Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 9 March 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User:Vicky85144

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ylevental - COI and related issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Yossimgim

Yossimgim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making disruptive edits lately on Israel article. On other pages that unprotected, the user edit from IP addresses: 109.64.131.137, 79.176.62.204, 79.183.130.71. I'm sure it's the same person because edits appear at the same time and are similar in nature. Here, for some reason, he deleted the same picture from different articles using account and IP: 1, 2. The picture was added by me in both articles recently. Here he made disruptive edit under misleading edit summary: diff. Many edits has been reverted, not only by me. Was blocked three times before (1, 2, 3), constantly erases own talk page from notices, posted inappropriate warrant on my talk page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the edits had misleading edit summary, partially or totally unrelated to the actual edit. “WarKosign” 10:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yossimgim has also been rather disruptive in the past at Talk:Natalie Portman, and on user talk pages including my own. Essentially when the argument went against him he posted on everyone's talk pages accusing them of edit warring. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Found his sockpuppet: Dr. Feldinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As Yossimgim he added picture of Bar Refaeli to Israel article 15 times, and as Dr. Feldinger once. It was discussed before and account Dr. Feldinger was banned. I don't see how temporary ban will stop him as he appears on Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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)

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?

Jonadabsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Misplaced Pages: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. GAB 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 Misplaced Pages: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. GAB 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 05:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Yes, all the socks are confirmed to one another and possible to the master. GAB 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 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GAB 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 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:

• edit-warring at both London Students for Britain (, , , and fail WP:3RR, for example) and Luke Nash-Jones;
• lying about conflict of interests in both articles: see User talk:Jonadabsmith#Conflict of interest; and
• confirmed sock/meatpuppetry: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith, with puppets blocked, but awaiting action on the master account.

Jonadabsmith hasn't edited since Friday night, although there's been weird stuff on both articles since: , . 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

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 i 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, engaging in ad hominem attacks on other users.

Most concerning of all, this user has recently threatened to stop by the real-life work environment 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 that were at work here and that it represents a clear effort 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 here 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.

The last of the above behaviours is particularly unacceptable, so my proposal is as follows. 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 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Snow 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. BTW here is the SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

I had previously reported them to ANEW. GAB 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 Misplaced Pages(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~ 07:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't sound quite like a legal threat to me... GAB 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//_Δ's/ 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That user also reverted 5 times , 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)

Interpretation of the phrase "Musical comedy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Maybeparaphrased has only been editing for a month and (not surprisingly) has already encountered a few problems.

But now I have encountered a troubling pattern that, if not addressed now, will likely just get worse as Maybeparaphrased encounters other editors.

I came across this series of virtually identical and unsourced edits by an IP: here, here, here and here. In each case, not only were they not sourced, but they simply didn't fit where they had been placed. It was pretty obvious that this IP was attempting to place this same info on every single page where the subject was listed - whether it belonged there or not.

So I tried to correct it, by reverting those edits. When I got to the actual Hank Bergman article, it was an unholy mess and looked like this.

Thru a series of edits, I removed extraneous sections and non-encyclopedic fluff and now the article looks like this. But with my first edit, Maybeparaphrased decided to revert my edit there, as well as all my edits on those other pages as well. What followed was a series of notices left on my talk page and a series of back and forth on Maybeparaphrased's talk page: where I was repeatedly, threatened, four, times and curiously - after posting on my talk page, twice, - was told to stay off his/her talk page. When I advised Maybeparaphrased that threatening editors on his/her talk page for making constructive edits - especially since he/she was unfamiliar with the editing guidelines & policies - wasn't going to fly, was itself a violation and likely could backfire, I got the response that I should "take your alphabet soup of WP policies someplace else".

Again, Maybeparaphrased also reverted my edits on those other other pages, here, here and restored the non-encyclopedic, largely unsourced and irrelevant fluff on the Bergman page.

Obviously, it's ok to be newbie. You can even be an ass. (It's even ok to be an IP.) But if you're going to not only ignore the rules, but attack people who point out what the rules are, then you're definitely going to be a problem editor down the road - and some action should be taken now.

While I'm not recommending a block for the reverts, or the threats or even the stalking, I am definitely recommending guidance and monitoring for Maybeparaphrased. Before more serious action has to be taken against a newbie who doesn't think the rules apply to him/her and already feels he/she can operate without any repercussions. Any thoughts? Thanks.2602:306:BD61:E0F0:1DD3:FAF0:D888:A273 (talk) 11:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like a probable sock of the other Interesting to note: Bergman SPAs Legwarmers1980, FranciscoFWPerez, etc. and IP Bergman SPAs (someone else can list those). Someone probably needs to take some time to round them all up and file an WP:SPI. As a stop-gap measure, at the very least a topic-ban on Bergman probably needs to be enacted, and if they revert back to IP editing, then maybe semi-protection of the affected pages. See Update 1 below. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update 1: Looks like the OP merely got caught up in Maybeparaphrased's over-zealous use of Twinkle. When an IP blanks a section, it's fairly normal for someone to notice that in Recent Changes, and revert it. Maybeparaphrased then checked the IP's other similar edits and reverted them as well via Twinkle. OP, that's the breaks of not being a registered user: Your edits are more suspect, especially if you blank sections and remove a ton of content with the edit summary "format fixes", and when your IP account is only one day old and an SPA. I suggest registering an account if you don't want to be mistaken for a drive-by SPA in the future. Maybeparaphrased, please stop reverting this good-faith user's edits. IPs are people too. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 10:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Update 2: The edit history of Sherman Bergman is a hotbed of Bergman SPAs including IPs. I'm mentioning this because that article is now at AfD. Here are the registered-account SPAs I've found so far:
• FranciscoFWPerez
• Legwarmers1980
• PeterHeughan
• Alainchristian1960
• Mississippitruman
• Angelsunchained
• CliffHarper
• Eugenejerome
• Eddiecoyle1973
• Royalfleming
• TimBaker1941
• PainlessPeterPotter
• LeifSchumeucker
• BusRiley1965
• Lennybaker
• Desiree1954

That's not counting the IP SPAs on that article. Pinging Bbb23 and Binksternet -- do either of you feel like doing an SPI before that article gets deleted and the edit history disappears from view? Or is it even worth it at this point? Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

MarcoAlbani1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editwarring to insert OR definition at Alt-right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bauhaus-mn0000154998/biography
2. http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/?id=2838
3. Bernstein, Joseph (January 21, 2016). "Conservative Provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos Starts "White Men Only" Scholarship Fund". Buzzfeed News.
4. Welton, Benjamin (2016-02-01). "What, Exactly, is the 'Alternative Right?'". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2016-02-05.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy

• On May 20th 2015, I was topic banned here ] 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 ]. @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: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Science, Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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~ 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 22:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(After the edit conflict) and please provide evidence of where you believe I have been POV pushing. DrChrissy 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." DrChrissy 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 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.] DrChrissy 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 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Indeed. DrCh received a community ban on a specific subject, and his behavior then led to an ArbCom ban on another subject. When DrCh abused that ban, it was made more forceful. There has yet to be a circumstance where DrCh's editing has improved as a result of a sanction, he simply moves on to another subject and/or edits around the edges of the ban."AGF" is not a suicide pact, once an editor has shown that they do not deserve our good faith, we're under no obligation to continue to extend it to them until they have shown clear signs of understanding their past errors and correcting them in their current editing. There has been no such sign with DrCh. This appeal is simply one made at the earliest opportunity provided by the ban: he simply bided his time and here he is, with no evidence to present of having changed, the same-old civil-POV-pushing battleground editor he's always been. BMK (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

@Jtrainor: please would you expand (provide diffs) on what "messes" you believe I have started. I don't remember seeing you contributing to the subject matter of my topic ban. DrChrissy 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 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:Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Arbitrary break

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)

Admitted Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

IP-hopping troll

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

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

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

User:92.3.2.181 and User:92.3.5.49

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor

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

Moved from WP:AN

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

I've left a final warning on Isaiasad's talk page. If it continues after this warning, then I say that a block would be the next step. ~Oshwah~ 20:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Abusive inappropriate removal of content from an editor's user space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Potguru request

Recently, I blocked the named editor for 72 hours for casting aspersions and for disruptive editing. For context on this editor's behavior, please review the relevant ANI threads (, ) 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages works (WP:V, AFD, GA, merging/moving/redirecting or picture copyright) is yet forgivable, but needs to be sorted out. (tag User:Anna Frodesiak) However, a strong warning on their attitude (prone to anger, accusing other editors of conspiracies) is in order. starship.paint ~ KO 01:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• I also oppose an indefinite block, but Potguru may need a little more assistance in learning wiki policy. I don't really support a topic ban either, unless he persists in his behavior after his block expires. epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suggested getting a mentor on their talk page. That might help. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• What I see is someone who thought a lot of their hard work had been thrown away by the redirect of their article without merge - they did not realise that the content is still in the history and that the closing editor only has to judge the consensus and not do the actual merge. The response was bad and should that attitude continue to future events then they might not be able to work collaboratively, but before we consider that I think a little patience, sympathy and help could save the day and help retain a productive contributor. I oppose a topic ban at this point, and instead I think we should give Potguru the chance to merge those articles. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Livelikemusic

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

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

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

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

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

Compromised account

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

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

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

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

Misquoting reliable source at Killington Ski Resort

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

Nadir Hussain

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting 208.87.237.201

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

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

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

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

Disruption by 184.88.43.62

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

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

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

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

This is on the heels of edit warring at Raven-Symone despite my note explaining WP:BRD. Other edit-warring at Ben Sasse article ... there are more links.

Category warring at article on Eddie Griffin: . These are the same cats created by KeepingSasseHonest.

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

Harrassment by User:Sir Sputnik

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)

I'm completely uninvolved. Misplaced Pages'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)

IP making unsourced changes

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

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

Revert, warn, report at WP:AIV. Editor was blocked about 25 minutes before your post here. GiantSnowman 21:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Regina/ArtAndFeminism 2016/University of Regina

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

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

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

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

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

Edit war / sockpuppeting over self-promotional page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

European Graduate School

• European Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 · 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)

User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment

Both of these users User:Mhhossein and User:Saff V. have been involved with me in various content disputes. The pattern of editing is that one of them will place some highly POV or hagiographic text in an article, when it is taken out they will either try to force me to abandon my efforts or they will try to intimidate me. This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack and shift the topic of discussion from the article to the editor. Their modus operandi involves

1. Reverting my cleanup edits with the sole reason being "You do not have my consent".
2. Repeated reports frivolous and false reports at Administrator noticeboards which were declined with no action. for example This , This huge huge discussion that was useless and this latest discussion.
3. Repeated reverts without giving any reason. Like here
4. Reverting with the excuse that there is "ongoing discussion" even when the discussion at TP agrees with my edits and un involved editors go as far as to thank me.
5. Making statements to the effect that "I just reverted you but I will not discuss It, I am going to ping some of my friends, discuss with them". like here

Now it is quite clear that these reports and long drawn out thread like discussion take a toll on everyone. So I am proposing that as per policy at WP:IBAN an interaction ban be imposed indefinitely.

• Both users are banned from editing my user and talk pages;
• Both users are banned from replying to me discussions;
• Both users are banned from undo my edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;

The gist of the matter is that these guys have been harassing me for like 2 months now and an I-Ban is the best thing for everyone. Admins and other users will not have to waste time in the reports and the long discussions that follow. Hossein and SaffV will be able to edit and add to the wikipedia so we are not loosing editors, and I can get back to editing like a normal person without being dragged to ANI or 3PR everytime I edit an article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards