looked at were totally redundant, adding "two consecutive days" before "7th and 8th of August, 1938"; and there were several edits like that today. They also bumped up the numbers of matches between teams. I don't know if it's severe enough for a block, but something does need to be done. Maybe a topic ban or page protection? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, their most recent list of edits does not remove sourced material, though some numbers are changed. I can't do much about it, except to suggest to you that if a. there is consensus over content, numbers, sources, etc. on the talk page, and b. that editor goes against that consensus after being warned, then c. they can be blocked for disruptive editing, if it persists. In other words, to the outside world this looks kind of like a content dispute, at least until the talk page establishes that there is a consensus. Of course, you could ask for a topic ban or something like that, which is also going to take consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I stumbled upon that article via WP:STiki. When I saw that Wikinewseditor was steadily making changes that seem disruptive, despite reverts and warnings from multiple editors, I started watching the article. For me, it's not a content dispute. My concern is that Wikinewseditor is adding a bunch of unsourced and incorrect information, and nothing is being done about it except reverting him occasionally. He has completely warped that article, and it seems others have tired of reverting him. The editor does not appear to be productive in the least. But there is nothing more that I am willing to do about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is one editor who seems to be familiar with the topic and kept challenging Wikinewseditor's text; that was Redhotgold (talk · contribs). See this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, when you get to be admin, you'll appreciate that the things that used to look simple when you were an editor don't look so simple anymore. Editors are typically familiar with the material and know whether some change or other is disruptive or not; this is not so for admins. This is one of the reasons why we like y'all to a. be clear in edit summaries and b. use the talk page to hammer out consensuses that we can then enforce. And/or, if that editor adds unsourced info (or removes valid sourced info) and they don't explain properly, give them a templated warning, and let them add up to past level 4 so you can report them at AIV. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Editors are typically familiar with the material and know whether some change or other is disruptive or not; this is not so for admins." Finally, real evidence that becoming an admin causes loss of mental capacity. I can only shudder to think what becoming an arbitrator does! EEng 22:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making disruptive edits lately on Israel article. On other pages that unprotected, the user edit from IP addresses: 109.64.131.137, 79.176.62.204, 79.183.130.71. I'm sure it's the same person because edits appear at the same time and are similar in nature. Here, for some reason, he deleted the same picture from different articles using account and IP: 1, 2. The picture was added by me in both articles recently. Here he made disruptive edit under misleading edit summary: diff. Many edits has been reverted, not only by me. Was blocked three times before (1, 2, 3), constantly erases own talk page from notices, posted inappropriate warrant on my talk page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the edits had misleading edit summary, partially or totally unrelated to the actual edit. “WarKosign” 10:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yossimgim has also been rather disruptive in the past at Talk:Natalie Portman, and on user talk pages including my own. Essentially when the argument went against him he posted on everyone's talk pages accusing them of edit warring. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Found his sockpuppet: Dr. Feldinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As Yossimgim he added picture of Bar Refaeli to Israel article 15 times, and as Dr. Feldinger once. It was discussed before and account Dr. Feldinger was banned. I don't see how temporary ban will stop him as he appears on Wikipedia occasionally anyway, was banned before 4 times in total, and just continue to add same pictures in different articles for years only to be reverted and then comes back again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you reported this at WP:SPI? The user and IP's certainly are quacking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just started investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• He has been involved in a slow-burn edit war on the Benjamin Disraeli article too, despite a request to use the talk page's open thread on the matter. – – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the SPI was rejected on the grounds that the Dr. Feldinger case is stale. If this is an entirely new editor (or the sockmaster can't be pinpointed), Yossimgim is a disruptive editor who doesn't demonstrate anything to suggest that s/he is WP:HERE... and is still 'contributing'. I don't see any attempts to engage with other editors (never mind the tone of communications with other editors last time s/he was around). Currently, the only response to other editors has been to delete warnings and carry on regardless. Given that the multiple POINTy IP edits point to this being the same user, this is getting to be unjustifiably irritating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

CU was declined but the SPI is still open and it's pretty clear there is abuse of multiple accounts (the IPs). He's been blocked three times in 2015, perhaps it's time for a longer block if they keep editing while logged out. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, as Softlavender notes, only the checkuser request was declined. Checkuser relies on technical details that are only retained by the server for a short while, so "stale" means that there's no possible way to conduct the checkuser. Sockpuppet investigations routinely rely on behavioral analysis, so this isn't over yet. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Softlavender and Nyttend. I know it's difficult to pin down users who are deft at gaming/ducking and diving (whether by accident or by stealth). I'll be keeping my eyes open for IPs and accounts that fit the SPA behavioural patterns in light of the fact that the Yossimgim account alone has an established pattern of a few days of editing, then disappearing for a year. It may be frustrating, but the user will be caught out eventually. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It continues – see new section below on this page, and at SPI. Since this topic started, he had three new dynamic IPs to make disruptive edits from (one was blocked for 48 hours) and this thread went to archive, which I restored. I've already asked this at SPI without response so will repeat it here – Is it possible to block his IP ranges? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BillieKing

Hello,
First, sorry for my english (and sorry if I don't post in in the right place).
I request for blocking the account BillieKing for vandalism (he did the same vandalism on wp:fr) basically he suppresses the fact that the French singer Tal is also a songwriter [161] [162], but the website of the SACEM (a kind of RIAA) indicates she has written 12 songs [163]). Plus on wp:fr BillieKing is the 5th sockpuppet of Billie Aiden (full list here). Billie_Aiden was blocked twice WP:fr (for the same kind of modifications). Sebk (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

he also vandalized these pages Le droit de rêver [164] and Le sens de la vie [165]. Sebk (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left an ANI notification on their talk page, which as a friendly reminder is something editors need to do when reporting other editors to this page or to the administrator's noticeboard. I've also left them a warning to discuss their changes to the talk page. I recommend that if they continue with this unexplained removal of content, it would be worth reporting them to the vandalism noticeboard or if they are repeatedly reverting other editors' changes, report them to the edit warring noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wildly disruptive User:Deffrman

While User:Deffrman has just been blocked for 36 hour after having made 8 reverts in about a half-hour — and despite the efforts of four other editors — he also has been editing another editor's talk-page comments (mine) to make say the opposite of what was posted. Since he could simply have deleted the comments, this blatantly deliberate misrepresentation is disruptive to a whole other level. As if that weren't enough, he's also a sock of 2001:e10:6840:21:20c:6eff:fe07:58e3 2001:e10:6840:21:20c:6eff:fe07:58e3. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious the user isn't on Wikipedia to be constructive. I recommend an indefinite block. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably the quickest and most efficient way of dealing with this is to get a CU via SPI. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not really--the quickest way is to weigh and compare edits, and then do what AlexiusHoratius did. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well, I certainly have no objection that this user was blocked on an admin's initiative. But that block, if you are referring to Alex Bakharev's action, was for 36 hours, while JudeccaXIII was specifically suggesting an indef. And an indef is much more likely to be arrived at in a speedy fashion via a finding of socking at SPI than via a protracted behavioural discussion here, at least in the typical case. That's my only observation and I believe one which is almost universally true in instances of this sort. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given that the user has been globally locked, this is kinda dealt with. SPI or no, there is probably nothing we can do now. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise, I was referring to AlexisHoratius's protectino of Sukhumi which, in a case where a hopper is abusing one single article, is the quickest solution. Voidwalker is correct with the global lock, which I noticed right after I commented here--so yeah, I think we're done. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru ongoing disruptive behavior at Peyton Manning

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.

---

QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since yesterday, QuackGuru has been very disruptive and is now edit warring at Peyton Manning, particularly with regard to a claim in the article which describes the Manning family as "football's royal family". The content originally stated it as fact (in Wikipedia's voice), with no attribution as to who said it. It said, "Because of Peyton and his brother Eli's success, as well as the success of their father, the Manning family is seen as Football's Royal Family." The only source attached was a woman's book, titled Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family. Amazingly, QuackGuru insists that the "royal family" moniker is not an opinion and therefore should not be attributed to who said it. To correct the problem and give proper context and attribution, per WP:PEACOCK, I changed the text to, "Because of their success, the Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family." QuackGuru just reverted the content three times,[166][167][168] and has ignored the editors on the talk page, including myself,[169] explaining to him that the "royal family" content must show attribution to who said it and that it is indeed a peacock term. Tracescoops (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim it is a peacock term when you have not shown how it is a peacock term and there is no serious dispute among sources. The dispute must be with sources not editors. See WP:ASSERT.

There seems to be no consensus for the current wording with over-attribution and extra verbage. If you check the recent edit history it started with this disputed change to replace sourced text with OR. There are more sources to verify the exact same claim. Tracescoops is commenting on the editor rather than focusing on the article. As early as late 2004 the Mannings have been described as "football's royal family". This is old news. It is common knowledge they are referred to as "football's royal family".

There is an obvious sockpuppet commenting on the talk page. ‎Tracescoops, do you know who CharlatanGourou is? QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get any deeper into the content issue here than is strictly necessary for the behavioural discussion, but deciding that this moniker is so well-established that it needs no attribution on the basis of a one-off incidental mention in an a single article and the subtitle of a book seems to pretty clearly move into WP:OR territory to me. But putting that aside for a moment, what exactly do you see as the harm in attribution? We'd not be denying a formal title in including it, we'd simply be contextualizing a metaphorical allusion.

Anyway, getting away from those content issues and to the crux of the matter, 3RR has been violated here, so you need to pause and consider how much this wording means to you, because it looks like consensus on that talk page reflects a 5-to-1 opposition to your position. This seems like an awfully trivial change to court a block over, especially considering no one is proposing to remove the phrase outright, just qualify its use a little, which is context that can't hurt our readers. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) In this section on the talk page, no editor agrees with QuackGuru that the information should be left unmodified. The consensus therefore is for it to be modified, however the discussion is has not offered any alternatives to this. They only state that it should be attributed to the author, and others should sources be presented. My own personal opinion is that it can be mentioned, but that the wording must be more careful than stating that they have been called the royal family of football. But this noticeboard is for editor behavior, so I'll leave that there.
  

QuackGuru, while I understand your desire to see things the way you believe them to be, this is the wrong way to get them that way. You need to take things slow. Whether or not you are correct is irrelevant; if the actions you make are disruptive, then you will get blocked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, my comment got removed by the archive bot.... huh. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 03:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

:::QuackGuru, you are obviously alleging that I am also the editor (CharlatanGourou) that posted that talk page comment to you, which I am not. It would be pointless to create a new identity solely to post a short, simple comment when so many other editors disagree with you. Perhaps it's one of the many other editors with whom you've been arguing the past few days. In the meantime, I hope you will listen to what Snow and all the other editors are telling you. Now I want to go look up exactly what "WikiLawyering" means, since that's what CharlatanGourou has accused you of. The fact remains that you violated the edit warring rules and should therefore either be blocked, or be banned from editing the Manning article. Tracescoops (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Tracescoops, you don't need to explain yourself as far as alternate accounts are concerned. If QuackGuru believes you are socking, they need to report that to SPI, with evidence, otherwise withdraw the accusation and apologize, as accusing someone of socking without proof is a personal attack (and could also be considered a red herring here).

@ QuackGuru, Snow Rise has given you some very good advice here and I suggest you follow it. This is such a minor issue, it should never have needed to come to ANI. Surely you guys can wait until there is some consensus on the article talk page and then just go with that, no? - ^theWOLFchild 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"@ Thewolfchild, you claim "no verification is required."?[170] Are you suggesting we add a SYN violation to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've added some sources to the talk page for editors to discuss.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

::IP, I've replied to you on the Manning talk page. However, the issue with regard to QuackGuru's edit warring and disruptive behavior still remains and should be addressed. Tracescoops (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC) As I said before, there is no dispute. We can add more sources if editors continue to deny what reliables state. There are many sources. Here is a new source. See Talk:Peyton Manning#More sources. Is there a valid reason to keep the over-attribution now? QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a dispute, as others like Meters have told you. In any case, the reason we're here is because of your behavior and edit warring. And you have just exhibited your disruptive attitude again by refusing to even acknowledge that content that's been under dispute has only ever had one source to verify it (the woman's book). Instead, you are once again misreprenting the facts by implying there were "many sources" being used, when you know it's untrue. There were never any additional sources and the IP just presented the additional ones. The issue remains, you edit warred and have been blocked for it, and numerous other disruptions, many times before. Tracescoops (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources being discussed on the talk page. See Talk:Peyton Manning#More sources. Since it is not one source the wording can change rather than implying it is only one source and a minor view. The proposal to use the word "some" instead is not verifiable. I think V policy is relevant here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Can an administrator please review this request for appropriate sanctions against QuackGuru. And please note his latest obstructionist behavior here. Tracescoops (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, you could always propose something, like a topic ban for QuackGuru on the Manning article. Or you could report QuackGuru's edit warring on the appropriate noticeboard--I'm not good at counting but I think they've gone past 3RR. Is QuackGuru aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN? By the way, Tracescoops, you're remarkably well-versed in policy and editorial skills for such a new account: congratulations. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

::A bit passive-aggressive there, Drmies. If you're accusing me of doing something improper, then perhaps you should read The Wolf Child's comment above. In any case, reading and understanding policies, and watching how others do things doesn't require a Ph.D. Tracescoops (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, congratulations. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While per here[171] User:Tracescoops appears to have made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is so well established, why not using {{Infobox royalty}} ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion on the talk page where editors support "some". But "some" is a WP:SYN when combining different sources together. Verification was not provided after asking for V.[172] User:Drmies, the word "some" failed V. What should be done about the sock CharlatanGourou? Can you have a checkuer run? QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

QG, you have been around long enough to know that you should never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet except at WP:SPI. Knock it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

He also made socking accusing yesterday, see above at 02:55 - I advised then that such accusations were WP:NPA and that he needs to either provide evidence and file an SPI or stop. Obviously he didn't stop... but 'not stopping' is one of the reasons we're all here. - ^theWOLFchild 04:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

CharlatanGourou (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) is a username that is an obvious parody of User:QuackGuru, and their only edit is a rejoinder to QG on Talk:Peyton Manning.[173] QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt... so what? If you don't have evidence, then you shouldn't be making accusations. How many times do you need to be told? Like Guy said, take it to SPI or knock it off. - ^theWOLFchild 04:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (did you just refer to yourself in the third person?)

CharlatanGourou has been checkuser blocked as a sock of OverAverageJoe. Sometimes what appears to be obvious is exactly what it appears to be. BMK (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Attribution sounds simple enough. Don't understand the issue with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. I started a new discussion to include the part "Because of their success",... This adds context that will explain to the reader why they are perceived as the royal family. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Proposal_to_add_context_and_straw_poll. I'm curious what others think of me starting a new discussion. This specific proposal is not about the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for sanctions against QuackGuru

• (As per request to post this comment here) - Perhaps time for a mentor....what is needed is guidance in debates. The community has talk about this allot..that is how QuackGuru lacks the debating persona most here expect to see. Having a mentor advice on the best ways forward in debates might help QuackGuru and thus less time spent trying to ban/block/restrict them.-- Moxy (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I would think a block would be order first. - ^theWOLFchild 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - both mandatory mentoring and a lengthy block. - ^theWOLFchild 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support editing restrictions in place of mandatory mentoring. - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - support topic ban as well.
• Oppose mandatory mentoring. QuackGuru is an experienced but combative editor. Mentoring is for inexperienced editors. Support escalating blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This statement is just wrong...Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is for new users...Wikipedia:Mentorship is for users that have been involved in problematic behavior. But I agree mandatory mentoring is not the way to go...was hoping he would agree to do it on his own. -- Moxy (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained on the talk page that combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion was a SYN violation. According to WP:WEASEL, it is an unsupported attribution. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. The text that failed V was removed.[174] QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you really think that if you say it over and over (and over, and over) enough times, that everyone here will finally say; "Gee, you're right!"...? When you have so many people lined up on one side, and a single person on the other, what does that tell you? Quite simply, you are wrong. "Some" is not being attributed to any source, "some" is an adjective being used to describe the sources. Let. it. go. already. - ^theWOLFchild 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You acknowledged that "Some" is not being attributed to any source, "some" is an adjective being used to describe the sources." The part "some" cannot be used to describe the sources because editors cannot conduct their own review of the sources. The source should make the claim, not the editor. Combining different sources together does not equal "some". This is a clear SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you mean pronoun, not adjective. It's not "describing" the source, it is taking the place of an enumerated "list" of sources which are the nouns "some' is replacing. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: this is ridiculous and a bunch of the parties involved in this are acting ridiculous *slams door* LjL (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

*Oppose mentoring, Support block and editing restrictions - QuackGuru has been editing a long time so I doubt mentoring would help at all. The editor's constant obstructionism, inability to listen to others, refusal to accept consensus, edit warring, and extensive block history justify a lenghty block. There should also be restrictions on their editing, including an indefinite limit on how many reverts can be made each day. Tracescoops (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 00:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support escalating blocks. Clearly repeated short blocks are not working to convince QuackGuru to follow Wikipedia policies. I suggest that he be given notice that from now on the length of each block will be at least double the last block, and perhaps a lot more depending on the nature of the violation. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support blocks. There is a line between constructively following guidelines, and blindly following guidelines. That line has been left far behind. Neutral on the matter of mentoring. If QuackGuru does not understand what we are telling them now, I doubt they will listen to anyone. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks. As stubborn as QG can be, the others in the Manning debacle haven't been helping. Instead of considering a compromise wording that doesn't change the meaning, they're sticking to the very word QG is making such a fuss about. There are better ways to resolve this than sanctions. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

::The consensus for the wording is clear. In any case, we're not here because of a wording issue, but rather because of an edtior's ongoing disruptive behavior. Tracescoops (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "some" was added when it failed V. Tracescoops, you restored the word "some" again when it failed V.[175] This is about your behaviour to ignore policy and a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support escalating blocks. QuackGuru consistently has refused to accept consensus when it has clearly been against him, and that can only be put up with for so long before it requires sanctions. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You were edit warring and you were not able to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Reverting once and then discussing the issue on the talk page, which is exactly what I did, is not edit warring. And I've addressed the verification "issue" (which is really a nonissue) plenty of times now, as have others. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • You addressed the verification issue by claiming it is not relevant? You think supporting text that failed V is appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, and my claim that it is irrelevant is true because it is not an issue of information verification, it's purely an issue of wording. How many times does that have to be repeated to you until you understand it? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support blocks against any editor who is disruptive or edit wars against consensus. If QuackGuru is continually exhibiting this sort of behavior, and has previously been blocked for this behavior, then escalating blocks are already on the table.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My edits to the article were made before most of the discussion began. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Propose 1RR indefinitely - I'm uninvolved in this mess and appalled by what I've read while looking this over. For what it's worth, I have no ill will toward QuackGuru and actually think of them as a good user, if known to be stubborn (which I've been known to be). But frankly, QuackGuru is incorrect here and this is quite possibly in the top 10% of stupid hills to die on. Searching terms like "football royal family" and "football's royal family" yield Nagle's book, soccer stuff about the British royal family, and some various links to NFL related sites ([176], [177]). It is clear that the moniker is not widely used and to suggest it is in Wikipedia's voice is wrong. It makes perfect sense to attribute the opinion of Nagle to the moniker. I cannot fathom what QG is thinking here, but it's clear to me QG has ignored consensus on the talk page, edit warred, bludgeoned, ignored others, and has killed enough horses to supply Elmer's for a year.

Given QG's rather extensive block log, I'm not convinced a block will do much here. I am fairly certain mentoring won't do anything either; this user is a long time editor and doesn't need to be shown the ropes. An article ban will only address this case and a topic ban doesn't make sense here as QG doesn't often focus on sports pages to my knowledge. Rather I'd like to address the pattern of behavior instead of the places it occurs. Looking through QG's block log (see break down here) and sanctions on WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBEC, and WP:ARBACU, edit warring is one of QG's main forms of disruption. Per WP:RESTRICT, I am proposing an 1RR restriction on all pages (except user's own userpages) indefinitely. In the spirit of preventative-not-punative sanctions, this will allow QG to make constructive edits while hopefully stopping the disruption on articles. I know this won't address the horse carcasses on the talk page, but I hope that should such behavior occur again it could be addressed by the community or admins. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The moniker is commonly used. There are at least five sources used in the article. The current text is not attributed to the opinion of Nagle to the moniker. [178],[179], [180], [181], [182]QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not consider 5 sources on the hundreds of articles about the Manning family to be "common". But we're not here to argue about the content dispute; I gave my interpretation of it to demonstrate having reviewed the conflict. Instead, the issue is behavior. Refusing to drop the stick on the content dispute isn't helping. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "It makes perfect sense to attribute the opinion of Nagle to the moniker", but the attribution to the author Nagle was removed by Tracescoops. I'm not the editor who is continuing to make reverts. Check the edit history. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, not the venue to discuss the content of the article. If I want to discuss Manning, I'd go to that talk page (but I don't want to enter this content dispute any further). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Once again, QG, you are presenting information out-of-context and diverting from the real issue here: your disruptive behavior. Yes, new sources were presented by an editor and, as a result, we started a proposal discussion/poll, which resulted in consensus to add the sources and use specific wording. Originally, though, the only source being used was Nagle's book, yet the wording for the "royal family" moniker was in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were fact that the Mannings are royalty. You actually even claimed that it is not an opinion. It was then changed to give proper attribution to Nagle. Finally, after the new sources were given and consenus was reached, the text was updated to its current version. In any case, we're here about your behavior, not about content. Tracescoops (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You are continuing to edit war based on what you call consensus. When you made the original changes there was a discussion about you adding the word "sometimes"[183] when there was only one source being used at the time. I tagged the unsourced part of the claim. On the talk page you were arguing I was wrong. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#The_word_.22sometimes.22_failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support for escalating blocks. My first impulse here was to avoid supporting or opposing this block, because I felt like after the IP provided those additional sources, a reasonable middle-ground solution should have been easily achievable and it reflects poorly on all involved that it couldn't be achieved. Further, I feel like the fact that there is an obvious hounding sock in the mix here suggests that there are bad-faith players on both sides of the content issue. But after seeing QuackGuru's further comments, its clear that this is a massive case of WP:IDHT.

QuackGuru seems utterly incapable of accepting that they can have a solid content argument and yet can still be acting in a highly disruptive fashion. The problem is not what part of speech a single word of prose is, or how that reflects on proper attribution, the problem is this editor's complete inability to attempt to work within the rules of consensus building to make the best case for their preferred approach. They instead prefer to edit war, even when it is clear they are int he extreme minority of an issue, even though they must clearly know this is not going to accomplish anything but to waste a lot of community time and energy. We can be certain they are aware of this (or at least should be), because this user has a massive block log that goes back almost nine years, and almost every one of those blocks is for edit warring. Enough is enough for the WP:ROPE on this editor and his clear disregard for Wikipedia's collaborative model. I support a two week block, a 1RR restriction and Guy Macon's suggestion that each subsequent block for edit warring doubles the length of the previous block for same. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim "But after seeing QuackGuru's further comments, its clear that this is a massive case of WP:IDHT." There was no IDHT on my part because I have a right to disagree over the word "some" when it is unsupported by the sources presented. You claim I prefer to edit war, but it was another editor continuing to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You maybe have the conditional right to contest content you oppose, but you definitely have an obligation to accept consensus when it is obviously and overwhelmingly against you. Again, you are completely missing the point. IDHT doesn't refer to content issues, it refers to behavioural issues. I don't know where you got the impression you have the right to continue doing whatever you think you have to represent the WP:TRUTH, but that's not the case. Wikipedia is not a platform for unrestricted free speech, and participation here comes with a lot of stings attached. We offer a great deal of leeway in content discussions because it is a functional necessity of getting things right that we vet alternative perspectives thoroughly, but you are not entitled to say or do whatever you want just because you feel you are in the right, even past the point where you clearly should be aware that your behaviour is becoming WP:Disruptive. The fact that you cannot figure out where the line is between being certain your are right and doing the right thing under our community standards is exactly why you are here (and, I assume, is also the reason you have been blocked so many times). Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

At the time I made my edits to the page consensus was not established for any particular version. The dispute is only a few days old. It started with the word "sometimes"[184] being added when there was only one source. I am not the only editor who disagreed with the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::Once again, completely out of context. The editor did not disagree with the wording. The editor made the change and was willing to violate the consensus solely to calm you down because of, as sh/e described it, your "bizarre fixation on the word 'some'". The editor even commented on the possible need to "appease" you when sh/e "voted" in the poll, and added that "There isn't really a problem with 'some'". So, while the editor should be commended for trying to put an end to your obstructionism, no article or discussion should ever be held hostage by one editor over the preferences of many other editors. Tracescoops (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Another editor supported the compromise, but you chose to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::Out of context, yet again. The edtior, Isaidnoway, was simply commending the other editor who was trying to appease your "bizzare fixation" after consensus was already reached. But Isaidnoway's "vote" in the proposal poll makes clear which position sh/e supported. Do you seriously not get it? I have no intention of being rude, but the only way I can explain it to you is that editors were simply trying to figure out a way to finally get rid of you after you had already caused so much chaos and consensus had already been achieved. You really need to stop diverting to content issues and focus on the real issue here: your disruptive behavior. Tracescoops (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned here that QuackGuru does not understand what the bigger problem at hand is. Not sure if that is deliberate or not....but I now hold the position that a 1RR restriction may be best for the community. -- Moxy (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support block The editor in question is frequently brought up here. At some point, enough has to be enough. --Tarage (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Blocks + some form of 1rr. QG's editing behavior is routinely like this. Take a position, refuse to budge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I'm in support of everything that's been suggested. Given QG's combative behavior, refusal to drop the stick, and block log length, I'm in support of a block that's at least six months. This user obviously isn't getting it as they are continuously repeating the same argument against those with a different view than them. I should know as this is how I used to be, but I changed, and I was blocked indefinitely at one point for edit warring. However, it didn't take me quite so long to figure out that my behavior was wrong, and I haven't had any problems since my unblocking. Amaury (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• oppose this is a ridiculous argument with a newbie editor Tracescoops who is a WP:SPA about the Mannings and who has obviously apparently even SOCKed during this. SPI filing anon on that. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (modulated this. not certain. should have said it this way the first time.Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC))

::It took me a while to find the page where socks are reported, but I finally found it here. I didn't even know I was reported until I just read this comment by Jytodog. Jytodog's report begins with, "Sorry, this is a really petty thing, but aggravating in its pettiness and the Master has had the audacity to launch an ANI with such unclean hands. The Master is a new user (Feb 25, 2016) and appears to be a big fan of the football Mannings from their contribs. The user got into a silly argument with Quackguru: I will just copypaste the exchange here and it will be as obvious to you as it was to me. It is from the talk section". "Obvious", Jytdog?? That's interesting because I see that it's already been proven that CharlatanGourou is not me, as I've been saying all along! "Obvious"? How foolish you look now. I'm sure there are many editors who make fake accounts to cause trouble, but it's amazing that people can go around in discussions like this, accusing someone of using multiple accounts without any proof whatsoever, especially if they haven't even reported it! Believe me, if I wanted to make that silly little comment to QuackGuru, I would have done it on my damn account, like I've said everything else to them. So to those who accused me of being that user and were "certain" it was me even though you had zero proof - Jytdog, Drmies, Doc James, and of course QuackGuru - go screw yourself! Next time, make sure you're right before you call someone out like that in a forum like this. Tracescoops (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever accused you of being a sockpuppet. I did mention you account was less than three weeks old though which is simply a fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This "proposal for sanctions" is coming with unstated baggage. In this proposal, neither the cause for sanctions nor the proposed sanctions are clearly stated. What I see here is a plan to decide sanctions without stating the offense or judgement of the merit of the offense. More than anything else, I think there is unclear communication here. The parties in the dispute have different motivations and I fail to recognize evidence that there is mutual understanding among the disputants. At the least, I expect to see a clear statement of the offense and confirmation that there is an offense before sanctions are decided. The "unstated baggage" in this claim is that since QuackGuru has been present in editing at contentious articles in the past, then QuackGuru should be presumed as a problem editor. I do not accept that claim and if sanctions are issued then I want them issued on their own merits and not for unstated reasons. Simplify the claim made here. State the offense. From what I see, QuackGuru has a fair reason for doing what they are doing. Specifically - it does seem right to me that attribution for the phrase "royal family" should not be given to one source if there is no confirmation that this source is the origin of the phrase. This seems like a typical wiki sourcing discussion that needs to continue till it comes to a resolution, and sanctions would not advance the conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If QG is that serious a problem - which I don;t believe he is - he's way beyond the stage where mentoring canhelp. Mentoring is only feasible for relatively new editors who are willing to learn, that isn't the case here. BMK (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Following this comment by User:Moxy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

pause for clarification

Perhaps we should decide on a more unified and clear proposal. There have been suggestions (and !votes) for;

• a block,
• a series of escalating blocks,
• mentorship,
• a 1RR restriction and
• a topic ban,
  

as well as unspecified sanctions, and various combinations of 'all of the above' (did I miss anything?). We should determine exactly what it is we're proposing so that we can achieve a clear consensus. - ^theWOLFchild 00:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given QuackGuru's history with edit warring, I would support a block and 1RR restriction. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe best to put into multiple subsections for !voting and ping anyone who's already !voted so they can move their comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

related 3RR report - QuackGuru reported for edit-warring on Peyton Manning (see here)

• Thewolfchild, you reported me to 3RR, but there was no violation of 3RR. Do editors think edit warring is allowed even if they think they are right? Tracescoops was continuing to revert over the text and might of made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours.[185][186][187][188] But it seems editors don't think that is a problem because they are on the right side. Why were editors claiming I was edit warring against consensus before consensus was even established. It was a minor issue over a few days that was blown out of proportion. Tracescoops falsely accused me of making 4 reverts. I started a new discussion on the talk page on March 12, 2016. At that time I made my edits there was no consensus for the changes made by Tracescoops. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• USer:Tracescoops has supported a block of QG while breaching 3RR themselves in the wording dispute and User:Thewolfchild has filled a 3RR against QG with evidence that does not support a breach of 3RR. Nothing wrong with attributing the text in question though QG and consensus now appears to be to use the word "some". QG's last edit to the content in question was on Mar 12th while consensus via the straw pole occurred on the 13th.[189] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet the behavior is still highly problematic and a clear trend. One need not breach 3rr to be edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understand. I simply find it concerning that one of those supporting the block did breach 4 reverts themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a time and place for boomerangs and this clearly isn't it. If you feel another editor violated 3RR, I would suggest filing a separate report. There is long-term, disruptive behavioral issues here and the community is asking that they be addressed. Deflecting will only lead to enabling. QG was edit warring and the report was warranted, just as this ANI is. - ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild you have not provided sufficient evidence to support the 3RR you filled. You would thus do well to withdraw it. This does not mean I am suggesting a boomerang. I do not believe User:Tracescoops is going to edit war further so me filling a 3RR would not be preventative at this point. I am just not seeing the big issue here. Consensus developed today. And QG has not made a change since yesterday. He appears willing to accept the consensus that has developed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to withdraw the report. AFAIC, he was edit-warring, and taking into account his behaviour leading up to that point and his history of edit warring I believe the report warranted. We both know for a fact that a 4th revert isn't the only deciding factor. I've seen others blocked for less. "He appears willing to accept the consensus that has developed." - You must be joking. Just because an ANI/3RR report combo scared QG from further edit-warring, doesn't mean he has "accepted" anything. His continuing contributions to both this ANI and the 3RR, as well as the Peyton Manning talk page, show the exact opposite. He has persistently, vehemently and even defiantly argued his point to death. And still does so, even now. Have you proved the V for the word "some" yet? Because that's what he expects of you, along with everyone else. - ^theWOLFchild 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the time line here:

• 23:36 Mar 12 the last concerning edit by QG
• 00:32 Mar 13 this ANI thread opened
• 05:10 Mar 13 consensus becomes clear[190]
• 05:57 Mar 13 the 3RR tread opened[191]
• 05:22 Mar 14 QG states "Based on my edits I did accept that consensus has formed because I did not revert after consensus was formed on March 13"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely you realize there is a lot more to "look at"...? But, anyway, I'm not here to argue with you Doc. QG was edit warring, and disrupting the talk page with his bizarre form of IDHT/battleground mentality, which he carried to the noticeboards. The 3RR was worthwhile, and while I didn't file the ANI, it was also worthwhile. I suggest you "look" at;

• QG's conduct on the Talk:Peyton Manning page,
• his conduct here at ANI,
• his conduct at the 3RR report,
• the sheer volume of complaints filed against him over the years,
• his staggering block log,
• his unapologetically stubborn refusal to acknowledge any wrong-doing, and
• the mounting consensus and waning patience of the community.

Then perhaps you'll have a better notion of what the real issue is here. You act as if he's innocent and we're all out to get him in some kind of witch hunt. That's simply not the case. Surely you realize there is more here than just a timeline and a missing 4th revert? Res ipsa loquitur, bro. - ^theWOLFchild 06:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay so looking at his block log I am seeing 5 blocks in the last more than 6 years. Is that "staggering"? While I do agree it is more than it should be.

We know that QG gets attacked by a lot of sock puppets such as User:CharlatanGourou among others. So yes when a new account posts evidence against them it deserves a close looking at.

I did not say "you are all out to get him" but there are definitely some who are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, give it a rest. You have repeatedly implied that I am also CharlatanGourou with no proof. Well guess what? I'm not! It took me reading the comment above from the guy who reported it, Jytdog, to even know I was reported. So why don't you stop going around making malicious accusations in forums like this without any evidence whatsoever and, most importantly, without reporting it! If you actually "know that QG gets attacked by a lot of sock puppets", then why don't you gather your evidence and go to that that sock noticeboard to report it. Otherwise, shut up. I was falsely accused by at least four editors on here, including you, of being CharlatanGourou. You all look like fools now. Just saying. Tracescoops (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never once stated or implied that you are CharlatanGourou. We have the sock puppet reports that shows GC has been harassed by sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, if you find my opinions concerning, then everyone can ignore them. Will that affect the impact of the other 15 or so editors commenting here? In any case, this edit by me was the original implementation of the overwhelming consensus. The second one was to restore the consensus content. If I had known that implementing consensus was an edit-warring violation, I certainly wouldn't have done it; I would have asked someone else to do it. So if what I did was an edit warring violation, then I accept that. I'm not sure why the 4 diffs showing 4 reverts in 2 hours 55 minutes by QuackGuru only count as 3 reverts. With regard specifically to edit warring, QG has been edit warring for nine years. So, when an editor referred to the "bright line", I had to look it up to see what it meant. I found WP:EDITWAR, which explains it. However, the edit warring policy goes on to say "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." So if someone, such as QG, has been edit warring and blocked for it many times over many years, does it make any sense to keep applying the soft "bright line" standard? Tracescoops (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Fair enough point. Hopefully a reviewing admin will take that into consideration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, your timeline is significantly out of context and missing a lot of key information. Here's the actual in-context timelines. (All the times are my local times.) First, as the Manning talk page shows, the problems with QuackGuru regarding to the "royal family" issue started Thursday night, shortly before midnight. See the talk page. QG reverted in the Manning article four times late Saturday afternoon. It was during that time that the talk page exploded with QG's non-sensical objections to things like the use of the words "sometimes" and "some", and insistence that the "royal family" moniker was not a peacock term and therefore didn't need attribution. Shortly after that, early on Saturday evening, this ANI was started. Late Saturday evening, the proposal/straw poll thread was started and, other than QG, a unanimous consensus developed quickly. In the wee hours of Sunday morning, consensus was determined and the changes to the article were implemented. Shortly after that (unbeknownst to me), QG was reported at the edit warring noticeboard. About 12 hours later, on Sunday afternoon, QG reignited the "royal family" dispute by complaining about the consensus and text, and it continued for another several hours until QG was reminded about ANI and then discovered that the discussion had just proceeded to the point of sanctions being proposed. Finally, on Monday morning shortly after midnight, after two new sets of sanction proposals were well underway, QG claimed for the first time that s/he agreed with the consensus, and then repeated it on various pages. So, this sudden 180 by QG about accepting the consensus was long after everything else had already happened, and it occurred in the midst of a strong consensus being developed for some type of sanctions. Tracescoops (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You claimed "QG reverted in the Manning article four times late Saturday afternoon." I did not breach the 3RR policy. You reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. I accepted consensus, but that does not mean I agreed with the specific wording. I preferred the compromise wording added by another editor. Rather than reverting during the straw poll discusion I followed WP:TALKDONTREVERT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Limited concrete proposal

I propose the following:

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that each time QuackGuru is blocked for any reason, the length of the block should be a minimum of twice the previous block.

Details:

• This is completely separate from any decision as to what to do about this latest incident. It is meant as guidance for the future.
• This is purely advisory. Administrators are still allowed to use any amount of discretion that they see fit, but are asked to at least consider the consensus of the community on this.
• If an administrator applies a shorter-than-double block, this should not "reset" the suggested escalating progression.
• Blocks that are undone because they were in error or otherwise unambiguous bad blocks should not count. If they are reduced for the same reasons the reduced length should be used as the basis for future doubling.
• The escalating lengths should max out at a year. (Longer? shorter?)
• All of the above details are subject to change, and any admin is free to strike them out and replace them if there appears to be a consensus for the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Support as proposer. Clearly what we are doing now is not effective at convincing QG to follow Wikipedia policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• User:Drmies warned User:Tracescoops for violating the 3RR on March 8, 2016 and User:Tracescoops violated 3RR again,[192][193][194][195] while accusing me of violating the 3RR rule when I did not violate it. User:Guy Macon, exactly what rule do you think I violated. My last edit was on March 12 to the disputed text, but the poll was later on March 13. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trace doesn't have the block log length that you have—in fact, they have no block log at all. Any time it's someone's first offense, discipline isn't going to outright be on the heavy side. No, start with a polite note and then escalate discipline if the user doesn't listen. You have a history of edit warring and are now edit warring again, yet you continually deny it. Amaury (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommend you let Drmies deal with Trace then, QG. You've made your point about their behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral/Ambivalent - I'm torn on this one. Not convinced it will help, but it might. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am reminded of something Will Rodgers[ Citation Needed ] said. He was advocating an increase in military spending, and someone asked "do you think all of these weapons will keep us out of war?" He replied "Well, they sure will come in handy if they don't!" If the escalating block length doesn't convince QG to follow our policies voluntarily, the fact that after a while every new violation will kicks him off the encyclopedia for a year or two will certainly reduce the damage. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support but with the notation that this is the kinder approach and should be used for that reason. The alternative, looking at the long block log and the fact that he hasn't learned and continues to insist on his own right to right great wrongs against consensus would be a Site Ban. If there are three more escalated blocks, treat this as escalating into formal site-ban rather than mere indefinite block. Enough is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If anyone proposes a site ban, I will support it. Enough combative editing over many years is enough. It is true that he is usually right, but sometimes he is wrong, and when he is wrong, he insists on that he is right, and is a net negative to Wikipedia. It's a choice between escalating blocks and a site ban. I will defer to the optimists, and I am not one of them, in thinking that escalating blocks may actually teach him to discuss rather than to push. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support. I like this idea in principle, but I wonder if it isn't going to be completely unwieldy in practice. The admin blocking for any further edit warring is not necessarily going to be aware of this sanction and even if they are, there's a good chance that they still might apply the block length that seems reasonable to them in the circumstances. I wonder if maybe a single long-term block (on the order of several months) might not be better all around, as it would be much easier to effect and would hopefully send the same message that the community is serious about stopping this disruption. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I too would support this, but strongly agree with Snow Rise's concerns. This is essentially passing the buck, hoping another admin will deal with problem later, (but only after QG has been given the opportunity to create more problems that is). I say deal with this issue here and now.
  • Support - minimum 30 day block, followed by indefinite 1RR restriction and 1 year BLP Topic Ban. If that doesn't finally turn things around, then perhaps Robert McClenon's suggestion of a site ban might be necessary. Let's hope not. - ^theWOLFchild 03:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that Thewolfchild filed a 3RR report for a 3RR violation against me, but there was no breach of 3RR by me. Thewolfchild has not withdrawn the 3RR report.
• I think editors are missing the point. Based on my edits I did accept that consensus has formed because I did not revert after consensus was formed on March 13. My edits to the text were on March 12 before there was a consensus for the change. On reflection the issue is not that important to me. After there was a strong objection on the talk page I left the matter for others to decide. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the fact that there is a strong consensus so far in favor of my proposal or something stronger, your arguing that someone miscounted and incorrectly called your 3RR edit warring 4RR edit warring is just another example of WP:IDHT and the Law of holes. Instead of getting bogged down in details (you can be blocked for edit warring without hitting 4RR) could you please address the concerns that multiple Wikipedia editors have with your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I did explain the events in more detail for others to understand when there was consensus. After there was consensus on March 13 I did not make any more changes to the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence shows that you not only did not accept the consensus, but that you argued with the other editors about it for hours afterwards. You also continued to dispute the validity of the consensus here, where you have argued with the dozen or more editors who told you you were wrong. And it doesn't matter if you edit warred before or after the consensus because it's beside the point. Just because you didn't continue to revert doesn't mean you accepted the consensus. You didn't accept it and everyone knows it. They know it because they can read the discussion on the Manning talk page and here to see exactly what you said. The only reason you didn't revert again was because you knew you were already on the edge with regard to edit warring. But after consensus, you continued to fight with everyone, for hours, and held the discussion hostage because you had to "win". Now, all of a sudden, you accept the consensus. You should have done it originally so we could have avoided all this nonsense. In any case, none of your explanations explains your nine-year history of doing these things. Tracescoops (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did accept that consensus was formed because I did not continue to revert. I wanted to make a few edits to the talk page what my concerns were. Another editor tried a compromise, but you reverted that edit. Editors are allowed to comment, start a RfC and seek dispute resolution. I thought it was better to discuss after the poll discussion rather than revert. QuackGuru (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

See, there you go again... repeating your exact same illogical points and completely ignoring what was just clearly explained to you. Again (ugh), just because you didn't revert again does not mean you accepted the consensus. One has nothing to do with the other. You obviously did not accept it. If you accepted it, then you wouldn't have returned 12 hours after consensus and the changes were made, insisting there was no consensus. Your first comment after consensus was "You violated SYN. Please try to come up with wording that is supported by each individual source. Combining different source together is a SYN violation."[196] And you continued your fight with editors for hours after that. Someone who accepts consensus would simply move on, not return to reignite an already-settled dispute. And, again, the sole reason the other editor proposed a "compromise" was solely to get rid of you because no one could actually believe that you started yet another battle when the matter had already been resolved. Your comments throughout this ANI only prove everyone's points and reinforce the need for sanctions. You either just don't get it, or are pretending not to. Tracescoops (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor can accept consensus and still discuss the matter on the talk page. Rather than reverting during the straw poll discusion I followed WP:TALKDONTREVERT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Escalating blocks is a fundamentally sound idea, a 1RR restriction should also IMO be included, and I also think that a block now for a non-trivial amount of time is valid to let the dust settle, but I am open to persuasion on this. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support both escalating blocks and 1RR. The alternative would be a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• User:Robert McClenon you already weight in once in this section above. Please cross out one or join the two. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a hurtful proposal. The intent might not be malicious, but could be just an inappropriate presumption that wrongdoing has occurred and that an accusation is the same as guilt. Whatever the case, it is contrary to Wikipedia:Civility to plan punishments in the context of a content dispute discussion. There is no need to invent odd punishments before an offense is confirmed. It is inappropriate to create a section for developing entertaining punishments for editors when there is not even consensus that they did anything wrong.

Please slow down with the aggressive punishment planning. Back up and have a civil conversation in the text dispute. Apologize, be nice, assume good faith, and avoid hounding other volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - This disallows admins from making judgments on the seriousness of the incident, and is therefore punitive. BMK (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Following this comment by User:Moxy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support- Following this comment by User:Doc James Tracescoops (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Struckout. Editor blocked as sockpuppet. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - BMK brings up an important point. Where does this cross the line between preventing poor behavior, and punishing it. I believe this is that line. I would however back an indefinite 1RR restriction. But that is not a suggested part of this proposal, so I'll place this elsewhere. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• 'Oppose the blocking condition but would support an indefinite 1RR restriction now. Next incident of edit warring should be met with an indef block as the block log is just too rife with edit warring blocks. Blackmane (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• comment, just so everybody is aware, here is what Terascoop's Sockmaster is like - ..... just wow, which was their response to being indefinitely blocked. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• And that account just started Nov 9th 2015. Likely there are more behind it. CU has its limitations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

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.

---

Based on the responses to the above proposal, editors do not feel it would be effective and/or feel that more firm sanctions are necessary. Therefore, I propose the following.

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that based on their block history over nine years of editing and current disruptive behavior under discussion, QuackGuru will be blocked for (TO BE DETERMINED) months, followed by a 1RR restriction indefinitely. If QuackGuru is blocked thereafter, it will be for a minimum of (TO BE DETERMINED) months, with the exact length left to the discretion of the blocking admin or the consensus of the Wikipedia community. After that, the sanction will be a minimum of an indefinite block, again as determined by the blocking admin or community consensus.

If you support this proposal, please replace the two "(TO BE DETERMINED)" insertions with the number of months you prefer, such as "3 months and 6 months". The deciding admin will review the choices and make the final determination. Tracescoops (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per my statement above, I feel at least six months is fair. Given their behavior, I would actually call that a little lenient, but it's not too long and not too short, either. They need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. Amaury (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I fully accept the consensus on the talk page that developed on March 13th, 2016. I was not reverting after consensus was established. I discussed the matter on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite 1RR restriction, and probably also a reasonably lengthy block right now. QuackGuru has been here many times before. Every time, he professes determination to mend his ways, and every time he carries on in exactly the same way. And I say this as one who almost always agrees with the edits QG is making. Truth is, if QG were supporting WP:FRINGE content instead of mainstream he'd have been shown the door long ago - and even then he annoys supporters of scientific accuracy almost as much as he annoys proponents of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Second choice if my "Limited concrete proposal" above does not pass. Consider, if you will, the actual difference in outcomes between this proposal and my proposal with a 3 or 6 month ban and 1RR as a starting point. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a lengthy block and 1RR restriction. I believe QuackGuru has been a net positive to the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. When I deleted an entire article rather than start a AFD discussion or merge the text almost all editors did not have a problem with that. User:Tracescoops did not mention that because they agree with my edits to the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• As per User:Guy Macon - Support as second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• oppose QuackGuru has been a positive editor at wikiproject Medicine/articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community " - no such consensus exists. QuackGuru has delivered many positive outcomes to Wikipedia in medicine and beyond. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This reply is to both users above. Projects a user has been positive on or the user generally having positive edits means squat if they're being disruptive in other areas. Their positive edits should have a role in administrators' decisions, but when a user has had multiple blocks that have done no good as they refuse to soak in the advice, it's time to start getting tough. Amaury (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose When I see an editor who uses one account getting attacked by those who use many (ie User:CharlatanGourou and family) and evidence being claimed to be more than it is such as at the 3RR[197] I am willing to give that editor the benefit of the doubt. While 5 blocks in the last 6 years is more than it should be I would not describe it as "staggering". QG does need to back of sooner but someone with an account less than three weeks old calling for a 3 to 6 months block, meh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Get your damn facts straight, Doc. I never called for a 3 to 6 month block! Either show a diff that proves your claim or retract it and apologize. Tracescoops (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears you wrote above "If you support this proposal, please replace the two "(TO BE DETERMINED)" insertions with the number of months you prefer, such as "3 months and 6 months". The deciding admin will review the choices and make the final determination. Tracescoops (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)" It appears you put in quotes such as "3 months and 6 months".[198] QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's called an example. Amaury (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amaury, but QG knows perfectly well it was merely an example as part of the instructions that supplemented the proposal. Their behavior is now verging on trolling. Tracescoops (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It appeared you were making a suggestion. Your claim "Their behavior is now verging on trolling."[199] I was merely quoting what you wrote and gave my thoughts about what you wrote. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It was quite clearly not a suggestion, especially with the way Trace began the sentence. The wording was clear and not confusing in the slightest. Amaury (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The proposal included the part "insertions with the number of months you prefer". It is clear Tracescoops is suggesting it be months. Not days or weeks. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Some months. Keyword: some. He didn't specifically suggest a specific number. Amaury (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And the QG drama continues. Trolling at its finest. Tracescoops (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"When I see an editor who uses one account getting attacked by those who use many (ie User:CharlatanGourou and family)"... Doc James, you have lodged this allegation against me multiple times in this discussion with zero proof that CharlatanGourou is me. Perhaps you should shut up now because as I've said all along, I'm not CharlatanGourou and the sock noticeboard just proved it. I didn't even know I was reported about it until I saw the comment above from m to even know I was reported. Then I had to figure out where that noticeboard is located. So why don't you stop going around repeatedly making malicious accusations in forums like this without any evidence whatsoever and, most importantly, without reporting it! And if you're so sure that QG is being attacked by some "family", then gather evidence and report it. Personally, I thought CharlatanGourou's comment was silly and stupid, but it was the only edit that account has made. So droning on and on about one nonsense comment from one immature person is a little ridiculous. It's not as if that account was here in this ANI (or anywhere else) trying to get QG blocked. That was obviously a fake account, but I do not see any other editors involved in this discussion who stand out as being fake. Tracescoops (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said you were a sock User:Tracescoops. You are not mentioned in that quote. Another user that was referred to is this one User:Renameduser024 who reported QG here as it appears QG was trying to link some socks together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you thought it was a "fake account" then why did you go to the talk page of the fake account to encourage the account to comment on the discussion? You wrote "Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome."[200] QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, because I didn't realize it was a fake account at the time! I didn't know until I read the comments here about it and someone pointed out how the username was similar to yours. And everyone who had recently participated in the dispute was notified about that discussion, regardless of what side of the issue they were on. So about 10 editors were invited and they all received the identical notification. In any case, you're the last person in the world who should be questioning me about this. How about an apology for repeatedly saying on here that CharlatanGourou was me? Wrong! Tracescoops (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this is just laughable. It is one user being railroaded by another group of users. I find it very hard to believe that a brand new user to Wikipedia is so secure in Wikipolicy and competent enough to do all that he is doing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not stereotyping or a personal attack in the slightest. Not at all... Amaury (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WOW...just wow ...so in the real world all of you would allow a rapist backinto the community just because they do good work for that community . I now fully understand why there is such a problem with behaviour here on Wikipedia.. Ok to be extremely disruptive over a long period as long as you do good work. This is the reason Larry Sanger left the project. - Moxy (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Your hyperbolic comparison of QG to a rapist is very, very close to being a personal attack, besides being completely absurd. Don;t do that again, please, or you're likely to find yourself as the subject of a noticeboard report. BMK (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Railroaded, Sir Joseph? The editor's behavior and history speaks for itself. So give us a break. Tracescoops (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Moxy that comment is not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And how about your "not cool" comments in this discussion, Doc? Pot, meet kettle. Tracescoops (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James would you permit disruptive behaviours in the ER? Would you stand by a doctor who cant follow protocol but does help out from time to time. We are a community with basic behavioural expatiations. The community is more important then one editor...just as in the ER ..not just the Docs ....other there too nurses etc....and all have behavioural expatiations...no matter how good you are. -- Moxy (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What you have tried to do is create a strawman. Comparing a Wikipedia editor to a rapist is simply not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Moxy's point was perfectly valid. It's called an analogy, Doc. Get over it. Tracescoops (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the comment by Tracescoops? I think claiming it is "Trolling at its finest."[201] is unhelpful. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well said, Moxy. Tracescoops (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Moxy's initial comment may have been extreme, and even I didn't really like it—a different example could have been used like the ER one. However, the point is valid. We can't just let a user with a known history of edit warring continue editing with no everlasting consequences for his actions. Amaury (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - QuackGuru is sometimes a problematic editor (so am I, for that matter), but his productive contributions outweigh his negative aspects; he remains a net plus to the project, and the suggested sanction appears punitive to me. BMK (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We probably lose more good editors because of positions like this. People suggestion editors are not replaceable. Getting rid of problem editors would help us gain more editors.Moxy (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be that we lose more editors because some of us don't have the good judgement to know that comparing editing misbehavior to rape is derogatory, disturbing, absurd and totally out of proportion. I think you're done here. BMK (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

BMK, before you attack Moxy for their judgment, you might want to take a look at their block log vs. yours. You've both been editing for about seven years, so those logs tell quite a story. In any case, it's sad that you can't handle a simple analogy. Tracescoops (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, block logs in general aren't a 100% accurate judgment of someone's character as some people can change and learn from their mistakes. Amaury (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, Amaury. However, BMK has been blocked 3 or 4 times in just the past year alone. And I think a pretty accurate judgement can be made about someone when they say something like this. Moxy doesn't have a single block in over 7 years. To me, that speaks volumes. Tracescoops (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on my general principle of opposing sanctions proposed by involved parties. I'm particularly cynical about an account that hasn't even been here a month and yet is able to phrase a proposal which would do any ANI regular proud. The wording indicates someone who is familiar with the norms of ANI. Blackmane (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

So new accounts can't have an understanding of the guidelines and standards of how things work simply because they're new? It's totally impossible that some new users actually read sites' rules. God forbid they do that because that would be the worst thing ever. Looks like I learned something new today. In case it wasn't obvious, that was sarcasm. Amaury (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the type of reasoning why we dont take action with problem editors and have a problem with keeping new ones....if your an old editor you can do what you please....your "new" not even your opinion is relevant. The longer we have people sticking up for problem editors.... the more we will continue to have less and less editors overall - Ochlocracy is not a good thing Admins should not be scarred to take action.....but this has not been the case for almost half a decade now. For all we know the editor your talking about just had a clean start. Just have to say horrible reasoning.- Moxy (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Amaury and Moxy, it's always nice to come across great editors like the two of you. For the record, Blackmane, when I created that proposal I simply began with the "template" from the prior proposal, then incorporated the Wikipedia lingo and sanction preferences stated by other editors. Regardless of your obvious sarcasm, I'm glad you liked my phrasing, but there's really nothing special about it. Anyone with a solid grasp of the English language and good observation skills could have done just as well. Tracescoops (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not at all impossible, new users appear all the time and edit within the site guidelines and policies, entirely through self education. What new users rarely do is unhesitatingly dive in to the hornet's nest that is ANI. Furthermore, I would hardly expect truly new editors to be able to know things like: how to find another editor's block log or what a 1RR restriction is. Considering that Tracecoops has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of Rowssussan, I'd say my cynicism is well founded. Blackmane (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blackmane: See my comment below. I have no problem admitting that I was wrong about this specific user. Amaury (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (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.

new development

So, after a very lengthy debate over the language of a specific sentence that was frustrating for many, but that had finally reached consensus only yesterday... now QuackGuru has opened a new RfC and "straw poll" to re-open the matter. He wants to re-word that same sentence again, only now he wants the word "some" to remain in there and he also wants to add content that is apparently not supported by the attached the sources. The very issue he doggedly railed against for the last three days. And he does this despite the fact that neither the ANI or 3RR against him, both started because of the debate, have even been closed yet, and there are still several editors here calling for him to face a lengthy block. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be funny or if there is a competency issue here, but if someone here knows QG and can reach out to him, perhaps convince to stop this nonsense... please do. - ^theWOLFchild 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did explain this above. It is a different proposal to add context. I am not going on about the word "some". This is only about adding Because of their success,..." I also welcome alternate proposals to add context or improve the text.

The book says "Combine that with a strong work ethic and a love of the game that Archie had instilled in his boys and it's no wonder that Peyton and Eli have been so successful. The result is a legacy that's rarely matched in professional sports. Today, the Mannings have become the country's royal family of football."[202]

You claimed on the talk page "Just to be clear, I don't just oppose your suggestion, I oppose this entire "poll/RfC"."[203] To be cystal clear, you opposed the proposal before there was a RfC. I started the RfC after you opposed since you did not provide a specific reason for opposing the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Apropos nothing, why do you keep having your UP deleted? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, QuackGuru?! And what happened to your whole "I now accept the consensus and don't care about it any more" mantra? Do you ever stop this nonsense behavior? Tracescoops (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a different proposal to add context that does not involve the dispute over the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what it involves. The consensus included the precise wording. This nonsense proves that your claim of accepting the consensus was a bunch of bull. Tracescoops (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You made it clear that you don't care what it involves. That's not being collaborative. You are trying to chill the discussion by claiming it is nonsense when this proposal has nothing to do with the word "some" regarding a previous discussion. The previous discussion was not about including "Because of their success,". It should not turn into a huge discussion at AN/I with me making a new proposal on the talk page. User:Tracescoops, you can explain your position on the talk page about the different proposal and it would be better to WP:FOC on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you ever take a freaking hint? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Honestly, what you are doing is on the verge of trolling. Tracescoops (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was making a good proposal to add a little context. So what is the specific objection? Discussion over content is based on the validity of the arguments. Your argument "Honestly, what you are doing is on the verge of trolling." is not about the specific text. Giving an explanation of why the Mannings have been described as football's "royal family" is not a bad idea. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I struck out comments by Tracescoops. They were blocked as a sockpuppet of Rowssusan. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

that is going to be a lot of work!  :) Jytdog (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Kinda too lazy to strike them all out... wish there was a script for that. That's two scripts I wish I had (the other being a button to add {{ref talk}} to sections similar to how OneClickArchiver functions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In general, I think my comments above still apply. I don't think it's fair to automatically think that all new users who act a certain way are socks or the like; however, with this user specifically, I can admit that I was wrong. Although my stance on QG's edits is still the same. They have a history of edit warring and there have to be consequences for their actions. Amaury (talk) 04:38, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't automatically think that. The case I brought at SPI was valid (and I don't mean that the Tracescoop was blocked; I mean the case I originally brought) Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Not you specifically, just in general. Amaury (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd replied in the above section but in summary, I probably spend more time than is healthy on ANI, but any relatively new user account that shows proficiency in a lot of things that only generally seasoned prowlers on ANI would be familiar with invariably raises alarm bells. The admin boards (AN, ANI, AE, Arbcom, AN3, SPI) are an environment few would choose to regularly inhabit. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Tracescoops is approaching sanctionable behavior

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.

---

This new user is getting overly engaged and angry, and is turning this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, as though Wikipedia is some internet chat board where flaming other people is the norm. Their last 220 comments over the last 6 days have been exclusively focused on this dispute (with a brief departure into presidential candidates). 63 comments to this thread alone. That itself is too much, but this participation includes behavior like:

• making a !vote that is parroting in mockery in this dif that adds no value to resolving things
• again responses that are parroting in mockery here and here that added no value to resolving the problems under discussion
• Making personal attacks based on block logs here and here, that add no value to resolving things.
• this and this about "trolling" and this about "trolling at its finest", again, just battling and not working to resolve anything
• this just piling on attacking after an inflammatory remark about "rapists" was made. This too is not working toward resolving anything,but just flaming.

That is enough for now - and that is just back through some of yesterday. Tracescoops has unfortunately lost it. 'I propose a 24 block of Tracescoops to prevent further degeneration of discussions about these matters across WP' Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog is simply retaliating because I criticized him for falsely accusing me of being CharlatanGourou in this ANI prior to reporting it at the sockpuppet noticeboard, and making other baseless allegations without any evidence to back it up. He implied multiple times at the SPI noticeboard that he would retaliate, like his most recent comment there: "You should cool it, for your own sake". Tracescoops (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I counter-propose a 24 hour block for Jytdog for directly accusing me of being CharlatanGourou in this ANI discussion and doing so before reporting it at the SPI page. As mulitple editors said above, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without filing a report is harassment. He claimed it was "obviously SOCKING", but it was proven to be false. Instead of apologizing, he said, "Hm. Well that result is surprising". Jytdog also returned to my talk page to post a comment, 15 minutes after I asked him not to post there again. Tracescoops (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is pretty much exactly what I meant, by unproductive, BATTLEGROUND behavior. I've mentioned to you a couple of times now that you are being way too intense and should dial it down. Here and here. You've ignored that. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2016 (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.

Moving forward - what next

I just realized that the initial complaint was filed by Tracescoops who is now blocked as a sockpuppet. I boldly closed one section, but feel it much too bold to close the whole thing given my involvement. The "case" has been "poisoned" by misconduct of the filer. Frankly though, given the block of the filer and what appears to be a lack of consensus on the various issues raised, I'd think closing this with no further action would be the best course. I think the issues raised about QG's conduct by other editors can serve as a caution to QG, but to me it seems silly to continue this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be worth just leaving it be for now as other editors have chimed in on the broader aspect of the topic at hand. Also, considering Guy Macon has opened up a proposal it would be best to at least let that run its course. Anything that was opened up by the sock can be wrapped up. Blackmane (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

While QG can be slow to accept consensus our bigger problem is that we have people who simply move from sock to sock. To allow a throw away account to result in sanctions on someones only long term account does not seem right to me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Strong agreement. This should be closed with no admin action required and advice from the closer that QG should pay attention to what was said here concerning his long-term behavior as apposed to the details of the current conflict. Our goal here is should be to keep QG doing good work (and he does do a lot of good work) while discouraging his repeated policy violations. I he stops misbehaving, everybody wins. If he continues, there will be plenty of future opportunities to address the long-term behavior issue. In my opinion, not rewarding sockpuppetry is far more important than dealing with a behavior issue that we will no doubt get many chances to deal with in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2016 (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.

Grave threat of harm made by User: Jytdog

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.

---

Following the procedures outlined at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm to Treat all claims seriously., please be advised that Jytdog made the following threat against me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (section RationalWiki): the anonymity that Wikipedia allows and protects makes this place dangerous for you, and for your own happiness you should restrain yourself from trying to work in Wikipedia and ending with That's all I will say here. As this section deals with substantive issues relating to NSA targeting of Wikipedia, and which this user may possibly be affiliated with, I am sure you can appreciate my level of concern. Thank you. Picomtn (talk) 09:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the diff in question. It is worth reading the entire section to get a handle on the subject matter being covered here and to see the context these remarks are made in. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC).

This doesn't appear to be a threat of harm in any way. Rather, it must be seen as a rather snarky response to your absurd, inappropriate and sanctionable insinuation that two longtime Wikipedia users are "NSA sockpuppets." I think this case calls for a boomerang. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If the NSA are resorting to making this kind of "threat" in random discussions now, they are seriously off their game. You seemed to take Jytdog's remarks in the spirit they were intended in your response in the original thread - seems like a more sensible approach.-- Elmidae (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• This seems petty and worthy of a boomerang.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Having had interactions with Jytdog in a variety of discussions on my talkpage in the past, I can certainly say that he is very dogged (no pun intended) in his rooting out of COI in Wikipedia. His zeal has in the past gotten him into some troubles. That said, if there had been even a hint of COI with respect to David Gerard and RationalWiki, he would certainly have sniffed it out (where do all these puns come from??) While not discounting that Picomtn has some concern, the statements from Jytdog do not rise to the level of threats to safety. The thread on COIN does not portray Picomtn well, but that is probably something that can be worked out in the long run, provided they can put down the conspiracy theory thinking. Blackmane (talk) 09:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

A threat is defined as a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done, and which this statement made against me most certainly is. To the person a threat such as this is issued against, it is not in their purview to ascertain either the validity or the intention of it. The only response a threatened person can make (and which WP policies dictate) is to report that threat to those able to ascertain its validity, which I have done. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – I am snowed by all the comments so I cannot provide a Diff but editor Jytdog made a similar statement in an earlier comment to Picomtn but in the earlier comment I think Jytdog was trying to warn Picomtn against self-harm. On this 2nd go-around that perspective is less clear but I still think Jytdog continues to mean the same thing: Don't hurt yourself, Picomtn. Cheers! PS: Do an edit-source of this thread to see how Lankiveil provided the Diff that cements the statement you merely put in italics. Diffs are very powerful in quickly getting your point across. They are like citations for what you are saying. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:31, 15 March 2016 (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:Maybeparaphrased: New editor stubbornly resistant to learning/following/caring about the rules. What to do?

User:Maybeparaphrased has only been editing for a month and (not surprisingly) has already encountered a few problems.

But now I have encountered a troubling pattern that, if not addressed now, will likely just get worse as Maybeparaphrased encounters other editors.

I came across this series of virtually identical and unsourced edits by an IP: here, here, here and here. In each case, not only were they not sourced, but they simply didn't fit where they had been placed. It was pretty obvious that this IP was attempting to place this same info on every single page where the subject was listed - whether it belonged there or not.

So I tried to correct it, by reverting those edits. When I got to the actual Hank Bergman article, it was an unholy mess and looked like this.

Thru a series of edits, I removed extraneous sections and non-encyclopedic fluff and now the article looks like this. But with my first edit, Maybeparaphrased decided to revert my edit there, as well as all my edits on those other pages as well. What followed was a series of notices left on my talk page and a series of back and forth on Maybeparaphrased's talk page: where I was repeatedly, threatened, four, times and curiously - after posting on my talk page, twice, - was told to stay off his/her talk page. When I advised Maybeparaphrased that threatening editors on his/her talk page for making constructive edits - especially since he/she was unfamiliar with the editing guidelines & policies - wasn't going to fly, was itself a violation and likely could backfire, I got the response that I should "take your alphabet soup of WP policies someplace else".

Again, Maybeparaphrased also reverted my edits on those other other pages, here, here and restored the non-encyclopedic, largely unsourced and irrelevant fluff on the Bergman page.

Obviously, it's ok to be newbie. You can even be an ass. (It's even ok to be an IP.) But if you're going to not only ignore the rules, but attack people who point out what the rules are, then you're definitely going to be a problem editor down the road - and some action should be taken now.

While I'm not recommending a block for the reverts, or the threats or even the stalking, I am definitely recommending guidance and monitoring for Maybeparaphrased. Before more serious action has to be taken against a newbie who doesn't think the rules apply to him/her and already feels he/she can operate without any repercussions. Any thoughts? Thanks.2602:306:BD61:E0F0:1DD3:FAF0:D888:A273 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a probable sock of the other Interesting to note: Bergman SPAs Legwarmers1980, FranciscoFWPerez, etc. and IP Bergman SPAs (someone else can list those). Someone probably needs to take some time to round them all up and file an WP:SPI. As a stop-gap measure, at the very least a topic-ban on Bergman probably needs to be enacted, and if they revert back to IP editing, then maybe semi-protection of the affected pages. See Update 1 below. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update 1: Looks like the OP merely got caught up in Maybeparaphrased's over-zealous use of Twinkle. When an IP blanks a section, it's fairly normal for someone to notice that in Recent Changes, and revert it. Maybeparaphrased then checked the IP's other similar edits and reverted them as well via Twinkle. OP, that's the breaks of not being a registered user: Your edits are more suspect, especially if you blank sections and remove a ton of content with the edit summary "format fixes", and when your IP account is only one day old and an SPA. I suggest registering an account if you don't want to be mistaken for a drive-by SPA in the future. Maybeparaphrased, please stop reverting this good-faith user's edits. IPs are people too. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 10:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update 2: The edit history of Sherman Bergman is a hotbed of Bergman SPAs including IPs. I'm mentioning this because that article is now at AfD. Here are the registered-account SPAs I've found so far:
• FranciscoFWPerez
• Legwarmers1980
• PeterHeughan
• Alainchristian1960
• Mississippitruman
• Angelsunchained
• CliffHarper
• Eugenejerome
• Eddiecoyle1973
• Royalfleming
• TimBaker1941
• PainlessPeterPotter
• LeifSchumeucker
• BusRiley1965
• Lennybaker
• Desiree1954

That's not counting the IP SPAs on that article. Pinging Bbb23 and Binksternet -- do either of you feel like doing an SPI before that article gets deleted and the edit history disappears from view? Or is it even worth it at this point? Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

All of these accounts share an interest in promoting Sherman Bergman, which is an interest also shared by Sherman Bergman himself. It appears that Bergman realized in his youth that by working at the newspaper he could get his own name in print, which he did frequently. However, the newspaper was always the Miami Herald where he had contacts. There's no national coverage.

Named the same as one of the SPAs here, there's a Flickr account named Legwarmers 1980 which contains scans of the various newspaper clippings about Sherman Bergman and his father Hank. These are supposed to serve as references. I don't think Wikipedia needs this article, so I voted 'delete' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman Bergman (2nd nomination). I would bet that any account working primarily on Bergman's bio is a sock account. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks very much for the additional sleuthing. The same collection of SPA socks and IPs created Hank Bergman, a vanity article on his father, almost entirely cited to that same Flickr account. The OP gave it a trim-down but it still should probably be axed as well. Take a look. Care to do the nomination? Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You are already halfway there, Softlavender. You have the green light. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I'll probably do it in a day or two. Not feeling like filing an AfD at the mo -- I don't use Twinkle (maybe I should start). Someone should remind me if I forget to do the nom. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've nominated Hank Bergman for deletion. This thread can be closed, since the misunderstanding that led to it has been resolved. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page in Hebrew

The IP user 109.64.100.131 has just posted the following on my talk page in Hebrew:

שונאים אותך בכל העולם קליפטוניאן ההומו

אין לך חיים הא? תתאבד כבר תעשה טובה להורים שלך ותהרוג את עצמך כל היום 24/7 על ויקיפדיה עורך ערכים מה קרה ישראלים הביאו לך כאפות יא ילד מסכן יא מושפל חחחחחחחחח תתאבד תהרוג את עצמך אין לך חברים כולם שונאים אותך המשפחה שלך שונאת אותך תשים קץ לחיים שלך קח אקדח ותירה לעצמך בראש אף אחד לא אוהב אותך אף אחד לא אהב אות כולם צוחקים עלייך אל תחזור לישראל אף אחד לא רוצה שתהיה פה יא חתיכת יצור אובססיבי מסריח כל מי שרואה אותך נגעל ילדים קטנים מפחדים ממך וכל הבנות גם בישראל וגם מהמדינה שלך חושבות שאתה יצור מכוער ילד כאפות מסריח אמן מחבל ידקור יזיין את אמא שלך ויכניס אותה להריון ויצא לך אח מחבל ערבי שכל היום ירביץ לך יא קוקסינל מסריח איך אתה 24/7 שעות על ויקיפדיה איך? אין לך חיים? חחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחח

My own translation, retaining grammar errors etc:

They hate you in all the world Cliftonian you gay

You've got no life, eh? Kill yourself already do some good to your parents and kill yourself all the day 24/7 on Wikipedia making edits what's going on Israelis slapped you up you miserable and humiliated kid hahahahhaha kill yourself kill yourself you have no friends everybody hates you your family hates you put an end to your life take a gun and shoot yourself in the head nobody loves you nobody loves you everyone laughs at you don't come back to Israel nobody wants you to be here you piece of obsessive stinky creature everyone who sees you gets disgusted little children are afraid of you and all the girls both from Israel and from your country think you are an ugly creature a stinky bullied child Amen terrorist will stab you will fuck your mother and get her pregnant and then there will come for you an Arab terrorist brother that all day punches you you stinking shemale how are you 24/7 on Wikipedia how? don't you have life? hahahahahhahahaha

I hope appropriate action will be taken.

All the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

They've made similar attacks on their talk page. clpo13_(talk) 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion has temporarily blocked the IP and the attacks have removed from the edit history. Hopefully this is the end of the matter, as it is a shame that Cliftonian has had to deal with such ugliness. I almost closed this discussion as resolved, but then thought better of it because I wanted to add that the attacks here are of such an unhinged and disturbing nature that I would personally support a longer-term block of the address and further measures if the attacks resume after this initial block. Cliftonian should definitely feel encouraged to be proactive here in reporting any further abuse. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we expunge the quoted attacks above? It seems rather counterproductive to leave them there... GAB^Hello! 22:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened: the same thing happened back in October (see 6–8 October 2015 here). The overall message is fairly similar and it's probably the same person. As in that case I have chosen to leave this evening's message on my talk page with an English translation so people can see it. I will report any more of this. Thanks for the support. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: take them off this page now if they really disturb you, but I would really rather have it left on my user talk page with an English translation. It is important to me that people know that this was written to me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cliftonian, I'm really sorry that you were subjected to this level of abuse. It really justifies a long block. I was just wondering if anyone else thought it should be removed. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I'd really rather have it left up on my talk page, if that's okay. This iteration I've copied here I have no problem having taken down if others would prefer. Thanks for being sympathetic. I'm off for the night now, cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Good night, GAB^Hello! 22:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Before this user went completely off the rails, they started edit-warring on various pages, then revenge-templating on my talk page. I had reported them to 3RR and went out for awhile. I come back to see they continued edit-warring, then vandalizing and then of course the absolutely disgusting comments about Cliftonian on their talk page. There is also a report against this user pending at SPI. For all this... they only get a 48 hour block? Double-you-tee-eph to that. - ^theWOLFchild 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can always get a community resolution started here to increase the block. The thing is, with IP's, who may in fact represent numerous different editors sharing an ISP, it is generally considered appropriate to block short-term because the block might otherwise end up restricting other parties than that bad-faith actor (who may have moved on to a new address in some instances anyway) meaning the cost-benefit analysis of a long-term block is a little different from the same sanction directed against a named account. However, in this instance, given the nature of the comments, it seems appropriate to take the strongest available measures that we can without catching others in the net. Can you point us to the SPI in question? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering that more disruptive editing is coming from the same 109.6x.xxx.xxx range, both a lengthier block as well as a range block is order. - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I sympathize with your views. I considered extending the term set by the blocking admin when I revoked talkpage access and deleted the revisions, but left it alone. One of the problems with The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit is that IPs move on and start again somewhere else. I generally block for about a week for this sort of thing, unless evidence suggests a static IP. I'll take a look at the rangeblock potential, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion - Actually the block should be extended at least for the edit warring (see 3RR report) - ^theWOLFchild 03:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring's the least of their problems. Rangeblocks are impractical - the smallest range I could find to block was a /16 range, which is too big. Since their address appears to change on roughly a weekly basis I've upped the block on that IP to two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It may appropriate to apply semi or full protection to Cliftonian's talk page for a while. If it comes down to it, permanent semi protection to the main talk page could be applied while an "for communication with IP's" sub page is created. Blackmane (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparent misblock of well-intended IPv6

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.

---

This looks like an IPv6 trying to do good got clobbered by a goof.

2602:306:3357:BA0:6078:5A12:A559:D5C8 (talk · contribs) filed an AIV report against 99.22.217.170 (talk · contribs).[204] 99.22.217.170's contribs show lots of section blanking that was reverted by many different editors. A block for 99.22.217.170 seems appropriate, but the admin blocked the IPv6 (A559:D5C8) instead; the IPv6 had made the AIV report and had undone some of the vandalism.[205] I left a message on the admin's talk page, but if this is an error, it should be fixed quickly. Glrx (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. More complicated. Looks like Spencer blocked the IPv4 from the AIV report.[206] Glrx (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The same IPv6 has been blocked per checkuser in the past, for periods up to six months. Why not ask User:Mike V or User:Elockid to look into it before unblocking. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

KK did edit war block.[207] Glrx (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Striking. My goof. IPv6/64 did good in one place but edit warred in another place. Glrx (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2016 (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.

IP hopper returns

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.

---

User:86.187.174.54. Related to the Numerous other entries above by yours truly. Eik Corell (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Dealt with, Eik Corell. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (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.

Niall Mellon

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.

---

Niall Mellon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Continual vandalism by a number of SPA IP editors, possibly all the same person. The article was relativly balanced and well sourced but the IP editors determined to remove certain facts, and also posting opinions on other editors in the main article here. A few other editors have been watching over the article and reverting but some Admin involvement would be appreciated please. 79616gr (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocks thrown around, semi-protection in place. This has been going on for some time; if need be, report again at WP:RFPP. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2016 (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.

Gilgit Baltistan

User SheriffIsInTown being a shia muslim has made controversial edits [208] with an intent to show Gilgit Baltistan a shia majority area. His edits contained 2 sources which I proved self contradicting with in themselves and also with these 9 independent sources which I provided. [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217]. If you review all the material you will safely conclude that Gilgit Baltistan is a Sunni majority area. I tried very hard to make him understand wiki pedia policy that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content Still he edit warred. I made a balance edit [218] which shows both side of coin containing all 11 sources (9 mine and 2 his) but he and few admin/users influenced by him are not allowing the edits by me. Admins should be restoring Wikipedia policies but un fortunately they are not. Please some independent admin intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Content disputes are not decided at ANI. I can see that involved article talk page discussion has been ongoing with editors taking several different position on these content changes. If the dispute is about the reliability of your sources, please bring the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you are unable to resolve the edit questions, please take the dispute to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and enlist the help of a mediator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that there has been sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert at that article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• As far as I am concerned, this IP should be blocked as a sock-puppet of LangaugeXpert and my advice to him is that he should take a break of at least 6 months and then come back and apply for a standard offer and contribute productively instead of creating a new sock-puppet every few days. Only then he might be allowed to edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IP trolling at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism

Previous discussion: [219]

At Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, a sockmaster keeps on returning under different IPs after a page protection expires. Just recently, a page protection had expired yesterday and the sockmaster has returned today edit warring and being disruptive. Here is a list of their used IPs (bold is the recent one):

Is it even worth filing an SPI complaint or even use a range block? They will just keep coming back. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Do you know who the sockmaster is? Smells like Mikemikev or Blastikus to me... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. I only got myself involved with these IPs through an ANI complaint and have the page on my watchlist ever since. My history with this person is very little. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've just updated the list now the IP is back with another sock. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 weeks. It's not Mikemikev who is now in the UK. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the page protection. Doubt it's Blastikus since they're quite stale by this point... but it's possible. Or just a new vandal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's Blastikus. They are both dumping loads and loads of purported sources on the page and using original research in a pretty characteristic fashion. For example, see the contribs of sock Joel Slovo. GAB^Hello! 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a match... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Reference Desk/Humanities

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.

---

Yet another sock of the antisemitic troll needs a banning. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Report them as sock of Soft skin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over on WP:SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:45, 13 March 2016 (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.

Latest IP's of a troll

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.

---

Last AN/I entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked 86.187.160.8 and have now blocked User:86.187.165.80, the latest IP used. P.S. And semi-protected Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six‎ for a couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2016 (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.

Craig Murray

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.

---

Article on Craig Murray. An IP editor, User talk:86.179.232.251, who identifies himself in the edit summary as Craig Murray himself, persists in restoring legally sensitive material about the Julian Assange case, breaking the WP:BLP policy in libeling one of Assange's alleged victims. Obviously, there is no reliable, third party, source for Murray's claims

In the comments to this blog entry, Murray also outs himself as the editor of his own article. Philip Cross (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, he can out himself if he wants wherever he wants, but he's not editing this article for a week because I found the protect button and used it. Katie^talk 20:49, 15 March 2016 (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:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment

Both of these users User:Mhhossein and User:Saff V. have been involved with me in various content disputes. The pattern of editing is that one of them will place some highly POV or hagiographic text in an article, when it is taken out they will either try to force me to abandon my efforts or they will try to intimidate me. This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack and shift the topic of discussion from the article to the editor. Their modus operandi involves

1. Reverting my cleanup edits with the sole reason being "You do not have my consent".
2. Repeated reports frivolous and false reports at Administrator noticeboards which were declined with no action. for example This , This huge huge discussion that was useless and this latest discussion.
3. Repeated reverts without giving any reason. Like here
4. Reverting with the excuse that there is "ongoing discussion" even when the discussion at TP agrees with my edits and un involved editors go as far as to thank me.
5. Making statements to the effect that "I just reverted you but I will not discuss It, I am going to ping some of my friends, discuss with them". like here

Now it is quite clear that these reports and long drawn out thread like discussion take a toll on everyone. So I am proposing that as per policy at WP:IBAN an interaction ban be imposed indefinitely.

• Both users are banned from editing my user and talk pages;
• Both users are banned from replying to me discussions;
• Both users are banned from undo my edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

The gist of the matter is that these guys have been harassing me for like 2 months now and an I-Ban is the best thing for everyone. Admins and other users will not have to waste time in the reports and the long discussions that follow. Hossein and SaffV will be able to edit and add to the wikipedia so we are not loosing editors, and I can get back to editing like a normal person without being dragged to ANI or 3PR everytime I edit an article. I am pinging some people who have been involved in this since the onset. Pinging User:Drmies (who will be pissed that he has pinged once again, but pleased that this will be a permanent solution) and User:Jeppiz(we disagree off and on, so balances out the canvass :P). People with the latest input in this @ 3pr thread were User:Malik Shabazz, User:Dr.K. and User:BlueMoonset. People who contributed to the long debate a month ago were User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:HyperGaruda. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally seeing enough diffs to justify the accusations of harassment or the extensive I-Ban as proposed. Reverting wholesale removal of cited information, especially when it completely gutted the article, is not harassment. Reverting the removal of a massive amount of cited text while a discussion is ongoing and before there is any consensus or WP:DR is not harassment. Plus you are complaining that one of the users pinged two supporters in a conflict with you, but you just now pinged six+ of your own supporters in this ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender the removal of a massive amount of cited text is allowed when you take a look at the TP and see that everyone except one guy is for removing it. You can check the dates of TP discussion and my "removal". I am not complaining that he pinged other users. My complaint is simpler. "He never bothered to engage in discussion, rather he reverted and told me that he will not even discuss". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about that POV/quotefarm-removal edit, but one diff is not enough to prove your case. Also, I don't see SaffV refusing to discuss with you, however I do see him struggling with English and asking for help. And in any case per WP:BRD you needed to gain talk-page consensus for your gutting of the article before attempting to do that again, but there was no such consensus and you edit-warred and kept gutting it. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the I-Ban as construed above. Editing on different sides of contentious topics is no cause to ban someone from reverting one's edits. Better all three editors should receive a widely construed topic ban on all of these sorts of articles. Since that is unrealistic, there are probably Arb sanctions like DS in force for these articles, and if not, perhaps a 1RR or 2RR restriction should be instituted so that WP:DR is always used in these content disputes rather than edit wars and ANI filings. Beyond that, the OP is, like anyone, free to ban anyone from his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Interaction ban with Mhhossein, their baseless accusations have been seen at enough boards over an extended period of time to be considered harrassment now. No comment on other user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better take another look at the reports. What you called "baseless accusations" were not actually baseless (see my notes below-#2) . Mhhossein (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: To be frank all what came above was to me just Victim playing (I suggest the users to have a look at that page) by trying to "diverting attention away from his acts of abuse" and/or "soliciting sympathy from others". Let's see the real fact behind his accusations.

1. He said:"This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack!" the users who have experienced interacting with FreeatlastChitchat know that he has repeatedly attacked various users (not only me or the other reported user) and I don't think being "biated" (if we assume has happened) is a suitable reason for calling others "Liar" or telling others that you have "mental disease." Fortunately, the so called huge discussion has turned into a collection of FreeatlastChitchat's personal attacks and uncivilities, where among other things he used the "F" word and its derivatives multiple times and called users "Imbecilic liar" so that he received a heavy warning from an admin [220].
2. What he calls "frivolous and false reports" (such as the mentioned ones) were mostly stemming from his inability to participate in the talk page discussions, tending to make mass removals and using "colorful language", and that's why he's a user of being reported by various users on a monthly basis. By the way, I would not call them "false" as they led to warnings or cautions, at least. For example, in the "huge discussion" the closing admin told me that my comments were fine, followed policy, and were very helpful. Moreover, I think FreeatlastChitchat (the reporter) forgot to mention that this report where the closing admin said there were "major civility issues with FreeatlastChitchat's mode of dialogue with other Wikipedians, as evidenced by their posts here in this discussion and by their talk page contributions elsewhere."
3. Nearly always, I have tried to engage in discussions on the talk page and to build a consensus (you can see my activity on the TPs). Getting thanks from users has no special meaning. At least it does not necessarily prove that one's edit had been toward the consensus, specially where there had been no clear consensus on removing or keeping something.
4. Although per a suggestion from a user, I had aimed to drop some issues off, I have to take fresh personal attacks by FreeatlastChitchat here; He told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis", even noted by uninvolved users. Among other occasions as stated above, he violated civility by using "have his arse on a silver platter". I don't deem it a polite language. Do you?
5. As its seen, he did blatantly canvassed nearly six users and I avoid doing so.
6. I don't need "I" or any other types of bans. I can gently interact with users on TPs. I think this is FreeatlastChitchat (blocked multiple times) who does not know how to do it. He was also asked by admins "to treat other Wikipedia contributors with respect and dignity", tone his language down (in the huge discussion) and to practice democracy. Mhhossein (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you say you feel abused by me. Then an I-Ban is actually in your favor. With the Iban in place I will not be able to talk to you or about you. So basically I am doing you a favor here. If you are actually true in saying that I have abused you then you should be in favor of an I-Ban not against it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No! Now that you've came up with this report, all those uncivilities and personal attacks should be taken care of. I'm not, of course, the only editor whom you offended and abused. So, you've to learn how to interact with others. Mhhossein (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I violated no policy while interacting with you, so Why I-Ban on me? Mhhossein (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just here to say good luck to everyone. One day you will all be blocked indefinitely if you keep going like this--though I guess it's nice of Freeatlast to seek a solution. However, iBans are usually more trouble than they're worth, as the regulars know. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: Thanks, I just wanted to recall you something. You know much more than me, of course. Mhhossein (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Somehow I didn't get the ping by Freeatlast. I came here after checking the report at 3RRN. My only comment here is that I don't appreciate being labeled as Freeatlast's "supporter". I appreciate Freeatlast's removal of the WP:QUOTEFARM from the Iran-US incident and I have thanked him for it. But agreeing with an editor on an edit, does not make you a "supporter" of said editor. This type of characterisation is not helpful because it unnecessarily labels editors who agree on constructive edits. Dr. K. 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Maybe if you'd stop pushing a pro-sunni POV, people would stop getting angry with you, freeatlast. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a boomerang: The reporter was unable to show his case as the other user said and his report is nonsensical to me. Moreover, he were impolite enough recently. After calling other users liars, imbecilic liar and saying uncivil things multiple times and after multiple warnings by admins to tone down his language, he still show tendency to make personal attacks and be uncivil. I think this a boomerang case. His major civility issues is not resolved yet. His major civility issues are not resolved yet.

Talk pages are suitable place for talk and after conclusion edit articles. The reporter way is: 1. deleting all text and make an incomplete article without any talk or summary 2. when me or another user revert his/her edit, he/she undo without reliable reasons 3.in the last time when me say to add your reason in the talk page, he/she write meaningless and biased sentences and attack. The reporter must learn to use talk page first and then do major edit. Topic ban is better way for him or her.Saff V. (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang: Freeatlastchitchat certainly has serious problems regarding WP:CIVILITY issues. I see that he's also done several personal attacks. One of my experiences interacting with him/her was at [[221]], where he was impolite and used sentences like this: “Don't worry we are not blaming you for "decorating" lol” or “It does not matter what you think”. The fact that he do major edits at articles without explaining them at talk page or trying to participate talk page discussions, like what other editors said, is another serious problem of Freeatlastchitchat. This is while some users pointed out to him that observe this rule but he don’t pay attention. Hence, I think Boomerang is a suitable idea. I also see that he has canvassed multiple users! There were many other users participating in those previous reports and It's interesting that he did not canvassed those who opposed him before.Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 when you show even a single edit outside an Iran/Shia hagiographic article, then you can give an opinion. Of course you want me banned, so you lot can just continue to add whatever you want to your beloved articles without anyone reverting your pov edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat, do you oppose the view that "Freeatlastchitchat kept on making uncivil comments and making personal attacks" although you were warned by admins to be careful about that?Lstfllw203 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 I oppose the view that you can give neutral input in this situation, seeing that you are trying your best to WP:CENSOR anything that portrays Iran in a bad light. BTW you appear to be a WP:SPA seeing that you only edit Iran/Shia things and nothing else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FC's uncivil comments: Fresh cases of Freeatlastchitchat's uncivil comments: " your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong" (all in [222]). I don't know when this will finish. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein when you revert me "just for fun" I have all the right to say that your edits appear childish to me. Your English WAS childish, to be frank even children write better English. As I said before "If you are writing an article, I have literally no beef whatsoever with what kind of English you use, I will be hay to coy edit your creations". However, when you REVERT me and just for the hell of it replace my English phrases with complete gibberish, then my friend I have all the right to label your English as childish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I never reverted you for fun. I would not call other editors as such! Mhhossein (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein then how can you explain your replacing the words Ardeshir Hosseinpour was killed by gassing with Ardeshir Hosseinpour was died because of gassing. ? What reason do you have? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of interpreting a dubious death as "assassination", you could simply remove that excess "was", what I forgot to do. --Mhhossein (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Community Input concerning a Series of Potentially Unfortunate Edits and their Contributors

Former section header: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Edits. EEng

Pinging the following users to this discussion:

@WikiConqueror:, @Loriendrew:, @CactusWriter:, @NawlinWiki:, @Randykitty: @Grandma.ricky: @Ginger1774:

A few days ago I was doing pass through the csd articles with an eye on those that were potentially contested. In that capacity I reviewed the article Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period), which was alleged to be csd eligible on G4 grounds (recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion). Since I could not find the article's afd I had to search to locate the original article, and discovered that the reason the article had been created with a period was in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the page creation protection at the article's original name Lisa Christine Holmberg. In the course of my review of the article to determine the validity of the csd tag I found the afd, but learned that this article has an apparent fan train behind it. That fan train appears to be pushing an agenda to keep the article on Wikipedia despite having been repeatedly informed that there is currently no place for the actress on this site at present. Over the last several days I have observed the account behind the article and have come to the conclusion that the person pushing to have this article on Wikipedia may have reached the point of disruptive editing, and as such I would like the community and the admin corps take a closer look and decide if any action on this matter is warranted.

Lisa Christine Holmberg is apparently an actress wannabe whose got an apparently small but loyal fan base. She' got no awards, no major casting roles, no schooling history (she was home schooled), and as such, no shelter under any criteria set forth under WP:NOTABILITY for the article remain on site. Even the more specific acting guidelines do not offer any sanctuary for the article to remain. The initial attempt to create this page was shot down under G12 copyright violation as Ginger1774 (talk · contribs) had apparently taken the article from imbd, a source whose use on Wikipedia is questionable based on the manner in which it is employed to begin with. After being deleted by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) for copyright infringement the article was recreated about an hour later by Ginger1774 very near the original version. This recreated version was deleted about four hours later by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). This time only about two hours passed before Ginger1774 recreated the article for a third time. As with the first two csd-based deletions, this version was nearly identically to the first two csd-deleted versions. Again the article was tagged for speedy deletion, but this time I new account going by the name Grandma.ricky (talk · contribs) removed the csd tag (before after) in what looks very much like an orchestrated attempt to keep the article on site. On 30 October 2014, the article was proposed for deletion by Amortias (talk · contribs). At the same time, Amortias sensed something amiss about the article, and posted an ANI notice about a possible sock or meat team working the article. At the time, this was judge to be a non issue, and the post was closed without any action taken. Right about this time Ginger1774 ceased editing, and Grandma.ricky took over the primary editing for the account. A long string of edits were then made by Grandma.ricky up to the article, which at that time was undergoing an afd which was closed as delete on 7 November 2014. A little more than two hours after the afd deletion of this article, Grandma.ricky recreated the article (again), which resulted in a csd tag about 30 minutes later. After this final deletion, CactusWriter creation-protected the article. No further activity occurred with the article until February of this year, when WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) recreated the article at Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period) in what looks very much like a deliberate attempt to circumvent the article's creation protection. After a week on site Reddogsix (talk · contribs) tagged the article speedy deletion, resulting in my having moved the article to its actual name and then deleting it once the afd background information was confirmed.

On its own this could be taken as over-zealousness towards the creation of an article, but it goes deeper than that. The three primary accounts that have worked on this article have minor contributions outside the article specifically, but ALL of their edits seem to be focus almost exclusively on Lisa. The Grandma.ricky account made all edits to the Lisa account, as such there is no evidence to show definitively that the this account had brown-nosed others to keep Lisa on site, however after Grandma.ricky's account ceased editing and Ginger1774 started editing that changed. Ginger1774 added Lisa to the list of people from Elgin, Illinois and created a page for The Hemmens Cultural Center (also in Elgin Illinois), where Lisa allegedly had minor vocal performance roles. Edits were also made to the article we have on Elgin, Illionis to link the predominance center in what I am guessing was a conscience effort to get more page views for the actress. The account also edited the article Elgin Community College, however this appears to be the only case where I can not discern a conscience attempt to promote Lisa.

That brings us to the currently active account WikiConqueror (talk · contribs). WikiConqueror's edits have continued to edit for both lisa in particular and for Elgin, Illios generally. These include creating the article Elgin Children's Chorus which Lisa sang in at age 7, Jenne Lennon (apprently someone else from Elgin, Illinois), attempting to add a link to the draft of Lisa int he article name space at List of people from Elgin Illinois, creating the West Suburban Home School Band article which Lisa apparently was a part of, creating the holiday showcase article which Lisa acted in, The Planets Gala Concert with Lenard Nimoy which Lisa participated in, re-adding a link to the recreated Lisa article in our List of People for Elgin Illinois article, creating the page The Neighborhood Watch which Lisa had a role in, creating The Undercover Squad which Lisa had a role in, creating the page A Concert of Remembrance which Lisa had a role in, and creating the Metropolis Performing Arts Cetner where Lisa preformed. On top of that the user has been working religiously on Draft:Lisa Christine Holmberg despite the fact that the article has been repeatedly declined for publication ([223] [224] [225] [226] [227]). In each case the user has been soliciting feedback for the reason for the draft having been declined, however I can not say for sure if this is just the newness of the user or if it is a deliberate attempt be problematic.

Although as I have shown above WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) has been working the Lisa Christine Holmberg article angle hard, it is also a fact that the user has had some useful contributions away from Lisa as a general topic. I think the account could be useful in the long run, but I take the repeated work on Lisa Christine Holmberg on the associated articles for her life's history as red flag, particularly in light of the early attempts by Ginger1774 and Grandma.ricky to protect the article. I am asking for community feedback here on whether or not action should be taken on this matter. Speaking for myself, I would entertain the idea of a topic ban for the WikiConqueror account prohibiting the account from editing any articles on or related to Lisa Christine Holmberg to see if that helps the situation any, but that's me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, TomStar81. I made the new Lisa Christine Holmberg page, simply because I genuinely thought that the actor met Wikipedia notability. Other users had told me so. But apparently that's very subjective. As you can see, I've taken your advice and stopped working on that article for now. I'm keeping the draft going while I find more information and wait for the subject to become more notable. I do hope to eventually make the article since I've done so much research at this point, but if I need to wait, I understand and will. Notice I didn't recreate it. I know that you're just trying to do what's best for Wikipedia, and I respect that. I did make some articles that were about projects Lisa had worked on, but that's because I'm a fan. Is that a problem? Fans edit all the time on Wikipedia, and they're the ones that are motivated to do the necessary research on the topic. I don't want any trouble, and I'm not making biased articles. I always love it when other users work on my draft, and I encourage that. It helps me learn the encyclopedia and helps the articles be more well rounded. I only submitted the draft multiple times because I wanted feedback from admins in my editing process. I'm a relatively new user (since 2014) and am still learning the ropes. I don't have much draft experience, and you have to start somewhere. I feel like some of the other users that I've interacted with have been over zealous to my article just because of its rough start with the other users. It's not right to judge me based on their behavior. I really am trying hard to make good articles and "useful contributions" as you said. Please don't bully me any more than I already have been by others. I'm just trying to do my best like all of you are. WikiConqueror (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

All good points, all correct as well, and ironically from an admin perspective that is where the problem is. Ordinarily this could be construed as disruptive editing, except that you account doesn't appear to have been created for a single purpose - you've got edits outside of the subject area, some a little sloppy, but I've been guilty of contributions at or below those levels (and in fairness standards here change all the time). This reminds me of my fit back in 06 or so when I was on the receiving end of a mass deletion campaign, and I recall being irate and angry and out to prove a point and all those other things you're not suppose to be anchored in on Wikipedia. Some years later I brought myself in line and look at my now: admin, coordinator, etc. That's why I am here. I have no idea what do with this whole thing. I don;t even know if what I've dug up is a thing. A block under these circumstances would be excessive, and frankly unfair. Lisa's non notable at the moment, and I keep see her appear again and again. I'm looking to others here to gain a bigger picture of what we should or shouldn't do. This is one of the big reasons I hate csd - I get involved and my damned investigative nature works against me (or in some cases for me, but that's more the exception than the rule). Hell I may be guilty of low level harassment here, but since I don't know what to do I need input, and thats what brings us here. For now I take I wait and see, depending on what the community decides here we'll proceed according to the will on consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, TomStar81 - While notability is somewhat subjective, there are instances, this being the case where it is readily apparent that the subject does not meet notability criteria. WC does bring up good points in their response above, but I question their intentions. When I got the ANI notice on my talk page, I looked here to see a discussion begun by TomStar81; seeing this one I clicked on the draft, and looking at it wondered: "WTF? Why am I being notified?" But something about the article rang a bell, and looking at the history I noticed I had declined the draft several days ago. However, WC has seen fit to remove the declination notice, along with the comments. On further inspection, they have removed all the prior declination boxes, and all reviewers' comments as well. This makes it appear that they are not very amenable to listening to reviewers' comments. While some of the issues can be attributed to a lack of Wiki experience, when an editor makes willful edits to deceive other editors, that points to a behavioral issue in their editing. Especially after the user has been warned (albeit in a different instance) of the inappropriate removal of tags. All that being said (and btw, thanks TomStar for the wonderful recap above - despite its length, it is actually concise when taking into account all that has happened), I agree that a block is too much at this point. This warning should suffice, but if the editor continues what might be construed as tendatious and deceitful behavior, a block might then be in order. I would also suggest that the editor refrain from deleting any notices on their talk page, as well as on articles they are working on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Responding to the ping) I discussed some of this recently with WikiConqueror who approached me at my talk page for help with Draft:Lisa_Christine_Holmberg. Our conversation can be read at User talk:CactusWriter#Lisa Christine Holmberg page. Briefly, I informed them that the article was still a promotional piece on a non-notable teenage actress, that my assessment agreed with several editors who had already reviewed and declined it, and that WikiConqueror would be better off leaving it until Holmberg was truly notable, and WikiConqueror should move on to more constructive areas of editing Wikipedia. I do agree there are problems here with COI and agenda-driven editing. (And I've been watchful of a number of images they've uploaded to Commons with copyright issues -- including some fan pics which are cropped to edit out the fan who I would suspect is Holmberg.) If a problem with SPI exists, a case should be filed. However, I don't think we've reached the stage for ANI intervention. I think this can still be handled by direct interaction with WikiConqueror. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (responding to ANI notice) Seconded -- that's exactly what I said to WikiConqueror before -- one needs to realise that this is not possible right now, and should walk away. Nevertheless, it's see you cooperating with us, WC, and there's absolutely no judgement on you here. The issue is not you but the article in question, it's important that those two things are differentiated. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Sorry for delay, was in transit) It is nice to see such enthusiasm in developing an article. Unfortunately I must agree with the above assessments that the subject is not ready for article status and would likely fail an AfD. One of the major problems with deleted articles (for us non-admins) is that we cannot easily see the history or article creator (pondering a RfC about adding that to AfD headers). It would be been an instant lightbulb in my head to see the names of the COI accounts.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File upload issues

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.

---

Ipswahabpora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a variety of images from a variety of sources, claiming all of them under a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, often times when this is patently false. Some of these images might be self work, but most appear to be photos of copyrighted images. Many of the uploads were tagged for deletion, some as WP:F9, generating talk page notifications with links to relevant policies about image use and copyright and containing statements that persistent copyright violators will be blocked. Recognizing that the image use policy is one of the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia, I left the user a modified {{uw-ics3}} template with an invitation to contact me or WP:MCQ before uploading any more files to make sure they have a firm grasp on what is allowed and what is not. The user did not seek any help, and uploaded File:Mashrab1.jpg, which appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted publication, again claiming cc-by-sa-3.0 with clearly no evidence to support it. I then followed that up with a {{uw-ics4}} final warning. The user has since uploaded 6 more photos without seeking any advice, 1 of which is clearly a copyvio and others which lacked complete source info and are suspicious.

I think this is past the point where it can be explained away by image uploading being complicated. The user's non-responsiveness leads me to request administrator action in the form of a block to prevent further resources being used to investigate these suspicious uploads, until the user is willing to work with others to understand policy. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• User notified --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• I looked at the contribution, and I am afraid that I do not see a slightest evidence that the user has understanding of Wikipedia policies, definitely not about notability and definitely not about uploading files.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Totally agree with the above. The user might be acting in good faith, but I do not see any responsiveness or understanding of Wikipedia policies . I have tagged several of the user's articles (about non notable topics) for speedy deletion and most have been deleted. However, the user simply recreates the articles. (for example this one Amin Qasimi) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the comments above, can we perhaps take some action on this? The user has uploaded two more files which are both likely copyvios, File:Tohfat-ul-Awam.jpg & File:Aminqasimi.jpg, after the filing of this ANI report, still without reaching out and seeking help to better understand policy. If the ANI notice wasn't enough to get their attention, I feel a block is the only recourse. The uploads and article creations may be in good faith, but they certainly show a WP:CIR problem. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 07:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

    I am afraid they need to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I'm afraid so, too. Would you be willing to do so, given the lack of any objections, since this discussion hasn't gotten action from other admins? Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Indefblocked for now--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2016 (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:Adamstraw99 is making personal attacks,and user space harassment

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.

---

Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am have found some irregularity in the article "Astra" [228] and tried editing it,and raise some points over the same in the talkpage of Adamstraw99 ,who had reverted my edit.I had refrained from edit-warring or making personal attacks,so I found his reply on my talkpage very disturbing and offending,and I quote,"rant like an emotional fool on my talk page".This makes any civil discussion on the topic untenable.Please check his reply "perhaps you don't know what vandalism is that's why you are getting so many warnings and blocks for your activities here. Also I am not posting any "general view". I neither contribute much to this article Astra (weapon) nor have I added anything in this particular section. Fact of the matter is that you jumped in from somewhere and deleted some text from the article and replaced with your own version riding on some clearly biased, POV, and above all not notable, non reliable sources. that's where I had to intervene.. I Request you to kindly not rant like an emotional fool on my talk page and try to understand what exactly happened because I never added any personal or general view at first and only reverted your acts when you replaced certain text with fake sources.. that's it..Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I think this his reply doesn't comply with wikipedia policies-No Personal Attack and User Space Harassment. I request the administrators to take appropriate action against this user-warning,block or otherwise as they see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) The editor User talk:Ankisur2 has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING; cf. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Astra-the personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity and their purview. I suggest this is merely a content dispute which has no place here (or, indeed, probably the NPOV too). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Phew. Where to start. I recommend the NPOV discussion be closed and left a note there. User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Ankisur was acting silly in edit-warring, but warning them for vandalism is not warranted. Adamstraw99, "rant like an emotional fool" is a personal attack, not to mention stupid. Kindly refrain from making such edits. Ankisur2, your edit was reverted; it behooves you to prove that the sources pass muster with WP:RS, but I have a suspicion that you will find this to be very difficult. I see no further need for admin intervention and suggest that a. editors learn to talk to each other in an adult fashion and b. this be closed. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2016 (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.

Promotional material by IP

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 IP in this thread is promoting his own beliefs. I just commented there but they kept on the same behavior. Can any one take a look at it? Mhhossein (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2016 (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.

Day old editor commited personal attacks in the context of vandalism.

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 user in question is King leer01.

Most importantly: here, the editor vandalise a talk page, in order to insult another editor based on his agenda.

Here he regard to the same editor, calling him a "scumbag".

And here he generally expose an agenda, saying he doesn't mind if Israelis or Jews die and say they 'deserve it', which is something I, as an Israeli-Jew, doesn't feel comfortable seeing on Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. I see you have no problem with the editor's post in question, or his obvious agenda. That's my personal talk page. Shall I dig through everything you post on your talk page and do the same? Personal talk page. It has nothing to do with what I've actually tried to edit. Personal opinion on my personal page. King leer01 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You're also deliberately being vague in regards to the context of what I was talking about, probably in order to try and make me look like a "bigot" when it comes to Jews in general. King leer01 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please keep to a proper threaded discussion, see WP:TPG -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss

The fact that these are comments on your own talk page is no excuse. Wikipedia has no place for users who attack other users. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you'd take a look at the person who I was referring to in the first place if you're so hot and bothered about people who act objectionably on this site. As I've already made plain, nothing I've actually said in the context of editing articles constitutes an insult or personal attack. King leer01 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To provide some context, I warned them quite categorically against making personal attacks, then they replied with the "scumbag" remark. I was uninvolved in the article dispute anyhow. The POV-pushing, incivility, tendentious editing, soapboxing and personal attacks are pervasive: [229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240]. I leave it to an administrator to decide on the proper course of action, although I recommend use of discretionary sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just lying. Lies in regards to all of those links that you posted; you're just upset that the facts in all of those matters go against your personal point of view as an Israeli Jew who supports the occupation and the "settlements". King leer01 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

He also made attacks against living persons who are not editors. Against Khaled Abu Toameh on his talk page [241], and another person on Talk:2014_Gaza_war_beach_bombing_incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support a ban User is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a POV. He's a SPA too, looking at his comments. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy Hello! Do I hear the individual who's made repeated attacks on pro-Palestinian elements like Max BLumenthal? While standing with people who accuse Blumenthal of everything under the sun?

KAH is undoubtedly a legitimate example of a "self hating" person, in the sense that he (unlike Blumenthal) is a self-hating Palestinian who is essentially in thrall to the likud party and the "settler" movement. Likewise, Thomas Wictor is little more then the equivilent of David Duke on the Jews when it comes to his ranting on Palestinians, Arabs, and of course "the Muslims". King leer01 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block (not a ban). Clearly not here to contribute and the personal attacks are as unnecessary as they ever are. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The PI articles are enough of a hotbed as it without people being deliberately inflammatory. Normally, I'd say that a discretionary sanction warning to begin with as that has not been supplied, but given the BLP violations, personal attacks and basically outright trolling, support an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. Clearly WP:NOTHERE; This user's personal attacks, harassment, and general incivility preclude any contemplation that there is value in keeping them around for good-faith contributions. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for the talk page edit, followed by the personal insult on their own talk page. What else? I don't see, User:Bolter21, what you thought you or the project could gain from your lengthy interaction with that user, but that's by the by. I see that MrNiceGuy placed a notification about ARBPIA on the talk page, so that's that. What next? If any admin thinks that the editor stepped out of ARBPIAbounds since that notification was placed, they have my blessing to extend the block; if any admin thinks that in general this user is indeed NOTHERE, they have my blessing etc. I just don't have any indef blocks laying around right now. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I just hope that I won't have to deal with disruptiveness of this user. Two other editors acted the same, made a lot of mess, and were banned. I hope by warning this user now, we could maybe prevent future violations from him.--Bolter21 10:18 UTC+2, 14 March 2016

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.

Jadenvideotube – Odd and disruptive editing

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.

---

Jadenvideotube (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm not quite sure what's going on here. It's not simple vandalism. It seems to be combined with lack of competence, poor English, and plain weirdness, but it's getting very disruptive. This user just came off a 1-week block [242] for creating a series of nonsense pages and categories, e. g. [243], [244], [245] and proceeded to create yet another nonsense page [246], a user talk page with dubious comments for an IP who made 2 edits 6 years ago [247], and a user page for an unregistered username [248]. I put a level 4 warning on their page yesterday, after which they created three more nonsense user/talk pages for IPs [249], [250], [251] and made this bizarre edit [252] creating a local ENWP page for a Commons file, followed by creating a talk page for it full of gibberish [253]. This editor in indef blocked on Commons [254] and appears to have added nonsense to several other wikis as well. They never respond on their talk page, but do make some rather bizarre additions to those of registered users, e.g. this one to an editor who has been here for three years. Voceditenore (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. It looks to me like they are writing this nonsense simply to be annoying. I honestly can't see a point in any of the diffs I looked at, or see a good motive. "You have some spam"?! Their sandbox is crazy as well. The addition to EvergreenFir's talk is totally bizarre, given their length of time here and edit count. I think if they're not going to listen, well, block. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

It certainly appears that way, although I suspect their command of English is close to nil. Their latest wheeze was to award a barnstar to an IP who last edited 6 years ago. [255]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. This person is clearly playing silly buggers, and I'd be surprised if they are not already known to us by some other name. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 15 March 2016 (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.

List of English cricket matches to 1725 and its talk page

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.

---

Hello. Can someone please take the necessary action to deal with disruptive editing, including abuse, which is focused on this article and its talk page by one and possibly more IP users. You will see that the edits have been reverted by four editors so far and two of the editors have issued warnings on the main IP talk page. I suggest a protection period for both pages as the IP addresses will change, though short-term blocks may be useful. Please let me know if you need more input from me. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Have protected for two days. Relatively minor but not sensible additions by I.P. to article and gratuitously uncivil personal comments on the talk page. Fenix down (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:48, 15 March 2016 (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 threat

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.

---

User:‎84.139.119.243 has issued a legal threat here Eik Corell (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw it on my talk page and blocked them for 24h without even seeing this thread. This is a long-time abuse.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's good old User:Kay Uwe Böhm. Shows up several times a day using various IPs. This one has already been duly blocked, and the SOP is RBI with a dose of semi-protection. Favonian (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Man. Reading those comments is torture. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (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.

Thi2014 still creating unsourced BLPs and removing maintenance tags

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.

---

Thi2014 (talk · contribs) has been blocked previously for creating unsourced BLP articles and removing maintenance templates, but is still doing so: recent creations Epitácio Cafeteira (2 March, the day after s/he was unblocked) and Paulo Câmara (14 March). In this edit, with no edit summary, they removed a legitimate PROD BLP tag, removed {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} (though admittedly these weren't the best of tags), and also removed Category:Living people (which is presumably a correct cat as the man became a governor on 1 Jan 2015 and the article doesn't mention any death). It looks as if this editor has learned nothing from the previous blocks. PamD 22:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Recently, I came across an article he created Paço do Lumiar mayoral election, 1992. It first I marked it with the unreferenced and another related tag, and he removed them. I readded them, warned him about the templates, and then did some other cleanup, including wikilinking the names of the politicians that were involved. They turned up red. So I looked them up, and got no results for any of them. I them tagged it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. The admin deleted it, though it was, in truth, probably a real thing with no way to reference it. It seems to me that this user doesn't understand the no original research policy, even though he's been blocked several times over it. I had considered contacting De728631, who has done two of the blocks, about it, but ultimately decided not to. But since someone else has brought it up, I will voice my opinion. I would support an incompetence block. -©2016 Compassionate727^{(Talk)(Contributions)} 15:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89 notified me of this development and I have now blocked Thi2014 (talk · contribs) indefinitely for violating our BLP policy. Be it lack of competence or pure ignorance, this type of nonsense should not continue. De728631 (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2016 (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.

Threat?

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.

---

Is this a threat from User:Dralip123 against User:Oshwah? However seriously it should be taken- and it didn't make an outright threat worthy of an emergency email- it certainly seems to lack courtesy and good faith at the very least. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In any case, vandalism-only account, blocked now.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. It's not often we're honoured by the presence of the English mafia!!! Quick work. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:05, 16 March 2016 (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:Bearcat's denial of unprotection

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 like to confirm you that Bearcat's behavior had became increasingly irrelevant, rude and disrespectful to me for denied unprotection of 2 articles Tony Penikett and 5th Queens. So my concern to me all of you decide to deal with him or if he can't, we well pull the plug agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.59.35 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps he thinks that if he unprotects it, it will get trolled with nonsense. From your post, I think he could be right.

I also notified him of this discussion as you should have._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The better question is, why is Why is Bearcat indefinately protecting pages he is participating in an edit war on? It is pretty much a textbook example of using admin tools while involved. (If anyone is interested in what the content dispute is about) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing unhelpful and non-valuable edits is not "edit warring" — the situation was at least teetering right on the edge of vandalism, because (a) there's an established consensus that what the user in question was trying to add is not valuable or warranted in those articles, and (b) even the user's legitimate edits to the pages continually borked the tables, with the result that I continually had to follow them around fixing almost everything they touched. This is an example of the kind of thing they were doing — they have not been editing the articles in a productive or helpful or consensus-respecting manner, and cleaning objectively unhelpful and/or page-borking crap up is not a "content dispute" or an "edit war". Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Taking a look at Bearcat's protection log it appears indifinate protection of pages in which he is having a content/editorial conflict are easily found. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, Goreshter was not a simple "content dispute". An existing redirect was being replaced with a completely unsourced article which made no claim of standalone notability under WP:NMUSIC at all, redirected back to the band article again by several established editors in accordance with the correct process for handling that type of non-compliant article, and then recreated with the same unsourced BLP over and over again. That's not a "content dispute"; protecting the redirect, once the repeated recreation of a non-compliant article has happened four or five or seven times, is the correct way to handle that type of situation. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Immediately redirecting an article just created back to another is an editorial decision not an administrative one. Absent any obvious BLP violations it should have been discussed with the editor to justify the article (find sources) unless there was a prior AFD indicating consensus was no stand alone article should exist. This was a content dispute where you took a position it shouldnot exist, then when an editor disagreed with you, you protected the redirect so they couldn't recreate an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Walter Lee Williams which at the time a registered editor removed most of it looked like this. Basically an extremely skewed attack article including the subjects FBI profile. Bearcat subsequently reinserted the material citing vandalism and full protected it. Compare it with the current version and you can see the problem there in full protecting a page like that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor removing that content had a direct conflict of interest, and left the article in a state that no longer even asserted any notability at all, let alone sourcing it. You've also judiciously left out that I immediately listed the article for a WP:BLP/N review precisely because of the problems with it, and then nominated it for deletion on the basis of BLPN's assessment. In a nutshell, I did exactly what an administrator is supposed to do in a situation like that — both versions of the article, the original and the subject-redacted version, were problematic, and I dealt with the issue accordingly. Not because of "involvement" — I'd never even heard of the guy before the article showed up on uncats — but because neither version of the article was acceptable in that form. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you thought it was problematic you should have protected it in the reduced state rather than reverting it back in and protecting it so no one could fix it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The correct response to the reduced state would have been an outright total speedy deletion for failing to even contain a credible or sourced claim of notability at all. And while we have processes in place to get problematic content reviewed and/or dealt with in a BLP, those processes do not include the subject having an entitlement to simply erase the content from the article himself. Further, I followed the correct process to get the content in question reviewed and dealt with: I listed it for BLPN review, and for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Murdoch Mysteries - IP removes references for guest stars in past/screened episodes. Leaves clear explanation. Bearcat reverts and semi-protects. Third party references are almost never required for an episode of a screened show as the show itself stands as a verifiable reference. Either way reversion then protect is a completely inappropriate use of semi-protection here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You're conflating two distinct issues here: the references were not being removed from "guest stars in past/screened episodes" — the problem with that list (WP:UNDUE weight given to trivia) was a distinct issue that I raised on the talk page separately from the referencing dispute, and had nothing at all to do with the page protection issue. Rather, the IP was removing references from the release dates of the DVD box sets — which is information that does need to be referenced, because it's not inherently verifiable just from the existence of the DVDs. So this was not a "content dispute"; yet again, it was the correct response to persistent and inappropriate edits that were verging on outright vandalism, which several editors and administrators had already been reverting long before I came along. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Referencing for release dates is an editorial issue not an administrative issue. You expressed a preferred version, reverted to that version, then protected the article to prevent the editor who disagreed with you over an editorial decision from editing the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of legitimate references from content that does need to be referenced is not an "editorial" issue — it's explicitly against the rules, and does fall under disruption if the editor persists in doing it in the face of repeated reversion by several other editors. The only legitimate grounds for removing referencing from an article would be if the reference were deadlinked or if it were verifiably wrong, and in either case it would still have to be replaced with either a new reference or a {{cn}} tag. One anonymous IP repeatedly insisting that the information doesn't require a reference anymore, just because the date is now in the past instead of the future, is not legitimate grounds for the removal of references without replacement, or a matter of editorial discretion: it's disruptive editing, pure and simple. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Tony Penikett, the problem has not been one of me being unreasonable, but of the OP's behaviour. Several editors, not just me, have rejected their requests while pointing out that making an "edit request" on the talk page of the article is not the way to get a protected article unprotected — that kind of request has to be posted to WP:RFUP, not to the talk page of the article. And the IP also refused repeated requests to explain what they wanted to change in the article — instead of engaging in any discussion, they would just ignore that response and repost the same unprotection request to the same wrong venue again, with the same total lack of an explanation for why unprotection was warranted, two or three days later. And I was not the only administrator who declined their requests, so my reading of the situation was not out of line with other administrators' assessments.

The IP has also, for the record, tried directly approaching both me and User:Kww on our user talk pages to request unprotection of Tony Penikett — invariably formatted as "Tony Penikett: Unprotect. Mo." but still without responding in any way to the reasons why all of their previous requests were declined. On Kww's talk page, they ignored Kww's repeated response that he isn't even an administrator anymore and thus has no power to do anything at all about the situation, but would then repost the same request again two or three days later only to get the same answer again and ignore it again. And on my talk page, I did just four days ago finally get an answer from them about what needed to be changed in the article — although the answer was still vague enough to be non-actionable without further information, so I then asked why they couldn't just provide the specific details of the desired edit so that I or somebody else could make it. But that question went unresponded to as well, and their next post to my talk page the following day was "DO I SAY or I KILL YOU DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!!!!! YOU PIECE OF WORM!!!!" (bolding theirs, not mine), an obvious violation of WP:CIVIL.

And in addition, it's worth noting that one of the other things I've been able to glean from the IP's edit trail is that they've also posted a request to another administrator's user talk page for unblocking of their own account-creation privileges. They didn't specify what username they had been blocked under, so I wasn't able to find out exactly what they had been blocked for — but the IP has obviously engaged in some kind of inappropriate editing behaviour in the past, which doesn't exactly help their case either.

So this is not an issue about my behaviour — the IP is the one behaving irresponsibly and inappropriately and unprofessionally here, not me. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove from power Taking a look at Bearcats edits it seems very questionable to me, I believe he should either be remove from power permanently or temporarily suspended. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've done nothing inappropriate whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, when you are involved in the edit history, you should never be the one doing the page protection. Even if the reverts were 100% correct, you should be getting another admin to do the admin work for you.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED does not preclude an administrator from acting to put a lid on disruptive editing just because they've previously reverted or cleaned up the disruption. If somebody were persistently trying to overwrite Barack Obama with the lyrics to "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" over and over again no matter how many times they were reverted, for example, I would not be precluded from applying page protection just because I had been one of the reverters. That rule precludes an administrator from acting to protect their own personal preference in a content dispute where they've already taken sides one way or the other — but none of the situations raised above were simple "content disputes". Rather, they all elevated to the level of disruption, verging on outright vandalism, and I have no special vested interest in any of the topics besides my responsibility to ensure that Wikipedia's rules are being followed. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your definition of disruptive editing appears to consist of 'disagrees with Bearcat'. You don't use admin tools in content/editing disputes in which you have a expressed an opinion or edited directly. None of the above constitute 'vandalism' or come close to it. By engaging in a content dispute, reverting and then protecting the page you are misusing the tools. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

All of them were disruptive — repeatedly removing references from information that does need to be referenced and which several editors have already reverted, repeated recreation of a completely unsourced BLP by the subject himself in violation of WP:COI and which several editors have already reverted, having to clean up repeated borking of table coding, or the total stubbing of a BLP down to the point where it's not even making a basic claim of notability anymore, are not "content disputes". Exactly zero of them had anything to do with "disagrees with Bearcat" — they all had to do with edits that either were not following the rules, or were actually breaking the pages. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is nothing remotely surprising about an admin protecting pages upon which they have edited or have dealt with disruptive editors. That said, I think Bearcat might be a bit heavy handed in the length of protection. I see no reason to indefinitely protect a page that has never been protected before (e.g., 4th Queens, 5th Queens, 6th Queens, Doug Robb, Eugene Goreshter, Leonard Landy, Estefania Cortes-Vargas, Proma Tagore, Walter Lee Williams) and has generally low editor traffic. To the best of my knowledge, it's customary to increase length and level of protection over time with indefinitely protection as a last resort (correct me if I'm mistaken). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment What started this was such a clearly trolling edit that a somewhat Aboriginal response would have been in order. But apparently we've started answering ANI's that haven't even been presented. Jeez. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It is within an administrator's discretion whether to protect and for how long. If someone disagrees with the administrator's decision, the way to request a change is to post a request at WP:RFPP. (I notice that the various IPs have requested unprotection over and over at the article's talk page, and were refused by at least two other admins besides Bearcat.) The way to get protection overturned is NOT to harass and threaten the administrator, or try to force them to unprotect at a public venue like this. Without studying the entire sorry history or trying to sort out the various combatants (noting that several of the IPs are obviously the same person), I think there is plenty of material for a WP:BOOMERANG or series of boomerangs here. In fact I have to commend Bearcat for his restraint when faced with edits like this. IMO this should be simply closed as "no action needed", but I wouldn't object if a few blocks got issued. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2016 (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.

Rampant Meat-Puppetry at AfD

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.

---

Hey admins, I really hesitated to come here about this, but decided it was for the best. After about two weeks of little discussion on the page, the Afd "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Bolian" received a visit from User:Edbolian who claimed he was the subject of the article and urged for the article to be kept. Shortly thereafter, several single purpose ip addresses began commenting on the Afd page, all offering support for Ed Bolian in what was pretty obviously a violation of WP:MEAT. Just a few moments ago, another SPA account arrived with a Keep vote and, upon examining the ip address, it shares an identical ip address with User:2602:30A:2CEE:7080:79FF:BF79:E257:E77C and is most likely a sock-puppet. I have a feeling this is only going to get worse and we are going to see several more ip addresses arrive with their "support" and that also we are probably dealing now with a WP:Promotion issue where the article subject is encouraging others off-wiki to stop the AfD. I think this violates the spirit of AfD if not directly the policy. Can an administrator please look at this situation and proceed as you see best. Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 20:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I added the {{notavote}} template on the page as a start. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I also see that accounts that have made few other edits have been labeled as SPAs and there are enough regular editors participating that any meat puppetry is not overwhelming. Plus the only way to prevent this is to semi-protect the page and I think that is unwarranted. I also have confidence that whichever admin or editor closes this AfD will be able to assess the consensus correctly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

While I must admit that my comments came from my seeing this thread, and point out that all comments from regular editors came after this thread was made, I agree that besides placing {{notavote}} on the page, there is not much that needs doing (or really can be done). Unless, of course, those SPA's become disruptive, but I don't see that happening as of right now. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown has now closed it.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2016 (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.

Disruptive Editing by Lewisthejayhawk

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.

---

Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs) has made numerous disruptive edits on a variety of women's college basketball pages. This has been discussed by me, Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), and WilliamJE (talk · contribs). We have attempted to contact Lewisthejayhawk and instruct them to stop making these constant disruptive edits, however the user will not oblige. The user has also done this in the past, and has been temporarily banned for a very similar situation.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Zachlp, I can see hints of the issues involved on the editor's talk page (including recently deleted comments), but as to the disruption you allege in the articles in question, you must provide diffs if we are to examine the behaviour. Further, when you open a thread about another user here, you must inform them on their talk page. It looks likely that it will simply be deleted with some quasi-cognizable insult in this instance, true, but you still most formally inform them that their behaviour is being discussed here. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Sure thing. If you don't mind, I am going to copy to here some of the same examples I gave to another user earlier in our discussion. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. For context, we repeatedly tell Lewisthejayhawk to stop making the dates of the CBB Standings to a date that is further in the future than the most recent date played. Even after the user responded to me and Sphilbrick both, this still continues today. This is just one example of their disruptive edits, and I can provide plenty more if need be.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Lewisthejayhawk is currently online and making a TON of disruptive edits. Can this be handled quickly, or can someone refer me to how I can resolve this situation faster? Thank you!--Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't you just leave it alone? Damn, you always put it like you had and wonder why I keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisthejayhawk (talk • contribs)

I am currently busy but wiil make a few quick comments. If this thread is still active, I will comment more tomorrow.

• I notified Lewisthejayhawk at his talk page of this thread. This thread wasn't started by me. When I am through with this post I will also notify Sphilbrick.
• Lewisthejayhawk wasn't banned but blocked by Administrator Sphilbrick. That was after I notified SP of Lewisthejayhawk's habit to put in links to nonexistent categories in new articles he was creating. Administrator Bearcat attempted addressing this issue with Lewis even before I did. Relevant talk page threads can be found here[256], here[257], and this one[258] after Lewis was blocked. It wasn't till Lewis was blocked that he responded to other editor's concerns.
• Despite promises to not link to nonexistent categories anymore, Lewis has gone back to that behavior. I addressed[259] him about this at his talk page today and earned this[260] less than stellar reply.
• Lewis does a lot of work on Women's College Basketball articles that few other editors work on.

That is all I can write for now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is so painful.

I get that most readers of this section couldn’t give a fig about coverage of wbb, but I do, and appreciate the extremely small community of editors who add content in that area. Lewisthejayhawk is one of the more prolific contributors.

However, for reasons that I cannot fathom, he has his own ideas on as of dates for conference results (one can make arguments for more than one convention, but I believe we have established a convention, which Lewis sometimes ignores). More disruptively, he creates category redlinks, despite being told repeatedly not to do that. I happen to think the messages were clear, but maybe I’m biased, because I sent some of them. Maybe a message in different words from a different editor will sink in.

Please note – Lewis is not the usual case on this page, an editor who is mostly disruptive. Lewis contributes a lot of good content, and I honestly don’t think it is his goal to be disruptive, but messages are not getting through.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the history of pages such as this or this, I add information to the pages, and Lewisthejayhawk promptly removes it without reason within minutes. I gave up on trying to add information until this is resolved because he just keeps taking it down.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please help out with this? Any time I make an edit, Lewisthejayhawk keeps removing them. It's ridiculous at this point. I get that Lewisthejayhawk contributes a lot in an area where there are few contributors, but that should warrant allowing him to keep making these Disruptive edits time and time again without any consequence.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Further disruptive edits

Prime examples of these disruptive edits are persisting today. Examples diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The user keeps removing the same information on multiple pages with no reason or comment. There are other cases with different information where the user is taking similar action of disruptive editing.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Does nobody care about this editor and his unexplained reverts that are really vandalism or his editing not signed in to escape detection. Why won't one administrator block him for just 48 hours? That will get the attention of Lewis (It did when Sphilbrick previously blocked him for 24 hours) and maybe get him to change his behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• I reviewed the standing report at AN3 and it led me here. Upon review of both complaints, I can see the problems with this editor's behavior, as well as their refusal to address them. I have blocked them for 72 hours accordingly. Regards, Swarm ♠ 05:18, 17 March 2016 (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.

Is this a 3RR violation?

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.

---

An angry editor has reverted to a previous version of a page three times inside a space of 32 minutes. [261] to be specific here[262], here[263] and here[264]. YuHuw (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Could I draw the attention of User:Liz here too please? Thank you. YuHuw (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You've inserted your material three times. He's reverted you three times. You're both at the limit. The fourth revert breaks 3RR. Katie^talk 23:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Katie, could I invite you to mediate between us here please? I have tried being polite but firm to no avail. YuHuw (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Also is it correct that there is a 24 hour time frame within which one must not insert one's information a 4th time? YuHuw (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Because if there is, then he is at three and I stopped at 2 well within my limit and brought it here for attention before anyone warned me. I believe in discussion, not war. YuHuw (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please excuse me if I do not reply for several hours. YuHuw (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, you're both at three reverts. Each change, including your first one, counts as a revert. To answer your question, the edit warring page is clear - do not game the system by going just over the 24 hour mark. And sorry, I'm not a mediator. Unless you have an issue with user conduct, this is not the place for admin intervention. Dispute resolution is where you should go if you can't reach a compromise. Katie^talk 23:46, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What Katie said. You both were edit-warring (which doesn't need to go beyond 3 reverts) and so I gave you both warnings. Please do not continue to revert and move to a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

OK it was a long day and I genuinely thought I was at 2. Certainly never even thought to "game the system" please do assume my good faith. Why would I have brought it to attention here if I wanted anyone to be engaged in an Edit war? It is simply that there is a severe issue with that user's conduct [265], [266] [267] which is getting worse despite my many attempts times to offer the Olive-branch to him. Anyone who inserts any content which he does not like he calls a puppet of Kaz a name which he uses euphemistically (only understood by those who have spent time to investigate his very short but -considering it spans a few years- unusually focused edit history which reveals his close association with User:I_B_Wright's and User:Ancientsteppe's puppets) as an insult to mean pedophile. He did it to this user [268] first then me (I suppose reaching over 50 times by now) and also here (on the 21st and 23rd of January) about User:Dbachmann's edits. Because I responded to his initial requests for attention and because I actually took seriously some of his suggestions about article content [269] he will now not stop WP:HOUNDING me (every article I touch) and wont stop WP:HARASSing me calling me "Kaz" everywhere despite my numerous requests for him to stop doing that, he just goes WP:CANVASSING to get others to join in the name-calling. I have been disparaged and depressed and at one point even visited a counselor about the attacks. His recent round of reverts is in response to my very kind olive-branch post here [270]. As for his "expertise" he removes references which I have found e.g. here saying they are RS fakes then re-inserts them when he wants [271]. Whenever I have given him some attention and the benefit of the doubt he simply gets worse. He will change his mind to the opposite opinion and remove[272] whatever I have tried to learn from him (despite his incessant insults). Sometimes he takes days to think up a way to wriggle his way out of something so that he can say a source both RS and not RS at the same time[273].

I have tried many times to ask for suggestions not just here at ANI and possible solutions concerning his conduct. I really don't know what approach to take next. Any advice is appreciated. I will just close by saying again that I did not bring this topic up because I have any intention of Edit warring. Best Regards. YuHuw (talk) 05:24, 17 March 2016 (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.

Unprotection request on Tony Penikett and 5th Queen

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.

---

Can you ask Bearcat to unprotect Tony Penikett and 5th Queens for the last time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.69.56.101 (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about ANI, page protection and the like. For a newbie. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not an attempt to exhume the previous discussion just because it was closed before a pound of flesh was purchased! I don't think there's anything to see here. Move along. Move along. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:08, 17 March 2016 (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.

Experienced editor suspected of violating rules

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 think that experienced user User:JzG (with pseudonym Guy) is overreaching as explained here in section Unjustified discussion closure. --Asterixf2 (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd duck if I were you. There might be a BOOMERANG headed your way.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that if uninvolved users look over Asterixf2's edits, they may agree with me that we are being trolled, and that a boomerang site-ban might just be what's called for. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A topic ban for a year is better, its what happened to me and I learned from it. :D  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Asterixf2, you've made the decision very difficult for us by immediately blanking your user talk page as soon as a comment is posted there. It's very difficult to see your history without looking at lots of diffs. As you probably know, when a complaint is filed an ANI the conduct of all parties is examined, including yours. Please leave notices on your talk page and archive them, do not delete them. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• So let me get this straight. You're trying to make unilateral additions to policy pages, first at WP:FRINGE and then at WP:NPOV. Guy protected FRINGE and left a note on the talk page, where you've been extensively involved in discussion. You then proceeded to start a discussion on a different talk page, although it had already been raised at the original one, so Guy closed it per WP:FORUMSHOP. You responded by warning him on his talk page and complaining about it here. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems pretty obvious that:

• The content of policy pages is determined by community consensus and making significant edits without consensus (and then edit warring over them) constitutes disruptive editing.
• Guy has only acted in an administrative capacity and therefore is not involved.
• This stems from a dispute already spilling over to multiple pages. It was inappropriate to start further discussion in yet a new page.
• It was a valid act of administrative discretion to close your discussion and you have no grounds for a complaint.

• You appear to be out of control. I see that your extensive involvement with WP:FRINGE comes immediately following complaints here and here about your addition of fringe material into Entropic force, where you have been and continue to edit war and flagrantly misrepresent WP:BRD. Outside of your involvement in these disputes around contested fringe material, you have little in terms of productive editing. Given your edit warring, disruption of policy pages, counterproductive escalation of disputes, false accusations of misconduct against an administrator bordering on harassment, refusal to drop the stick, and refusal to heed warnings, I actually think a block is in order for you. I will leave it up to the others to discuss appropriate long-term sanctions but am going to block now to put an end to the ongoing disruption. Swarm ♠ 00:51, 17 March 2016 (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.

WP:CIR issue?

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.

---

Would an admin please look into the editing of User:DANE YOUSSEF? This editor has received numberous warnings over the years about not adding unsourced information to articles [274],[275], [276], [277], [278], [279], [280], [281], [282], [283], [284], and was even blocked three times for doing so [285], [286], [287], and yet continues in this practice. I left him a strongly worded warning recently about his editing [288], but there was another incident, and another warning from another editor, today. [289] The editor very rarely responds to any of these warnings, simply continues on their way. I'm afraid that the editor may not be able to understand our policies (there have been other warnings about other issues, including using multiple accounts), and may require a CIR sanction. Certainly a formal warning from an admin couldn't hurt. BMK (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Editor notified. BMK (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Block log. Previous blocks were for 48 hours, 2 weeks, and 21 days. BMK (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See also User:SURFUR, which appears to be an (abandoned) alt account of the same person. My immediate impression is that userpage may be a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation; it looks like a CV/talent bio (info like height, build, hair color, eye color)... I know we have a lot of leeway for talking about ourselves on our userpages, but damn. The buffet of talent-related links and social networking links is a little worrisome as well. Other factoids: Indeffed on English Wiktionary for self-promotion (since 2010) and doesn't seem to use edit summaries. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously the same guy - the user pages are pretty much identical. SURFUR has no blocks, but also has a talk page full of warnings for the same kind of stuff. BMK (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also User:DANE RAMADAN YOUSSEF: abandoned account, edited from 25 January - 12 November 2011, pretty much the same kind of user page, talk page has two complains about no sources, also indef blocked on en.wiktionary. BMK (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Dane has mirrored his same CV/userpage over at meta as well. I'm wondering if this is some sort of clumsy attempt at SEO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Any more accounts, make sure to check the global contribs. Dane has done the same spamming of his CV on French WP, Polish WP, species.wikimedia, WikiSource... pretty much every project we have. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

• I find it nothing short of shocking that he's gotten away with this for so long. 2500+ edits and not a single one on an article talk page. Blocking him and his related accounts right now. Swarm ♠ 01:54, 18 March 2016 (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.

Handing the crosswiki spam

While I know it kind of falls outside the purview of this board, I'm at a bit of a loss for how to address the breadth of this editor's crosswiki self-promotion. He has spammed copies of his userpage on everything from Simple English Wikipedia to Wikiquote to the MediaWiki Wiki to Spanish Wiktionary... etc etc etc. Would someone knowledgeable in how to handle these sorts of crosswiki issues take a look at this, perhaps taking discussion over to Meta? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You can ask for a steward to issue a global block at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global_block Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

DENY

DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
== Reporting self == Can I get a indef ban — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.107.61.41 (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC) I believe that IPs are hardly ever indef blocked. I guess you'll have to register an account, and then ask to be indef blocked, although it might just be easier to stop editing. BMK (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Although I see that the two edits you made after your request here were bad enough to be oversighted. BMK (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Clairec78

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.

---

A special-purpose account, User:Clairec78, has been trying vigorously (not to say obsessively) for the past two months to create or maintain an article about Mircea Itul, aka Mircua Itu, a Romanian historian. The article has been speedy-deleted once, AfD-deleted once, and draft-declined at AfC three times. The user's persistence and their wall-of-text arguments, at the AfD and at various talk pages, have consumed many hours of Wikipedian time. Here's a summary of the article history:

• January 10, 2016: article created by Clairec78
• January 11, 2016: speedy deleted per A7
• January 16, 2016: article recreated by Clairec78
• January 19, 2016: nominated for AfD, after Clairec78 removed a PROD tag.
• January 27, 2016: deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mircea Itul (which you really have to read to get a sense of this situation)
• January 29, 2016: userfied to Clairec78 at their request
• February 6, 2016: draft moved to Draft:Mircea Itu (more common name)
• February 9: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• February 28: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• March 12: Clairec78 posted messages on more than 50 33 (I stand corrected) user talk pages, asking people to "please rescue the article on Mircea Itu". I warned them to stop spamming people.
• March 13: AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability.
• March 14: Clairec78 submitted it to AfC for a fourth time, without making any changes in the article, just complaining on the talk page about how the third review was done.[290]

IMO this behavior is disruptive, and it is high time for this user to be told to accept the community's verdict and abandon their quest for an article on this subject. I think a block would be unnecessarily harsh; maybe a topic ban? --MelanieN (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update: March 15: Fourth AfC submission declined on grounds of non-notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic-ban, broadly construed, knowing that unless she finds other areas of interest to edit, that would have the same effect as a ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban of the subject. Would also support and indef block until such time as they acknowledge their disruption and make it clear that they will cease it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Salt the article. A topic ban doesn't really solve the fundamental problem which is the continued creation and recreation of the article. Preventing creation of the article in the first place may encourage clairec78 to go and look elsewhere to learn what notability is all about. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• extra comment: I would not be surprised if we came to find out that she has a COI with respect to this personage. Blackmane (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, and make it clear that continuing to recreate the article after deletion will lead to consequences. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Please be sure this discussion stays open for at least 24 hours, so that the community can chime in and the user can have a chance to respond. --MelanieN (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to my article on Mircea Itu: Thank you user:MelanieN. I take note of your clear warning strike. Those were neither over 50, but 33 and nor spams, but unsuccessful efforts from my side to get in touch with true Wikipedian professionals. As far as anyone can see, there is no communication allowed, except for upwards towards downwards, which is a one way interaction, not a real communication. Please take into consideration that I know the Wikipedia rules that refer to advertising through spamming, and this is not my case. Please also revise previous talk pages on Mircea Itul and Mircea Itu in regards to bias, war edit and vandalism. Please also show me in Wikipedia rules where is it stated that users are not allowed to contact other users on their talk pages in a civilised way, which I did, asking nothing else but support from senior Wikipedia editors professionals? Please also revise previous talk pages on Mircea Itul and Mircea Itu in regards to bias, war edit and vandalism. Clairec78 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the above "senior Wikipedia editors professionals" have reviewed it. They have found this individual to not be notable. The horse has been beat to death so it's time to drop the stick.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS for the policy against canvassing for support. It is one thing to leave a neutral message such as "Please see this AFD and if you are so inclined, please leave a comment". Asking them to "rescue the article" and making your views known is not a neutral message. There are no "senior Wikipedia editors professionals". There are merely those who have been around longer and are more familiar with the expectations here. We are all editors. At this point, the discussion is no longer about whether the subject is notable or not per the notability guidelines but your singleminded drive to have this article in article space. It is becoming disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, -Serialjoepsycho-. Please give professional reasons of your decision. Please also share professional comments on bias, patronizing, communication, war edits and vandalism on talk pages about the article on Mircea Itul (his real name) and Mircea Itu (his pen name), who is neither 'Mircua Itu', nor 'a Romanian historian', but a Romanian historian of religions. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would I put excessive conversation into things that does not actually matter? Because you desire it? I'm not really seeing any bias. What, these MULTIPLE editors are bias because they don't see the subject as notable like you do? Patronizing? It seems reasonable after the article has been speedy-deleted once, AfD-deleted once, and draft-declined at AfC three times that they would be patronizing. Your excessive walls of text also make that reasonable. What I am seeing here seems to be WP:IDHT. I will say what has already been clearly stated, you have failed to show that your subject meets Wikipedia notability criteria. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, -Serialjoepsycho-. Please give the professional reasons for your decision, so that I can understand it. Please also give reasons in this particular subject's fields of study why this academic is considered not notable. Please also share professional comments on bias, patronising, lack of real communication, war edits and vandalism on talk pages of the article on Mircea Itul (his real name) and Mircea Itu (his pen name), who is neither 'Mircua Itu', nor 'a Romanian historian', but a Romanian historian of religions and Indologist. The article received no support, but only two keep votes, that were dismissed in an non-respectful manner to these editors and undemocratic manner to a voting process, so that to reach a consensus. I gave a lot of information in the talk pages about the subject to prove his notability, but information was systematically ignored by some assessors who started the discussion creating a bias. I continuously improved the page and it was systematically rejected, without being given any specific reasons. I was preparing to make other contributions. Please put yourself in my position of a new user who only received threats, lies and no support. I put a lot of effort into this article, not for Mircea Itul (Mircea Itu), but for preserving the truth in regards to an academic from Romania who published mainly in Romanian, so his contributions are not easy to be accessed by everyone, but through Wikipedia. Would you feel comfortable to edit other subjects for the moment? Would you not need some time to reflect under the circumstances whether a huge effort to edit is worthy or not? Who is the horse? Who owns the stick? Who has beaten this imaginary horse? Why? Thank you. I wish you all the best! Thank you Blackmane. Please explain the first line of what User:Biruitorul wrote on the talk page about Mircea Itul which is not neutral and created a bias, and then the line that he wrote that there are no sources either in Romanian and in English about this academic, which is a lie. I won't disturb you again. Sorry for taking your precious time. All the best. Clairec78 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. A fairly blatant case of WP:IDNHT in the diff provided by MelanieN above, where the user claims that 1) there was no rationale given for rejecting the AfC draft, and that 2) the rationale did not "sound correctly [sic]". (As an aside, the present progressive is certainly used in idiomatic English.) Perhaps the user might benefit from having a mentor to work with in order to gain a greater understanding of how Wikipedia's processes work, but if their only interest is in creating an article about a non-eligible subject, that would probably not work either. --bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support / salt Support TBAN for the editor, and recommend, as suggested above, salting the article to prevent recreation in the future (until such time as the subject becomes notable.) At this point, I have to agree that she literally doesn't seem to be listening to the community, and indeed doesn't seem to understand what she is being told. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment- Judging from the responses of Clairec78, I feel that it may be in the interest of the community on indef block them based on WP:CIR. I question their ability to conversationally use English and am not sure this is a simple case of WP:IDHT. Much time has been put into this and it's failed to bear any fruit.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand your points of view. I won't disturb you all again. I am sorry for taking your time. All the best to you all. Clairec78 (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Biruitorul, for the record. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I have also rolled back all those pleas for help, many of which to long-retired editors, and none of them picked with diligence, it seems. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, and thank you, Drmies. For the record, I did try and craft a decent article on this subject, but the user in question went ahead and imposed the chaotic version now in the draft. I accept that single-purpose accounts will exist, but accounts that are both single-purpose and single-minded are a real problem, so the topic ban seems the best course. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Three days ago, Clairec78 left this message on my talk page.  I presume she or he left this very cordial and appropriate message because she or he noticed I am an inclusionist.  In looking at her or his edits that day, I see that the three people she or he messaged after me (AndySimpson, Antanaklasis, Anthrophilos) all likewise list themselves as inclusionists.  I have no desire to waste my time checking to see if each and every person she or he messaged that day is likewise an inclusionist, but suffice to it say, Drmies is wrong when she or he claims that "none" of the editors messaged by Clairec78 were "picked with diligence"; I clearly was.

  Today, Drmies edited my talk page to remove Clairec78's message without my consent.  I have since reverted Drmies's edit.

  Sincerely yours,
  allixpeeke (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Picking "inclusionists" is not diligence--in fact, it's canvassing. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Note on the contribution claimed by Biruitorul. He cut the draft created by me to a no citing form, using only one bibliographic source with no citations to prove notability. He did not contribute to the article at all. On the contrary. All reviewers after him adviced to add citations. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I have WP:SALTed the article titles, I suggest we also nuke the doomed draft. If Clairec78 refuses to drop the stick then a topic ban is in order. Claire, you've been pointed at numerous essays highlighting the line between enthusiastic advocacy and disruption. You've crossed it. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I am a woman. Please stop this he/she charade. Clairec78 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved editor. The canvassing of 50+ editors and repeated recreations of the article are seriously disruptive. GAB^Hello! 20:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• The number is 33, not 50+. Sorry to mention, but my desperate search for a support and for an academic or specialist in the subject's fields of study to advice and to assess the subject's notability is not canvassing. Thank you. Clairec78 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Crazy canvassing, and a topic ban would give them an opportunity to edit other articles, or just confirm that they're not here to contribute other than their single-purpose article. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, with appreciation shown to Guy for having taken the initiative with regard to the first order of business of salting the titles. The various violations of policy and other disruptive behaviours of Clairec78 could, not withstanding their volume and bellicosity, be considered growing pains for a new editor, except for the fact that the WP:IDHT mentality and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK suggest very little hope that this single-purpose editor can be brought around to internalizing the project's demands with regard to content neutrality. I think if we are honest with ourselves, we can see this is all likely to end with either an indef for user when they fail to adhere to the conditions of the TBAN, or their voluntarily leaving the project because they have no other motivation in being here. But that shouldn't stop us from affording them the opportunity of the third choice (finding a non-personal topic area to contribute in), unlikely as it is that they will be interested. What we can't do is continue to toss escalating editor work-hours into attempting to restrain and educate an SPA who won't listen. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment If the result is a WP:Topic ban, somebody is going to have to explain to the editor what that means. I don't think she really understands what we are talking about here. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2016 (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.