Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Click here to start a new discussion thread
Centralized discussion

User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?[edit]

Jonadabsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am rather concerned about this comment by Jonadabsmith. I quote: "Dr Harry Potts, what time would you like us to call round your office on campus for a meeting to discuss your personal attacks on students you are meant to encourage to embrace new political ideas and not silence?". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

That Dr. is the real name of User:Bondegezou, a fact which if not immediately shown on his User page is easily accessed via external link. I'm not sure how that fits into any "outing" calculation. More broadly, Jonadabsmith is unhappy about a couple of AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain, and his comments at the AfDs and on the article Talk pages would appear to exceed the usual boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:AGF among others. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it counts as outing, given that Bondegezou has linked to his work profile from his user page. I was more concerned about Jonadabsmith's suggestion that he wants to pay him a visit at work. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that's right. But addressing a person by his / her real (and full!) name rather than his User name adds, IMHO, a bit more menace to the comment. I don't know what kind of an actual threat it amounts to but it certainly seems designed to intimidate. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I think the assessment here is correct, but agree it is very problematic behavior. Does seem menacing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur; it's hardly friendly, even if it's not a threat, per se. GABHello! 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If Bondegezou places his name and place of work on his profile, he is hardly seeking to hide such, and it is hardly unreasonable for a student of a university to ask to visit a known professor at the same establishment to resolve some difference. I stress, that there was merely a request to visit, not an actual visit. Your implication that such would involve harassment is ridiculous. A friendly chat over a cup of tea is likely to be far more productive than people playing keyboard warriors while shouting acronyms as if they are the Supreme Court. User: Jonadabsmith —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonadabsmith, regardless of the outcome of this discussion, no amount of chatting with Bondegezou is likely to change the outcome of the AfDs. Deletion is not in the gift of Bondegezou and the decision will be taken by consensus. What you need to do is establish the notability of the subjects, not attack other editors for supposedly being biased. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Cordless Larry what would you like me to do to improve the notability of the subjects? More newspaper references? Jonadabsmith

Please see the pages WP:Golden rule and WP:RELIABLE, Jonadabsmith. Those will help you understand what is required. In-depth national newspaper coverage of the subjects would help, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Jonadabsmith would also do well to read the second and fifth bullet points of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#What is considered to be a personal attack? -- as others have hinted above, he or she seems to be breaching this policy. MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The comment by Jonadabsmith (talk · contribs) (diff) is an outrageous attack on an editor. An immediate and complete repudiation may be sufficient, but the attack combined with the WP:SPA nature of the account suggest that a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently an SPI open on this. GABHello! 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Their constant bringing-up of Bodegezou's political leanings, which they make clear, in the AFD as if it invalidates the fact that most of the sources are from non reliable sources is a clear sign of trying to muddy the AFD. This is unacceptable. Blackmane (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't even remotely ambiguous. The comment in question includes clear personal attacks, an inability to argue the content issue in question without going after the character of another editor, and a threat to extend harassment over this editing issue into the off-project work environment of a contributor. It's quite probable that the SPI will turn something up on this SPA, but regardless, the evidence for WP:NOTHERE seems pretty absolute. Someone should simply take this directly to an admin. Or we can always make a proposal right here. I know what my !vote will be. Snow let's rap 05:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, all the socks are confirmed to one another and possible to the master. GABHello! 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that outcome comes as a shock to anyone. I am a little surprised that Bbb23 decided only to block the sock accounts and left it to another admin to decide whether to also block the likely master--but hopefully another admin will be along shortly to attend to that. It seems a pretty open and shut case of disruption and WP:NOTHERE, so the only thing I feel needs to be reiterated at this point is that Jonadabsmith can/should be blocked for the socking or for the blatant harassment/threats--and hopefully the block length will reflect the aggregate circumstances of the disruption. Personally, I'd fully support an indef in this instance, given this is clearly an SPA here to further a specific agenda--even if it means disrupting process through puppetry (generally grounds for an indef in its own right), to say nothing of threatening the off-wiki professional interests/personal well-being of a contributor. Snow let's rap 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GABHello! 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
User:Bondegezou, I'll pop over from the IHR if you need someone to watch your back mate. Bloomin' undergrads Face-smile.svg 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)‎

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thanks to everyone for bringing this to ANI. It did feel quite WP:HArass-y. I also note the following behaviour:

Jonadabsmith hasn't edited since Friday night, although there's been weird stuff on both articles since: [6], [7]. The two AfDs are still open, but given that only Jonadabsmith + puppets have voted to keep and numerous editors have voted for delete, I think they are both WP:SNOWable at this point!

It would be nice to close this issue with some administrator action one way or the other. The final SPI decision is still hanging and I hope the additional issues described above are taken into account as well. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban[edit]

A checkuser has found that Jonadabsmith is at least possibly the master behind a number of related socks reinforcing his perspectives on the articles detailed above. Looking at the greater context and considering the evidence provided by numerous editors both at the SPI and here, I'm going to say that my own assessment is that it is in fact highly probable that these accounts are either Jonadabsmith's socks or, at the very least, meat puppets. I'd encourage anyone voting on the proposal to, of course, review the SPI and the above discussion before coming to their own conclusions as to the relationship between the accounts, but what is not in question is that this user has steadfastly refused to engage in WP:AGF, making liberal use of ad hominem attacks on other users.

Most concerning of all, this user has recently threatened to stop by the workplace of another contributor. Jonadabsmith would have us believe that "for all we know" he was just proposing to have a "cup of tea" and discuss the issues but A) looking at the wording of the comment and the disruptive/argumentative context in which it was made, I think we can all see the intent and motivation here was a clear attempt to chill the efforts of another editor through a threat to harass him at work and, B) even if we were to believe that the suggestion of coming into said user's workspace was for the purpose of civil discussion about how his edits on Wikipedia reflect on his concern for his students and his personal politics, it would still be an entirely inappropriate thing to do, or threaten to do.

This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. Personally I still feel it would be appropriate for any admin looking into this matter to impose an indefinite block for the fairly obvious sock-/meat-puppetry. Failing that, I'm proposing a community resolution to remove this editor from the topic areas which they are proven they cannot be involved in without disruption of the worst sort (threats to the off-project security and well being of our contributors who chose to reveal their actual names on-project, amongst other issues). Specifically my recommendation is that this user be topic banned from contributing to all areas relating to British student organizations, the Brexit or Britain's relationship to the European Union in general, all broadly construed. Snow let's rap 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Snow let's rap 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from all areas relating to British student organizations, the Brexit or Britain's relationship to the European Union in general, all broadly construed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. This is probably the least that should be done in this case, and a site ban is actually the preferred choice of experienced editors at this point. BTW here is the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Siteban (first choice) or topic ban as proposed. A clear case of someone who is trying to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know that I should have a !vote as the injured party, so to speak, but if this account is not simply indef blocked, might I suggest a site ban until end of June 2016, i.e. a week after the referendum? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Bondegezou, you are most definitely allowed to !vote. A site ban is considered permanent, so there are no short-term "site bans"; perhaps you meant a temporary block (which would also cover socking or block evasion). Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Site ban as 1st choice and Tban as 2nd per Guy. Being zealous about what you believe in is one thing, but hinting at showing up at someone's work place is beyond chilling and into the realm of real world harassment. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

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. GABHello! 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... GABHello! 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 [8], 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)

User:Maybeparaphrased: New editor stubbornly resistant to learning/following/caring about the rules. What to do?[edit]

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)

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)

Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy[edit]

  • On May 20th 2015, I was topic banned here [[9]] 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 [[10]]. @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 [11] 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."[12] 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.[[13]] 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 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. JbhTalk 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)

Arbitrary break[edit]

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)
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. [14] 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

User:Potguru request[edit]

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 ([15], [16]) 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[edit]

Livelikemusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

Misquoting reliable source at Killington Ski Resort[edit]

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)

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

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)

Harrassment by User:Sir Sputnik[edit]

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. OhanaUnitedTalk 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)

European Graduate School[edit]

This is a questionable institution which has been the subject of a very long term campaign by a succession of WP:SPAs over a number of years to whitewash criticism of its accreditation status. The latest is Claidioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). If you review the Talk page you will see that the same demand is repeated over and over and over again. This is a case of WP:RGW, WP:IDHT and WP:TE. I think it is time this user was banned from that article, it is very clear that they are not here to contribute to a neutral body of knowledge, only to whitewash a questionable institution.

I originally blocked the account as a sock and unblock was declined by two admins but a third unblocked because it was likely meatpuppetry not sockpuppetry (fair, but of questionable relevance as we don't really treat the two differently) and the user was "not being disruptive". I would say the user now is being disruptive and actually I'd argue that they always were, since this is part of a long term POV-pushing campaign, but whatever. No criticism of the unblocking admin, who assumed good faith, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant Claudioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
As a sidenote: the page is fully protected, which kind of nullifies part of the unblocking administrators reasoning that Claudioalv didn't try to edit the article. I had a short look at the French page about the institution, which comes along a little shorter and completely avoids any mention of accreditation status...but I admit the singlemindedness with which the accreditation topic is tackled again and again leaves me suspecting a strong COI and meatpuppetry. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I cannot type for toffee (burn scars on my left hand). Guy (Help!) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment[edit]

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 [17].
  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)

User:Yossimgim[edit]

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 · edit 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)

89.100.93.156 and Russian Federation[edit]

IP editor was given final warning. Recommend WP:AIV if they start up again. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP-hopper[edit]

86.187.174.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:
I'm looking into this. Thanks for the update. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.132.243
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.140.7
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.152.153
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.160.23
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.161.158
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.162.202
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.163.31
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.163.180
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.163.250
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.165.250
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.166.189
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.167.30
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.167.167
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.168.230
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.169.120
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.170.145
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.170.247
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.171.1
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.171.62
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.171.239
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.172.54
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.172.189
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.172.199
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.172.204
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.173.156
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.174.110
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.174.189
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.174.227
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.174.253
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.175.81
  • Special:Contribs/86.187.175.155
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Solaire the knight and Trolls from Olgino[edit]

Solaire the knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:

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" [18] 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)

Reporting 2602:301:7796:AAA0:70D0:36:EB7C:DDA9[edit]

Disruptive behavior stopped. Suggest re-reporting if further disruption occurs. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2602:301:7796:AAA0:70D0:36:EB7C:DDA9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 observation) 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current events pages[edit]

The following current events pages do not exist:

2003
2004

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:

Pinging the following users:

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)

173.174.98.84 and 32.97.110.60 edit warring in Mexican free-tailed bat[edit]

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. [19], [20], [21] and [22]. 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)

Edit warning in MarnetteD[edit]

Looks like this has been taken elsewhere. (non-admin closure) --Ches (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wildly disruptive User:Deffrman[edit]

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)

Rangeblock needed to stop block evasion by Cnslrken2[edit]

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.[23] 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:

Here are the involved IPv6 addresses:

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

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 · 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)

Anon vandalism on AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol[edit]

BLOCKED:

59.148.208.168 has been given a short block to stop disruption to AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol. Liz Read! Talk! 12:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Smith josf[edit]

User blocked. Dial 9 for admin technical support. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

‎User:Wikinewseditor at the Kolkata Derby‎ article[edit]

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)

Legal threats and disruptive edits by User:MehranRazi[edit]

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:

  • [24] article edit summary
  • [25] user talk page content and edit summary

warned for legal threats [26], but made additional implied legal threats:

  • [27] article content
  • [28] article edit summary

3RR violation:

Ping User:HistoryofIran for following: HistoryofIran has suggested that this user is a sockpuppet of a blocked account:[33] [34] [35] [36]. 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)

IP-hopping troll, continued[edit]

  • 86.187.130.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)

Search engine submission[edit]

Article protected for 2 days. NAC, –Davey2010Talk 04:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats[edit]

BLOCKED:

Blocked by JamesBWatson for ""Very long-term disruptive editing and block evasion, using a number of IP addresses" for 2 years and user talk page access revoked by Drmies for talk page abuse. (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ParkH.Davis and Peyton Manning[edit]

Huon has indefinitely blocked ParkH.Davis (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ParkH.Davis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 [37].

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 [38] 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 [39]. 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." [40] 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. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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)

User:ApprenticeFan (me) about edits in The Amazing Race[edit]

I was so embarrassed on my contributing edits in The Amazing Race (season number) articles. Me and Masem (talk · contribs) are a frequent contributors for the show franchise that we did make shortening summary articles. I made my first edit back in April 2005 in The Amazing Race 7 and became very common ever since. The big problem is I did not give any comments without any explanations of how I cleaned up sentences to meet with the standards of WP:PLOT policy.

Articles have been reported:

My edits on those two articles didn't do a disruptive editing that is having a common on a good Wiki editor. At first, ESAD-Hooker (talk · contribs) became a new "Ryulong" of the Wikipedia-edit race for race/leg summary. Well, I didn't vandalize all of The Amazing Race pages since my account's creation in 2005 and this did not have previous blocks from editing. I may going to be a proper Wiki editor that meets the right standards to be understood. ApprenticeFan work 04:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Soooooo..... this isn't anything that needs admin intervention and should therefore be closed as such ? ....., Your edits look fine so I don't get what the problem is ? .... –Davey2010Talk 04:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Davey2010: These both articles were reverted by one editor, the problems are less awkward grammar, cohesion and tone. That would make sure to prove better sentences. ApprenticeFan work 04:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh right sorry, So have you tried talking to the editors on the respective talkpages?, BTW you need to provide diffs of the issue aswell otherwise your complaint won't get far, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah. I checked one on The Amazing Race 27 talk page and there's an analysis of these reports were made by ESAD-Hooker itself, Masem, and etc. ApprenticeFan work 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting removal of racism[edit]

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.

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 ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]), refer to edits by James J. Lambden as "white supremacist" ([48]) (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 [49]), meet resistance by myself and James J. Lambden, and then after discussions on the article talk page and even after my attempts at compromise ([50]) you go to WP:RSN. You didn't notify me or James J Lambden and you misrepresent that way the source is being used ([51]). It seems you did this in an attempt to win battle and went as far as to insinuate that I am promoting white pride ([52]) and call me suspicious ([53]).
You appear on black pride ([54]), 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 ([55]), 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 ([56]). 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)
[57] 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 ([58]). 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 advise a temporary topic ban for jps. Dingsuntil (talk) 07:42, 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)
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160311084934/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Leave a Reply