Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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)
Start a new discussion

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, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain, and his comments at the AfDs and on the article Talk pages would appear to exceed the usual boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:AGF among others. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it counts as outing, given that Bondegezou has linked to his work profile from his user page. I was more concerned about Jonadabsmith's suggestion that he wants to pay him a visit at work. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that's right. But addressing a person by his / her real (and full!) name rather than his User name adds, IMHO, a bit more menace to the comment. I don't know what kind of an actual threat it amounts to but it certainly seems designed to intimidate. JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the assessment here is correct, but agree it is very problematic behavior. Does seem menacing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur; it's hardly friendly, even if it's not a threat, per se. GAB^Hello! 21:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is currently an SPI open on this. GAB^Hello! 00:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

@Snow Rise: Yes, all the socks are confirmed to one another and possible to the master. GAB^Hello! 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that outcome comes as a shock to anyone. I am a little surprised that Bbb23 decided only to block the sock accounts and left it to another admin to decide whether to also block the likely master--but hopefully another admin will be along shortly to attend to that. It seems a pretty open and shut case of disruption and WP:NOTHERE, so the only thing I feel needs to be reiterated at this point is that Jonadabsmith can/should be blocked for the socking or for the blatant harassment/threats--and hopefully the block length will reflect the aggregate circumstances of the disruption. Personally, I'd fully support an indef in this instance, given this is clearly an SPA here to further a specific agenda--even if it means disrupting process through puppetry (generally grounds for an indef in its own right), to say nothing of threatening the off-wiki professional interests/personal well-being of a contributor. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GAB^Hello! 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 ([1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] 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: Wikipedia: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: [6], [7]. The two AfDs are still open, but given that only Jonadabsmith + puppets have voted to keep and numerous editors have voted for delete, I think they are both WP:SNOWable at this point!

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

Proposal: Topic Ban

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

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

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

• Support as nom. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from all areas relating to British student organizations, the Brexit or Britain's relationship to the European Union in general, all broadly construed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This is probably the least that should be done in this case, and a site ban is actually the preferred choice of experienced editors at this point. BTW here is the SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC); edited 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Siteban (first choice) or topic ban as proposed. A clear case of someone who is trying to use Wikipedia to further an agenda. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know that I should have a !vote as the injured party, so to speak, but if this account is not simply indef blocked, might I suggest a site ban until end of June 2016, i.e. a week after the referendum? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou, you are most definitely allowed to !vote. A site ban is considered permanent, so there are no short-term "site bans"; perhaps you meant a temporary block (which would also cover socking or block evasion). Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A clarification. Ostensibly, there are bans that are stated to last for a year, numerous Arbcom bans have been handed out in the past where editors were site banned for a a year. Obviously we all know that site bans are rarely fixed term and those site banned are even more rarely allowed to return. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Site ban as 1st choice and Tban as 2nd per Guy. Being zealous about what you believe in is one thing, but hinting at showing up at someone's work place is beyond chilling and into the realm of real world harassment. Blackmane (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support siteban or indef block on grounds that we would indef for legal threats, and IRL ones are even more serious. 09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)09:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.230.65.134 (talk)
• Site ban as first choice. I agree with Guy here.--Adam in MO Talk 12:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban This goes beyond just not editing on a specific topic. In my opinion a line was crossed with the comment related to "having a cup of coffee" with Bondegezou. That to me smelled of an attempt to harass the user in person. This is not the type of editor that I personally would want to have on Wikipedia. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban first choice, with a very broadly construed topic ban as a poor alternative which would have to include a one-way interaction ban to stop them finding other ways to needle an editor they oppose. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban as first choice with topic ban as second choice. Using Wikipedia to further an agenda or sock puppetry is a violation of fundamental policies. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Site ban as first choice, topic ban second choice. Precisely the sort of behavior which destroys a collegial, cooperative and good-faith editing environment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• I have noted another couple of sock or meat puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonadabsmith. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support a site ban or topic ban (second choice), this individual's behavior has been intimidating and disruptive. GAB^Hello! 16:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Further issues

All socks (including the two new ones) and the master account have been indef banned. The two original articles have been deleted, although a clone article was created by one of the socks and is up for speedy deletion. There's some odd IP editing going on on related topics; don't know how that fits in. If people could keep an eye out for any new socks or inappropriate IP editing, that would be helpful. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be some hostility between rival anti-EU groups, which has spilled over on to Wikipedia. Jonadabsmith made this edit to Students for Britain and now we have IP edits such as this. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Universities for Britain speedily deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 10:03, 14 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)

All of these accounts share an interest in promoting Sherman Bergman, which is an interest also shared by Sherman Bergman himself. It appears that Bergman realized in his youth that by working at the newspaper he could get his own name in print, which he did frequently. However, the newspaper was always the Miami Herald where he had contacts. There's no national coverage.

Named the same as one of the SPAs here, there's a Flickr account named Legwarmers 1980 which contains scans of the various newspaper clippings about Sherman Bergman and his father Hank. These are supposed to serve as references. I don't think Wikipedia needs this article, so I voted 'delete' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherman Bergman (2nd nomination). I would bet that any account working primarily on Bergman's bio is a sock account. Binksternet (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, thanks very much for the additional sleuthing. The same collection of SPA socks and IPs created Hank Bergman, a vanity article on his father, almost entirely cited to that same Flickr account. The OP gave it a trim-down but it still should probably be axed as well. Take a look. Care to do the nomination? Softlavender (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

You are already halfway there, Softlavender. You have the green light. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK I'll probably do it in a day or two. Not feeling like filing an AfD at the mo -- I don't use Twinkle (maybe I should start). Someone should remind me if I forget to do the nom. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've nominated Hank Bergman for deletion. This thread can be closed, since the misunderstanding that led to it has been resolved. Softlavender (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy

• On May 20th 2015, I was topic banned here [[8]] 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 [[9]]. @Dennis Brown: carefully considered the discussion and decided that my ban should be re-visited in 3 months. This was primarily, I believe, because at the time I was involved in an Arbcom case, rather than non-adherance of the TB (Dennis, I hope I am not misrepresenting you here). I am now (re-)seeking to have the TB lifted.
• During the last 3 months, I have not edited any pages in the area of my TB, or entered into discussions about them. I cannot recollect any comments from other editors that I have come close to violating the TB, or attempted to skirt the TB. I also cannot recollect asking either of the closing admins, or others, for advice regarding the extent of my TB during the last 3 months – indicating I have consciously stayed unambiguously away from the topic areas.
• I believe that when admins are looking for evidence of why a TB should be lifted, they are wanting to see constructive editing in areas away from the TB. I will not repeat the evidence I presented at my previous request, rather, I offer the following as evidence of my constructive and non-disruptive editing behaviour during the last 3 months.

Created: Grimace scale (animals)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose Partly on the basis that I find some of the editing being pointed to as a good example, such as the second part of the extensive diff [10] to stray from the point of the actual article, presumably to implicitly express an opinion. (Personally, I basically agree with the implied opinion, but I still regard introducing other types of animals into the discussion and adding the boxed material not to constitute NPOV editing.) (& similar in some of the other articles; again, that I mostly agree with his apparent positions in these also is not to the point) DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like you have not read the thread. I stated above "Editors did not like this and I accept I made a series of pointy, disruptive edits." and "I failed to listen to consensus."[11] DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

By the way, an example of my acceptance that I do get things wrong and I do apologise is clearly evident on my Talk page, here.[[12]] DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice and reason for lifting ban

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

---

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

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

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

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

More evidence of collaborative editing - Alligator gar - DrChrissy rephrased a couple of sentences and drew my attention to use of the word anecdotal in the lead which actually motivated me to seek better terminology. [13] I reverted believing anecdotal was the best choice. I trust his judgment in so many ways regarding animal behavior, and just wanted to mention that I am still looking for ways to improve the article based on his suggestions. Yes, he is a valuable contributor and his expertise regarding veterinary topics and animal behavior is a plus for WP. I've seen where some of our Project Medicine team members oppose lifting the ban because of edits he made regarding fringe/ps topics like acupuncture and the like but his edits referenced animal behaviors not human. I'm not sure the latter makes a difference - I never professed to be a scientist or medical expert - and I equally respect both sides of the argument but then the issue of placebo is called into question where animals are concerned, and I would think an animal behavior expert may have some insight from which all of us can learn. Atsme^📞📧 20:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing articles which have alt.med sections was, and will remain, a tiny part of my editing habits. Even a cursory glance at my User contributions page here[14] will convince you that I edit many, many articles which have absolutely nothing to do with alt.med. The project has nothing to fear from me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I'm even more convinced it's solely a matter of vocabulary because any discussion as to whether an animal has knowledge of whether the treatment is a placebo is not even something I thought of considering. I'm not sure why you think anyone would make such an assumption! Applying operant conditioning of the sort you suggest would be outright fraud. jps (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it is not operant conditioning, it is associative learning - very different terms in animal behaviour. Which is also the problem with your comment above. Blinding, double-blinding, triple-blinding and non-blinded are specific terms (not vocabulary) relating to robust experimental design. The article blind-experiment might help you understand these. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Follow up: You stated above "double blinding is needed in veterinary medicine (that you don't realize this is indicative of some really shoddy critical thinking skills)." The human administering is the researcher, the non-human animal receiving the administration is the subject. You are clearly indicating that you think the animal needs to be blinded in some way. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You sure are getting tiresome here. Either you really do not understand the point I was making, or you are just in this for scoring points which I don't understand because I'm not sure what you hope to get out of this since it is your appeal. Let's avoid jargon and get on the same page. It is important that neither researcher nor administrator of a treatment (they are often not the same person) know which is a placebo and which is not. This is never the case in any study done about animal acupuncture. jps (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it extremely rich for you to ask for extra space to ask questions of me and then call me "tiresome" for answering them. This is clearly baiting, because you realise I have made transparent your lack of critical thinking and understanding about the design of medical studies. Jargon is there for a reason. It prevents misunderstanding and misuse of terms between experts in the subject area. Your interpretation of what double-blind means is wrong. What you are referring to is triple-blind. In the past, you have made incivil comments about my competence - I now leave it to readers to judge yours. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS - regarding the sources issue. Please note I have not said whether I would accept or reject those sources. Of course, ultimately it all comes down to context. I have never heard of the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies before today and I asked you a direct question about why you find it a fringe publication. I remain uneducated about this journal. Please give a direct answer to a direct question. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is journal for true believers in acupuncture. jps (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference is between a "true believer" and a "believer" but notwithstanding this, the use of the journal would depend on the context. Rather ironically, this is exactly the lesson I learned from my topic ban. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

JPS - I concede to your expertise regarding the Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies, and struck it. Please consider it gone from this discussion. Now then, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're trying to relay is that all veterinary articles in all Journals regarding equine acupuncture suck. Correct? And your evidence is based on human trials, correct? Atsme^📞📧 22:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Efficacy trials are only relevant if you have don't have strong priors against a regimen. Unless carefully controlled, they give no information if there is no functional mechanism. The pseudoscientific basis for meridians is the killer. jps (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps during the trials, vets should discuss symptoms with their patients and have them sign a disclosure. 😆 I also know that treatments we wouldn't imagine to be successful on humans are incredibly successful on certain animals - canines and equines specifically. For example, chocolate can kill a dog whereas a bit of chocolate and a cold beer does wonders for me. Horses like beer, but they curl their noses up at a delicious Ruth's Chris steak. Turpentine on the soles of a hoof work wonders, but I doubt it would work on my toenails. Just saying. Atsme^📞📧 23:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Folks, this has all gotten off into a tangent here that is, at best, only abstractly related to behavioural issues of the single editor that are the main point of this thread. Not withstanding my !vote above, I tend to favour an editorial approach of deep skepticism when weighting MEDRS-based claims, so I understand the concern here--and the impulse to examine these issues at length in the context of considering DrChrissy's past (and probable future) behaviour. That said, I think it's clear that each of you has come to a determination as to where you think the lines of appropriate editorial behaviour in this regard lay and how you think DrChrissy will approach such matters. Since none of you seem likely to be swayed to change your !vote at this point, and endless cycle of lengthy posts about the nature of MEDRS in the context of alternative medicine can only serve to further clog this thread, on a forum that is not the best place to discuss these matters at length. So unless one of you has further evidence to present relevant to DrChrissy's immediate case, what do you say we cap this tangent here or move it to someone's talk page? Snow ^{let's rap} 00:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Snow - I had drafted the same thought but got caught in an edit conflict. I for one am happy to see this capped. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I acknowledge that this is the typical desire, but it is something of a shame because I think we were just getting down to the point of actually figuring out where the distance lies. For example, Atsme above compares the canine sensitivity to theobromine to an idea that maybe energetic meridians exist. It's exactly this kind of back-and-forth that is useful, but essentially never occurs on talkpages be they article or user because the context of such venues is not to deal with the underlying issues. Here we have a useful opportunity to actually dialogue because the stakes are higher, and it seems to me one of the problems with Wikipedia's WP:BURO is that productive conversations get shut down as unproductive as tangential when they're really the consequential point. People may know that I think ultimately behavior matters far less than competence with content. For the record, I have not voted (and will not be voting) in this game of let's find a rule. jps (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

No one is saying that you two shouldn't have this conversation or that it's per se unproductive. But ANI is not the place for--indeed, is arguably the very least appropriate space on the entire project for--protracted discussions on approaches to content. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You are derailing a productive discussion. ANI is not the place for a lot of things, but they happen here anyway, and not bureaucracy advises that good things should be allowed to happen regardless of the rules. This section is short by ANI standards, and the above back-and-forth is the closest I have ever seen to a meeting of minds on an important issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

And the reason this meeting of the minds can't take place elsewhere?

The only derailing here I see here is the hijacking of a thread that is meant to be deciding the status of the sanction of a particular editor. There are a literally hundreds of talk spaces on this project where this side discussion would be appropriate. ANI is not one of them. This is not a WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY matter, it's a practical one. This discussion is nowhere near a groundbreaking or unique one with regard to resolving the countless issues of how MEDRS intersects with alternative medicine. Nor is it anywhere near a conclusion in its own right. On any given day ANI has between 20-50 threads composed of between 250,000-600,000 kb of text. That's if we keep it to essential discussion about behavioural issues and away from tangents like these. This thread already has an excess of 100 posts... This is just not the forum for this manner of content discussion and pointing that fact out is not a matter of some sort of blind obsession with technicality, however devoted you are to thrashing this out. Once again, no one is saying this a bad discussion to have (I wouldn't have had variations of it a hundred times myself if I didn't think it was an essential function of editing on science-related articles). But there's absolutely zero reason why it can't be had elsewhere, and it's ANI 101 that it doesn't belong here...Snow ^{let's rap} 10:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just pointing out that if this discussion does continue elsewhere at the moment, and I believe it should continue, my TB will prevent me from engaging in it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion here, as part of the unban request so DrChrissy can participate, would be valuable to understand how DrChrissy may behave if the ban is removed. For what it is worth a productive discussion could influence me to reconsider my !vote and possible others would reconsider as well. TL;DR - lets use the space to let them discuss the original tangent rather than waste space arguing another tangent about whether they can continue with the original tangent or not. Jbh^Talk 19:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC) Replaced edit which was reverted without comment by Keith D Jbh^Talk 20:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained revert Ermmmm...an editor's posting has just been reverted here [15] by another editor. What's happening here, please? DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That sometimes happens on AN/I as the result of an edit conflict. It's a bug that I assume is due to it being such a high volume page. If ithappens again, just restore the reverted material and drop a note on the talk page of the editor who caused it, just to let them know. It's rare -- unless the editor is a troll or otherwise disruptive contributor -- that such reversions are intentional. BMK (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On his talk page KeithD says it was a mistake, probably made when he was attempting to delete something else entirely. BMK (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I would very much welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion or others relating to my future editing if the TB is lifted, however, I would not wish to alienate those who might oppose this suggestion. I shall wait to see further comments. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Personally I'm appalled that we give people TB. It's highly contagious and many forms are drug-resistant. EEng 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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)

I think you meant Claudioalv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As a sidenote: the page is fully protected, which kind of nullifies part of the unblocking administrators reasoning that Claudioalv didn't try to edit the article. I had a short look at the French page about the institution, which comes along a little shorter and completely avoids any mention of accreditation status...but I admit the singlemindedness with which the accreditation topic is tackled again and again leaves me suspecting a strong COI and meatpuppetry. Lectonar (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I cannot type for toffee (burn scars on my left hand). Guy (Help!) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: The article was indefinitely full-protected 10 days ago. There's an RfC which was opened by Vanjagenije a week ago [16], which should resolve at least one issue the user in question (Claudioalv) has been trying to address. By the way no SPI was filed or CU requested, but the user was indef blocked by JzG after only two edits (both to the talk page). While JzG may have some observational behavioral evidence to back that up, he seems to be acting as judge, jury, and executioner on this article and the users trying to edit it. There's also an ArbCom Request on the subject going on at this time. While I think it's commendable that JzG is looking over this article, I think his entire modus operandi is a little excessive and I think that the article and situation needs more eyes and more admin eyes, not a single-handed dictatorship. The article (or user) should have been brought to ANI or to administrative attention prior to this single-handed harshness, in my opinion. As in some other cases, I think JzG needs to dial back his intensity and POV, and allow for the fact that even COI users have a right to attempt to correct items on Wikipedia, and if there is a concern it should probably be brought to ANI or another noticeboard or investigation board before it blows up on so many fronts like this. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edited to add: And *sigh* now there's a Request for mediation filed: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/European Graduate School article content - Accreditation issue. In my mind we have a clueless newbie editor and an overzealous admin; not a great mix, especially when in my mind neither of them is really listening to what the other is saying or trying to say. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am presently in the midst of reading Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography of Hitler. Let me assure you, JzG is not imposing a "dictatorship." We have enough problems on Wikipedia without hyperbole like this. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, however we phrase it, I have to agree with Softlavender that it is problematic to block an editor after two edits without a CU, unless there is transparent discussion about the behavioural evidence. I trust Guy's perspective here, certainly, but when it comes to blocks, I think policy and appropriate caution require more. I won't say that I can't envisage instances when reflexive blocking might make sense, but I'm sure Guy understands why this can be viewed as problematic, especially when it is not a one-off action, but part of a broader effort that may have some suggestion of WP:INVOLVED. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am heartily sick of this user. Look at the recent edit history, including trying to take this to ArbCom. So we can now add WP:FORUMSHOP to WP:TE, WP:IDHT, WP:RGW, WP:SYN and all the others. Banhammer, please. This is not about an "over zealous admin", check the article's history, there are a mountain of single purpose accounts - including socks and puppeteers. This is a long-term programme of POV-pushing plainly orchestrated by the school, a more aggressive version of what happens at Bircham International University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy (Help!) 12:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Kudos to Guy for reality-based adminning. BMK (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• BMK is correct. There are lots of highly dubious organizations which earn money by selling fake academic qualifications, and their #1 priority is to fix their Wikipedia article. Anyone wanting to support the SPAs should think hard about text they add because this diff shows a claim that the school is accredited in Malta—the ref used to support that has a title starting "School that spawns activists...". Such WP:UNDUE material should not be used to obfuscate the core issue, namely that the organization is not accredited in the U.S., and Texas says it issues "fraudulent or substandard degrees". AGF is great, but reality also needs to be considered. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 13 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. I am pinging some people who have been involved in this since the onset. Pinging User:Drmies (who will be pissed that he has pinged once again, but pleased that this will be a permanent solution) and User:Jeppiz(we disagree off and on, so balances out the canvass :P). People with the latest input in this @ 3pr thread were User:Malik Shabazz, User:Dr.K. and User:BlueMoonset. People who contributed to the long debate a month ago were User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and User:HyperGaruda. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not personally seeing enough diffs to justify the accusations of harassment or the extensive I-Ban as proposed. Reverting wholesale removal of cited information, especially when it completely gutted the article, is not harassment. Reverting the removal of a massive amount of cited text while a discussion is ongoing and before there is any consensus or WP:DR is not harassment. Plus you are complaining that one of the users pinged two supporters in a conflict with you, but you just now pinged six+ of your own supporters in this ANI filing. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender the removal of a massive amount of cited text is allowed when you take a look at the TP and see that everyone except one guy is for removing it. You can check the dates of TP discussion and my "removal". I am not complaining that he pinged other users. My complaint is simpler. "He never bothered to engage in discussion, rather he reverted and told me that he will not even discuss". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see your point about that POV/quotefarm-removal edit, but one diff is not enough to prove your case. Also, I don't see SaffV refusing to discuss with you, however I do see him struggling with English and asking for help. And in any case per WP:BRD you needed to gain talk-page consensus for your gutting of the article before attempting to do that again, but there was no such consensus and you edit-warred and kept gutting it. Softlavender (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the I-Ban as construed above. Editing on different sides of contentious topics is no cause to ban someone from reverting one's edits. Better all three editors should receive a widely construed topic ban on all of these sorts of articles. Since that is unrealistic, there are probably Arb sanctions like DS in force for these articles, and if not, perhaps a 1RR or 2RR restriction should be instituted so that WP:DR is always used in these content disputes rather than edit wars and ANI filings. Beyond that, the OP is, like anyone, free to ban anyone from his talk page. Softlavender (talk) 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Interaction ban with Mhhossein, their baseless accusations have been seen at enough boards over an extended period of time to be considered harrassment now. No comment on other user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you'd better take another look at the reports. What you called "baseless accusations" were not actually baseless (see my notes below-#2) . Mhhossein (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: To be frank all what came above was to me just Victim playing (I suggest the users to have a look at that page) by trying to "diverting attention away from his acts of abuse" and/or "soliciting sympathy from others". Let's see the real fact behind his accusations.

1. He said:"This intimidation involves biating me repeatedly until I say something which they use as a personal attack!" the users who have experienced interacting with FreeatlastChitchat know that he has repeatedly attacked various users (not only me or the other reported user) and I don't think being "biated" (if we assume has happened) is a suitable reason for calling others "Liar" or telling others that you have "mental disease." Fortunately, the so called huge discussion has turned into a collection of FreeatlastChitchat's personal attacks and uncivilities, where among other things he used the "F" word and its derivatives multiple times and called users "Imbecilic liar" so that he received a heavy warning from an admin [17].
2. What he calls "frivolous and false reports" (such as the mentioned ones) were mostly stemming from his inability to participate in the talk page discussions, tending to make mass removals and using "colorful language", and that's why he's a user of being reported by various users on a monthly basis. By the way, I would not call them "false" as they led to warnings or cautions, at least. For example, in the "huge discussion" the closing admin told me that my comments were fine, followed policy, and were very helpful. Moreover, I think FreeatlastChitchat (the reporter) forgot to mention that this report where the closing admin said there were "major civility issues with FreeatlastChitchat's mode of dialogue with other Wikipedians, as evidenced by their posts here in this discussion and by their talk page contributions elsewhere."
3. Nearly always, I have tried to engage in discussions on the talk page and to build a consensus (you can see my activity on the TPs). Getting thanks from users has no special meaning. At least it does not necessarily prove that one's edit had been toward the consensus, specially where there had been no clear consensus on removing or keeping something.
4. Although per a suggestion from a user, I had aimed to drop some issues off, I have to take fresh personal attacks by FreeatlastChitchat here; He told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis", even noted by uninvolved users. Among other occasions as stated above, he violated civility by using "have his arse on a silver platter". I don't deem it a polite language. Do you?
5. As its seen, he did blatantly canvassed nearly six users and I avoid doing so.
6. I don't need "I" or any other types of bans. I can gently interact with users on TPs. I think this is FreeatlastChitchat (blocked multiple times) who does not know how to do it. He was also asked by admins "to treat other Wikipedia contributors with respect and dignity", tone his language down (in the huge discussion) and to practice democracy. Mhhossein (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you say you feel abused by me. Then an I-Ban is actually in your favor. With the Iban in place I will not be able to talk to you or about you. So basically I am doing you a favor here. If you are actually true in saying that I have abused you then you should be in favor of an I-Ban not against it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No! Now that you've came up with this report, all those uncivilities and personal attacks should be taken care of. I'm not, of course, the only editor whom you offended and abused. So, you've to learn how to interact with others. Mhhossein (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I violated no policy while interacting with you, so Why I-Ban on me? Mhhossein (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm just here to say good luck to everyone. One day you will all be blocked indefinitely if you keep going like this--though I guess it's nice of Freeatlast to seek a solution. However, iBans are usually more trouble than they're worth, as the regulars know. Have a great day, Drmies (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies: Thanks, I just wanted to recall you something. You know much more than me, of course. Mhhossein (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Somehow I didn't get the ping by Freeatlast. I came here after checking the report at 3RRN. My only comment here is that I don't appreciate being labeled as Freeatlast's "supporter". I appreciate Freeatlast's removal of the WP:QUOTEFARM from the Iran-US incident and I have thanked him for it. But agreeing with an editor on an edit, does not make you a "supporter" of said editor. This type of characterisation is not helpful because it unnecessarily labels editors who agree on constructive edits. Dr. K. 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose Maybe if you'd stop pushing a pro-sunni POV, people would stop getting angry with you, freeatlast. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest a boomerang: The reporter was unable to show his case as the other user said and his report is nonsensical to me. Moreover, he were impolite enough recently. After calling other users liars, imbecilic liar and saying uncivil things multiple times and after multiple warnings by admins to tone down his language, he still show tendency to make personal attacks and be uncivil. I think this a boomerang case. His major civility issues is not resolved yet. His major civility issues are not resolved yet.

Talk pages are suitable place for talk and after conclusion edit articles. The reporter way is: 1. deleting all text and make an incomplete article without any talk or summary 2. when me or another user revert his/her edit, he/she undo without reliable reasons 3.in the last time when me say to add your reason in the talk page, he/she write meaningless and biased sentences and attack. The reporter must learn to use talk page first and then do major edit. Topic ban is better way for him or her.Saff V. (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Support boomerang: Freeatlastchitchat certainly has serious problems regarding WP:CIVILITY issues. I see that he's also done several personal attacks. One of my experiences interacting with him/her was at [[18]], where he was impolite and used sentences like this: “Don't worry we are not blaming you for "decorating" lol” or “It does not matter what you think”. The fact that he do major edits at articles without explaining them at talk page or trying to participate talk page discussions, like what other editors said, is another serious problem of Freeatlastchitchat. This is while some users pointed out to him that observe this rule but he don’t pay attention. Hence, I think Boomerang is a suitable idea. I also see that he has canvassed multiple users! There were many other users participating in those previous reports and It's interesting that he did not canvassed those who opposed him before.Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 when you show even a single edit outside an Iran/Shia hagiographic article, then you can give an opinion. Of course you want me banned, so you lot can just continue to add whatever you want to your beloved articles without anyone reverting your pov edits. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat, do you oppose the view that "Freeatlastchitchat kept on making uncivil comments and making personal attacks" although you were warned by admins to be careful about that?Lstfllw203 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 I oppose the view that you can give neutral input in this situation, seeing that you are trying your best to WP:CENSOR anything that portrays Iran in a bad light. BTW you appear to be a WP:SPA seeing that you only edit Iran/Shia things and nothing else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FC's uncivil comments: Fresh cases of Freeatlastchitchat's uncivil comments: " your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong" (all in [19]). I don't know when this will finish. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein when you revert me "just for fun" I have all the right to say that your edits appear childish to me. Your English WAS childish, to be frank even children write better English. As I said before "If you are writing an article, I have literally no beef whatsoever with what kind of English you use, I will be hay to coy edit your creations". However, when you REVERT me and just for the hell of it replace my English phrases with complete gibberish, then my friend I have all the right to label your English as childish. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I never reverted you for fun. I would not call other editors as such! Mhhossein (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein then how can you explain your replacing the words Ardeshir Hosseinpour was killed by gassing with Ardeshir Hosseinpour was died because of gassing. ? What reason do you have? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of interpreting a dubious death as "assassination", you could simply remove that excess "was", what I forgot to do. --Mhhossein (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim

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

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

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

Found his sockpuppet: Dr. Feldinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As Yossimgim he added picture of Bar Refaeli to Israel article 15 times, and as Dr. Feldinger once. It was discussed before and account Dr. Feldinger was banned. I don't see how temporary ban will stop him as he appears on Wikipedia occasionally anyway, was banned before 4 times in total, and just continue to add same pictures in different articles for years only to be reverted and then comes back again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you reported this at WP:SPI? The user and IP's certainly are quacking. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Just started investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• He has been involved in a slow-burn edit war on the Benjamin Disraeli article too, despite a request to use the talk page's open thread on the matter. – – SchroCat (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Well the SPI was rejected on the grounds that the Dr. Feldinger case is stale. If this is an entirely new editor (or the sockmaster can't be pinpointed), Yossimgim is a disruptive editor who doesn't demonstrate anything to suggest that s/he is WP:HERE... and is still 'contributing'. I don't see any attempts to engage with other editors (never mind the tone of communications with other editors last time s/he was around). Currently, the only response to other editors has been to delete warnings and carry on regardless. Given that the multiple POINTy IP edits point to this being the same user, this is getting to be unjustifiably irritating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

CU was declined but the SPI is still open and it's pretty clear there is abuse of multiple accounts (the IPs). He's been blocked three times in 2015, perhaps it's time for a longer block if they keep editing while logged out. Softlavender (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, as Softlavender notes, only the checkuser request was declined. Checkuser relies on technical details that are only retained by the server for a short while, so "stale" means that there's no possible way to conduct the checkuser. Sockpuppet investigations routinely rely on behavioral analysis, so this isn't over yet. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Softlavender and Nyttend. I know it's difficult to pin down users who are deft at gaming/ducking and diving (whether by accident or by stealth). I'll be keeping my eyes open for IPs and accounts that fit the SPA behavioural patterns in light of the fact that the Yossimgim account alone has an established pattern of a few days of editing, then disappearing for a year. It may be frustrating, but the user will be caught out eventually. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It continues – see new section below on this page, and at SPI. Since this topic started, he had three new dynamic IPs to make disruptive edits from (one was blocked for 48 hours) and this thread went to archive, which I restored. I've already asked this at SPI without response so will repeat it here – Is it possible to block his IP ranges? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Current events pages

The following current events pages do not exist:

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

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

Pinging the following users:

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

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

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

Wildly disruptive User:Deffrman

While User:Deffrman has just been blocked for 36 hour after having made 8 reverts in about a half-hour — and despite the efforts of four other editors — he also has been editing another editor's talk-page comments (mine) to make say the opposite of what was posted. Since he could simply have deleted the comments, this blatantly deliberate misrepresentation is disruptive to a whole other level. As if that weren't enough, he's also a sock of 2001:e10:6840:21:20c:6eff:fe07:58e3 2001:e10:6840:21:20c:6eff:fe07:58e3. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's obvious the user isn't on Wikipedia to be constructive. I recommend an indefinite block. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably the quickest and most efficient way of dealing with this is to get a CU via SPI. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not really--the quickest way is to weigh and compare edits, and then do what AlexiusHoratius did. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Well, I certainly have no objection that this user was blocked on an admin's initiative. But that block, if you are referring to Alex Bakharev's action, was for 36 hours, while JudeccaXIII was specifically suggesting an indef. And an indef is much more likely to be arrived at in a speedy fashion via a finding of socking at SPI than via a protracted behavioural discussion here, at least in the typical case. That's my only observation and I believe one which is almost universally true in instances of this sort. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given that the user has been globally locked, this is kinda dealt with. SPI or no, there is probably nothing we can do now. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 23:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Snow Rise, I was referring to AlexisHoratius's protectino of Sukhumi which, in a case where a hopper is abusing one single article, is the quickest solution. Voidwalker is correct with the global lock, which I noticed right after I commented here--so yeah, I think we're done. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

‎User:Wikinewseditor at the Kolkata Derby‎ article

Wikinewseditor (talk · contribs) has continued to edit disruptively at the Kolkata Derby‎ article, removing sourced material and adding unsourced material, despite multiple warnings, and I'm not sure what should be done. The editor does not communicate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I think they need a stern warning from several people at once, if they're not listening to one person. Their contribs that I looked at were totally redundant, adding "two consecutive days" before "7th and 8th of August, 1938"; and there were several edits like that today. They also bumped up the numbers of matches between teams. I don't know if it's severe enough for a block, but something does need to be done. Maybe a topic ban or page protection? White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, their most recent list of edits does not remove sourced material, though some numbers are changed. I can't do much about it, except to suggest to you that if a. there is consensus over content, numbers, sources, etc. on the talk page, and b. that editor goes against that consensus after being warned, then c. they can be blocked for disruptive editing, if it persists. In other words, to the outside world this looks kind of like a content dispute, at least until the talk page establishes that there is a consensus. Of course, you could ask for a topic ban or something like that, which is also going to take consensus. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I stumbled upon that article via WP:STiki. When I saw that Wikinewseditor was steadily making changes that seem disruptive, despite reverts and warnings from multiple editors, I started watching the article. For me, it's not a content dispute. My concern is that Wikinewseditor is adding a bunch of unsourced and incorrect information, and nothing is being done about it except reverting him occasionally. He has completely warped that article, and it seems others have tired of reverting him. The editor does not appear to be productive in the least. But there is nothing more that I am willing to do about this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

There is one editor who seems to be familiar with the topic and kept challenging Wikinewseditor's text; that was Redhotgold (talk · contribs). See this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn, when you get to be admin, you'll appreciate that the things that used to look simple when you were an editor don't look so simple anymore. Editors are typically familiar with the material and know whether some change or other is disruptive or not; this is not so for admins. This is one of the reasons why we like y'all to a. be clear in edit summaries and b. use the talk page to hammer out consensuses that we can then enforce. And/or, if that editor adds unsourced info (or removes valid sourced info) and they don't explain properly, give them a templated warning, and let them add up to past level 4 so you can report them at AIV. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

"Editors are typically familiar with the material and know whether some change or other is disruptive or not; this is not so for admins." Finally, real evidence that becoming an admin causes loss of mental capacity. I can only shudder to think what becoming an arbitrator does! EEng 22:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

IP-hopping troll, continued

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

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

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

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

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

This eagle is watching you, BT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, with that said, I ask:

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

etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Articles have been reported:

• The Amazing Race 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Amazing Race 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Soooooo..... this isn't anything that needs admin intervention and should therefore be closed as such ? ....., Your edits look fine so I don't get what the problem is ? .... –Davey2010^Talk 04:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Davey2010: These both articles were reverted by one editor, the problems are less awkward grammar, cohesion and tone. That would make sure to prove better sentences. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh right sorry, So have you tried talking to the editors on the respective talkpages?, BTW you need to provide diffs of the issue aswell otherwise your complaint won't get far, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I checked one on The Amazing Race 27 talk page and there's an analysis of these reports were made by ESAD-Hooker itself, Masem, and etc. ApprenticeFan ^work 07:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks to be largely a content dispute. WP:DRN may be a better place to discuss this. Blackmane (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Back again. I did make a file at WP:DRN and this was a premature case. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

My observation was, on 14 February 2016‎, in less than 1 hour, ApprenticeFan removed over 3,000 bytes. I don't think an article can be pruned with detail in that amount of time. The results of that pruning substantiates my observation ESAD-Hooker (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your post at DRN was removed because you hadn't fufilled the base requirements: Where was there previous discussion on the Article Talk Page or User Pages? Based on the fact that this is a perenial problem, perhaps opening an RFC to establish consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/The Amazing Race task force (or WikiProject Television in the context of many reality TV series) would be a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is a discussion on Talk:The Amazing Race 25#New TAR Clue Format and Summaries which the now-banned Ryulong made an idea to clean up the race summary, merging with Route Info, Detour, Roadblock or Route Info, Roadblock, Detour through a leg summary in order. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

A discussion from 2014 does not constitute The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. and as such the request was dismissed. Please stop slinging mud regarding banned users due to the fact that it only undermines your position. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverting removal of racism

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

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

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

• reinserting racist sources into the white pride artice

Please advise.

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

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

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

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc you are trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and treating these pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. You start edit warring on white pride ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]), refer to edits by James J. Lambden as "white supremacist" ([27]) (which to me reads as saying the user making them is either making white supremacist edits or is one themselves, and when requested to clarify you refused [28]), meet resistance by myself and James J. Lambden, and then after discussions on the article talk page and even after my attempts at compromise ([29]) you go to WP:RSN. You didn't notify me or James J Lambden and you misrepresent that way the source is being used ([30]). It seems you did this in an attempt to win battle and went as far as to insinuate that I am promoting white pride ([31]) and call me suspicious ([32]).

You appear on black pride ([33]), out of nowhere, but only after encountering me at white pride, and try to remove a sourced comment claiming that it doesn't refer to black pride, despite it being mentioned 9 times in the source and even in the title. During your renewed battle today, you go to black pride again to remove it claiming the source is now "terrible" adding "Awful. What's your problem?" in your edit summary ([34]), referring to me. You are casting aspersions, following me, treating these subjects as battlegrounds, and resorting to chicanery to "win". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know where that "rule of thumb" is located. We cover racism and racists quite a bit, as well as their opinions. Also, accusing users of being a "famous GamerGater" is very inappropriate and amounts to a personal attack ([35]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, you misrepresented the issue. Cannot form consensus based on that. Once clarified, I pinged all the users for their opinions given the context the source was used. Had they all agreed it was still inappropriate, that would be consensus and I'd be 100% okay with that. But instead it went here and you continue your problematic behavior on RSN ([37]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Block for User:jps agreed. A period of time away from the project might perhaps cool his crusading ardour. 08:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)08:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Massive reverting of edits plus WP:OWN

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

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

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

Distributive editor sock pupertry investigation without progress , disruptive edits and 3RR ignorance continue.

YuHuw like his suspected predecessor Kaz staring from 8 January 2016 trying and claiming to connection between Khereid tribe and Russian Karaites.The style is the same multiple edits on several pages,ignoring request on other users to revert to concensus version. 3RR rules are violated constantly,arguments are ignored. The usual his reverts explanation is : "User:Ancientsteppe puppet POV pushing" without any additional argument.Sometimes he also distorts original meaning of the RS or used non RS for his claim.

E.g here he removed Kheraid consensus page name claiming that the persian name of the tribe is 'Karaites' while most of the sources use name Kheraid or Keraites.He also removed the consensus map of Kheraide in spite of objection of other editors. As you can see below also 3RR is totally violated:

1)

2)

3)

4)

Here the similar on the Qaraylar page where he claims without any RS non consensus meanings of the word ignoring any arguments of other editors without any meaningful explanation. 1)Here and

2)here and

3)here and

4)here and

5) here

Above are only several examples. The same phenomena may be find almost on every page that he has edited.

While Sockpuppet his investigations has no progress in spite of his new anonymous IP edits the reasons of Kaz's block are still relevant also for this "new" editor. You are invited to look at additional examples here Please consider. Неполканов (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what this is all about, but from the message YuHuw left on my talk page, I don't have the impression his attitude isn't constructive. I'm not sure the same can be said of Неполканов. Notifying Bkonrad who also seems to have had dealings with him. --Midas02 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave up on this as the issues seemed rather obscure and far beyond my ability to verify. My only involvement was in terms of the disambiguation page content, which reflects article content (i.e., sources and references go on the article, not in the dab page and disputes about whether an article should describe a particular term should be addressed at the relevant article talk page). older ≠ wiser 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added some RS on Midas02 page and also on Russian Karaites page trying to approve that the YuHuw edits actually part of his disruptive agenda. As you can see above his 3RR violation related not only to Неполканов edits but to 4 other editors reverts of his non consensual edits. Неполканов (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, much of what I am about to write has already been covered here [38] and here [39]. It is a bit long but that is what happens when things are allowed to pile up over time.

Неполканов (i.e. NePolkanov) has opened this case here in response to the "call to arms" on the mastermind's page here [40] described by User:Bbb23 as "blatant canvassing"[41].

NePolkanov is pushing the POV propagated by blocked puppets of blocked User:Ancientsteppe as was pointed out to me by User:Dbachmann here [42]. Specifically User:Ancientsteppe and his puppets tried to pass off the modern Mongolian family name, "Khereid", as the "correct" name for the Keraites and this mistake is now ubiquitous across all sorts of Wikipedia mirror-sites having been left unchecked for years despite being unheard of before User:Ancientsteppe and his puppets started spreading that idea throughout Wikipedia -especially in images created by commons wikipedia editor User:Khiruge which do not get as much critical attention as text edits.

I came to be harassed incessantly by his close friends (who take breaks from wikipedia and come back together at the same time) as a result of my joining in to reverse the spread of User:Ancientsteppe's unique ideas. He has revealed more of his POV bias (by explaining that Nepolkanov means not Polaknov) to those of us who have become informed about the subject areas which he has successfully managed to monopolize since he appeared on Wikipedia to help his team's mastermind -see his edit history below and you get the idea very clearly.

So anyway, they called me a puppet of "Kaz" [43] and eventually opened a case for me where you can see in the edit history [44] other now blocked puppets of blocked User:I_B_Wright have also been very active in the past [45]. It seems maybe puppet investigations attract puppets.

Nepolkanov's method as you can see from his very short entire edit history over the past few years here (solely dedicated to "Kaz" issues) is to call anyone who touches his projects in a way he doesn't like a puppet of User:Kaz who I have learned a substantial amount about since they first called me Kaz in early January this year.

Nepolkanov has also inferred that user to be a pedophile providing enough personal details about him on the investigation page over time that any one of us can go and kick the doors of his home in if we feel so inclined. In fact that inference was first posted on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz page while (also ironically pointed out by Nepolkanov's team) the person he is identified with was campaigning for general elections in the UK last year. Supposedly he must have scheduled time to fly to Mallorca just to upset Nepolkanov at the same time. Not too difficult if we believe Nepolkanov that Kaz is rich enough to control the internet [46][47]. But hold your horses because he also said not so long ago that Kaz is not really a pedophile [48] although I can find no evidence of the article on the web except mirror-site copies of what Nepolkanov wrote of course because the Puppetmaster is so rich that he controls the internet. Although it should probably be born in mind that Nepolkanov does also have a history of inventing URLs and evidence outside of WP which doesn't exist when you click on them (try them on the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kaz page and for example here [49] conveniently archived as is so commonly done not always by bots to hide evidence concerning that team's work a topic worthy of discussion in its own right later perhaps).

Also let's not forget that he repeatedly says that I am Kaz so that for the past few months when he says Kaz anywhere he means me which baring the previous paragraph in mind is more than highly offensive. Apparently, Kaz's personal vast wealth is also how Nepolkanov explains me away as another manifestation of the Phantom menace, Kaz, too since apparently he flies from the UK to wherever is necessary in his private jet to hide his true location (since use of proxies was apparently ruled out), just to annoy Nepolkanov. Holding that thought in mind, despite what he believes is "my" vast personal wealth and power he also says that I am a ridiculous autistic his words not mine which not that I have anything against autistic people, is clearly meant by his use of "ridiculous" as nothing but another personal attack.

Alternatively sometimes Nepolkanov says Kaz is Israeli and other times not. So I suppose he can be (just like the use of RS as you will soon see below) anything he wants him to be as and when it suits his purpose. In fact the puppet allegation he presented against me is overflowing with such irreconcilable contradictions. Perhaps he will soon say that either Kaz or me also has supernatural powers. Honestly if it wasn't so unhinged and if not for the fact that the user really believes it, it would almost be hilarious. Perhaps some people are just so bored that trolling Wikipedia has become the spice of life for them.

As for his comment about misusing sources, let's look closely at an example. I brought a source to the Karaim language page which he removed as what he calls "outdated RS fakes" or "lies" in talk pages and numerous edit summaries [50]. Apparently it was not about Crimean Karaites although his team clearly indicated that they believe Russian Karaites are Crimean Karaites [51]. Then he explained to me that Russian Karaites are in fact Subbotniks on the Talk:Keraites page and now here he uses the same source which I originally provided. So first he said it was not RS and now he says it is. While originally he was right there is no reference specifying to Crimean Karaites were meant in that source (especially since the Russian Karaites lived in Astrakhan where Tatar languages have long been used alongside Russian) he now says again that those same Russian Karaites are indeed Crimean Karaites (as it suits him). Yes, pretty weird. Yet he says I am the one who fakes evidence from sources? Hmmm. Well he also calls Douglas Morton Dunlop an outdated RS fake when it suits him too so... :/

He also accused me of building up a content fork at Talk:Karait although it was not, he himself has created at least two content forks recently for example here [52] and here [53] and a few months ago here [54] and here [55].

If one wants to make a project of it you can find too many cases of disruptive editing by Nepolkanov and his team but be aware that you could spend a very long time on it. I did start when I was first accused of being Kaz, but after a few days I simply found it nauseatingly boring. Anyone who spends a little time reading through his edit history and interactions with his team mates and those they accused of being Kaz will find it enough to realize they are not worth time bothering with as WP:DENY makes very clear. That's why I don't spend time dealing with all the problems they insert into all their articles all the time now. The truth about the subject [56] is in the published books available in the libraries and often online, which experienced editor User:Dbachmann taught me the value of using a translator to work through slowly but surely. These trolls may be able to dominate content on a few articles in the fields that interest them here for a short time, but in the end their agendas do not have any impact in the academic world. Truth can be suppressed in one place or another for a time but in the end it will always be found out. YuHuw (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016 User:Springee canvassing

User reported: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified user: William_M._Connolley at User_talk:William_M._Connolley notifying him of dispute at article Ford Pinto

Since you have had involvement with HughD, you should see how many edits he added to the Ford Pinto article. 200 in the 5 days before it was locked! Seriously, if you are brave you should give it a look.

diff: 21:01 10 March 2016

Spamming; notification of a user "with no significant connection to the topic at hand." Campaigning; non-neutral wording of notice. Vote stacking; active content discussions at article talk. Previous interaction with the targeted editor is not among the listed examples of appropriate reasons for notification to a user talk page at WP:APPNOTE.

Springee recent previous report for canvassing 2 December 2015: WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive907#User_Springee_Canvassing

Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Not canvasing. No suggestion or request to edit the page. I'm simply blow away by HughD's ability to make 255 edits to a page since March 2nd including 3 days when the topic was locked! Springee (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the edit shown here is not canvassing. I don't understand what the problem is, nor do I see where Hugh's direct involvement with the talk page conversation is. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Could we perhaps boomerang this into an assessment of HughD's editing 'style'. His shotgun attacks on the page, posting at a rate of about 1 edit per hour, night and day,for more than a week, plus the same on the talk page, when combined with a complete inability to answer a straight question with a straight answer, and his tendency to assume his arguments are the only ones that matter, make cooperating with him impossible. Greglocock (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

File upload issues

Ipswahabpora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has uploaded a variety of images from a variety of sources, claiming all of them under a {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} license, often times when this is patently false. Some of these images might be self work, but most appear to be photos of copyrighted images. Many of the uploads were tagged for deletion, some as WP:F9, generating talk page notifications with links to relevant policies about image use and copyright and containing statements that persistent copyright violators will be blocked. Recognizing that the image use policy is one of the more complicated aspects of Wikipedia, I left the user a modified {{uw-ics3}} template with an invitation to contact me or WP:MCQ before uploading any more files to make sure they have a firm grasp on what is allowed and what is not. The user did not seek any help, and uploaded File:Mashrab1.jpg, which appears to be a photograph of a copyrighted publication, again claiming cc-by-sa-3.0 with clearly no evidence to support it. I then followed that up with a {{uw-ics4}} final warning. The user has since uploaded 6 more photos without seeking any advice, 1 of which is clearly a copyvio and others which lacked complete source info and are suspicious.

I think this is past the point where it can be explained away by image uploading being complicated. The user's non-responsiveness leads me to request administrator action in the form of a block to prevent further resources being used to investigate these suspicious uploads, until the user is willing to work with others to understand policy. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• User notified --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• I looked at the contribution, and I am afraid that I do not see a slightest evidence that the user has understanding of Wikipedia policies, definitely not about notability and definitely not about uploading files.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Totally agree with the above. The user might be acting in good faith, but I do not see any responsiveness or understanding of Wikipedia policies . I have tagged several of the user's articles (about non notable topics) for speedy deletion and most have been deleted. However, the user simply recreates the articles. (for example this one Amin Qasimi) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the comments above, can we perhaps take some action on this? The user has uploaded two more files which are both likely copyvios, File:Tohfat-ul-Awam.jpg & File:Aminqasimi.jpg, after the filing of this ANI report, still without reaching out and seeking help to better understand policy. If the ANI notice wasn't enough to get their attention, I feel a block is the only recourse. The uploads and article creations may be in good faith, but they certainly show a WP:CIR problem. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 07:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

    I am afraid they need to be blocked per WP:COMPETENCE--Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for Community Input concerning a Series of Potentially Unfortunate Edits and their Contributors

Former section header: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Edits. EEng

Pinging the following users to this discussion:

@WikiConqueror:, @Loriendrew:, @CactusWriter:, @NawlinWiki:, @Randykitty: @Grandma.ricky: @Ginger1774:

A few days ago I was doing pass through the csd articles with an eye on those that were potentially contested. In that capacity I reviewed the article Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period), which was alleged to be csd eligible on G4 grounds (recreation of an article deleted via a deletion discussion). Since I could not find the article's afd I had to search to locate the original article, and discovered that the reason the article had been created with a period was in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the page creation protection at the article's original name Lisa Christine Holmberg. In the course of my review of the article to determine the validity of the csd tag I found the afd, but learned that this article has an apparent fan train behind it. That fan train appears to be pushing an agenda to keep the article on Wikipedia despite having been repeatedly informed that there is currently no place for the actress on this site at present. Over the last several days I have observed the account behind the article and have come to the conclusion that the person pushing to have this article on Wikipedia may have reached the point of disruptive editing, and as such I would like the community and the admin corps take a closer look and decide if any action on this matter is warranted.

Lisa Christine Holmberg is apparently an actress wannabe whose got an apparently small but loyal fan base. She' got no awards, no major casting roles, no schooling history (she was home schooled), and as such, no shelter under any criteria set forth under WP:NOTABILITY for the article remain on site. Even the more specific acting guidelines do not offer any sanctuary for the article to remain. The initial attempt to create this page was shot down under G12 copyright violation as Ginger1774 (talk · contribs) had apparently taken the article from imbd, a source whose use on Wikipedia is questionable based on the manner in which it is employed to begin with. After being deleted by CactusWriter (talk · contribs) for copyright infringement the article was recreated about an hour later by Ginger1774 very near the original version. This recreated version was deleted about four hours later by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). This time only about two hours passed before Ginger1774 recreated the article for a third time. As with the first two csd-based deletions, this version was nearly identically to the first two csd-deleted versions. Again the article was tagged for speedy deletion, but this time I new account going by the name Grandma.ricky (talk · contribs) removed the csd tag (before after) in what looks very much like an orchestrated attempt to keep the article on site. On 30 October 2014, the article was proposed for deletion by Amortias (talk · contribs). At the same time, Amortias sensed something amiss about the article, and posted an ANI notice about a possible sock or meat team working the article. At the time, this was judge to be a non issue, and the post was closed without any action taken. Right about this time Ginger1774 ceased editing, and Grandma.ricky took over the primary editing for the account. A long string of edits were then made by Grandma.ricky up to the article, which at that time was undergoing an afd which was closed as delete on 7 November 2014. A little more than two hours after the afd deletion of this article, Grandma.ricky recreated the article (again), which resulted in a csd tag about 30 minutes later. After this final deletion, CactusWriter creation-protected the article. No further activity occurred with the article until February of this year, when WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) recreated the article at Lisa Christine Holmberg. (note the period) in what looks very much like a deliberate attempt to circumvent the article's creation protection. After a week on site Reddogsix (talk · contribs) tagged the article speedy deletion, resulting in my having moved the article to its actual name and then deleting it once the afd background information was confirmed.

On its own this could be taken as over-zealousness towards the creation of an article, but it goes deeper than that. The three primary accounts that have worked on this article have minor contributions outside the article specifically, but ALL of their edits seem to be focus almost exclusively on Lisa. The Grandma.ricky account made all edits to the Lisa account, as such there is no evidence to show definitively that the this account had brown-nosed others to keep Lisa on site, however after Grandma.ricky's account ceased editing and Ginger1774 started editing that changed. Ginger1774 added Lisa to the list of people from Elgin, Illinois and created a page for The Hemmens Cultural Center (also in Elgin Illinois), where Lisa allegedly had minor vocal performance roles. Edits were also made to the article we have on Elgin, Illionis to link the predominance center in what I am guessing was a conscience effort to get more page views for the actress. The account also edited the article Elgin Community College, however this appears to be the only case where I can not discern a conscience attempt to promote Lisa.

That brings us to the currently active account WikiConqueror (talk · contribs). WikiConqueror's edits have continued to edit for both lisa in particular and for Elgin, Illios generally. These include creating the article Elgin Children's Chorus which Lisa sang in at age 7, Jenne Lennon (apprently someone else from Elgin, Illinois), attempting to add a link to the draft of Lisa int he article name space at List of people from Elgin Illinois, creating the West Suburban Home School Band article which Lisa apparently was a part of, creating the holiday showcase article which Lisa acted in, The Planets Gala Concert with Lenard Nimoy which Lisa participated in, re-adding a link to the recreated Lisa article in our List of People for Elgin Illinois article, creating the page The Neighborhood Watch which Lisa had a role in, creating The Undercover Squad which Lisa had a role in, creating the page A Concert of Remembrance which Lisa had a role in, and creating the Metropolis Performing Arts Cetner where Lisa preformed. On top of that the user has been working religiously on Draft:Lisa Christine Holmberg despite the fact that the article has been repeatedly declined for publication ([57] [58] [59] [60] [61]). In each case the user has been soliciting feedback for the reason for the draft having been declined, however I can not say for sure if this is just the newness of the user or if it is a deliberate attempt be problematic.

Although as I have shown above WikiConqueror (talk · contribs) has been working the Lisa Christine Holmberg article angle hard, it is also a fact that the user has had some useful contributions away from Lisa as a general topic. I think the account could be useful in the long run, but I take the repeated work on Lisa Christine Holmberg on the associated articles for her life's history as red flag, particularly in light of the early attempts by Ginger1774 and Grandma.ricky to protect the article. I am asking for community feedback here on whether or not action should be taken on this matter. Speaking for myself, I would entertain the idea of a topic ban for the WikiConqueror account prohibiting the account from editing any articles on or related to Lisa Christine Holmberg to see if that helps the situation any, but that's me. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, TomStar81. I made the new Lisa Christine Holmberg page, simply because I genuinely thought that the actor met Wikipedia notability. Other users had told me so. But apparently that's very subjective. As you can see, I've taken your advice and stopped working on that article for now. I'm keeping the draft going while I find more information and wait for the subject to become more notable. I do hope to eventually make the article since I've done so much research at this point, but if I need to wait, I understand and will. Notice I didn't recreate it. I know that you're just trying to do what's best for Wikipedia, and I respect that. I did make some articles that were about projects Lisa had worked on, but that's because I'm a fan. Is that a problem? Fans edit all the time on Wikipedia, and they're the ones that are motivated to do the necessary research on the topic. I don't want any trouble, and I'm not making biased articles. I always love it when other users work on my draft, and I encourage that. It helps me learn the encyclopedia and helps the articles be more well rounded. I only submitted the draft multiple times because I wanted feedback from admins in my editing process. I'm a relatively new user (since 2014) and am still learning the ropes. I don't have much draft experience, and you have to start somewhere. I feel like some of the other users that I've interacted with have been over zealous to my article just because of its rough start with the other users. It's not right to judge me based on their behavior. I really am trying hard to make good articles and "useful contributions" as you said. Please don't bully me any more than I already have been by others. I'm just trying to do my best like all of you are. WikiConqueror (talk) 08:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

All good points, all correct as well, and ironically from an admin perspective that is where the problem is. Ordinarily this could be construed as disruptive editing, except that you account doesn't appear to have been created for a single purpose - you've got edits outside of the subject area, some a little sloppy, but I've been guilty of contributions at or below those levels (and in fairness standards here change all the time). This reminds me of my fit back in 06 or so when I was on the receiving end of a mass deletion campaign, and I recall being irate and angry and out to prove a point and all those other things you're not suppose to be anchored in on Wikipedia. Some years later I brought myself in line and look at my now: admin, coordinator, etc. That's why I am here. I have no idea what do with this whole thing. I don;t even know if what I've dug up is a thing. A block under these circumstances would be excessive, and frankly unfair. Lisa's non notable at the moment, and I keep see her appear again and again. I'm looking to others here to gain a bigger picture of what we should or shouldn't do. This is one of the big reasons I hate csd - I get involved and my damned investigative nature works against me (or in some cases for me, but that's more the exception than the rule). Hell I may be guilty of low level harassment here, but since I don't know what to do I need input, and thats what brings us here. For now I take I wait and see, depending on what the community decides here we'll proceed according to the will on consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, TomStar81 - While notability is somewhat subjective, there are instances, this being the case where it is readily apparent that the subject does not meet notability criteria. WC does bring up good points in their response above, but I question their intentions. When I got the ANI notice on my talk page, I looked here to see a discussion begun by TomStar81; seeing this one I clicked on the draft, and looking at it wondered: "WTF? Why am I being notified?" But something about the article rang a bell, and looking at the history I noticed I had declined the draft several days ago. However, WC has seen fit to remove the declination notice, along with the comments. On further inspection, they have removed all the prior declination boxes, and all reviewers' comments as well. This makes it appear that they are not very amenable to listening to reviewers' comments. While some of the issues can be attributed to a lack of Wiki experience, when an editor makes willful edits to deceive other editors, that points to a behavioral issue in their editing. Especially after the user has been warned (albeit in a different instance) of the inappropriate removal of tags. All that being said (and btw, thanks TomStar for the wonderful recap above - despite its length, it is actually concise when taking into account all that has happened), I agree that a block is too much at this point. This warning should suffice, but if the editor continues what might be construed as tendatious and deceitful behavior, a block might then be in order. I would also suggest that the editor refrain from deleting any notices on their talk page, as well as on articles they are working on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Responding to the ping) I discussed some of this recently with WikiConqueror who approached me at my talk page for help with Draft:Lisa_Christine_Holmberg. Our conversation can be read at User talk:CactusWriter#Lisa Christine Holmberg page. Briefly, I informed them that the article was still a promotional piece on a non-notable teenage actress, that my assessment agreed with several editors who had already reviewed and declined it, and that WikiConqueror would be better off leaving it until Holmberg was truly notable, and WikiConqueror should move on to more constructive areas of editing Wikipedia. I do agree there are problems here with COI and agenda-driven editing. (And I've been watchful of a number of images they've uploaded to Commons with copyright issues -- including some fan pics which are cropped to edit out the fan who I would suspect is Holmberg.) If a problem with SPI exists, a case should be filed. However, I don't think we've reached the stage for ANI intervention. I think this can still be handled by direct interaction with WikiConqueror. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (responding to ANI notice) Seconded -- that's exactly what I said to WikiConqueror before -- one needs to realise that this is not possible right now, and should walk away. Nevertheless, it's see you cooperating with us, WC, and there's absolutely no judgement on you here. The issue is not you but the article in question, it's important that those two things are differentiated. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Sorry for delay, was in transit) It is nice to see such enthusiasm in developing an article. Unfortunately I must agree with the above assessments that the subject is not ready for article status and would likely fail an AfD. One of the major problems with deleted articles (for us non-admins) is that we cannot easily see the history or article creator (pondering a RfC about adding that to AfD headers). It would be been an instant lightbulb in my head to see the names of the COI accounts.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Threats

One of the strangest groups of threats I've ever encountered. Here. About editing Wikipedia articles on Singapore politicians. I've done nothing about this, as I don't know how to react. But Wikipedia needs a heads up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been here before, at the time. See this and this. I believe there's been no new developments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding and thanks for the insight. Damn socks. Glad to see you are on top of it. Cheers! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Adamstraw99 is making personal attacks,and user space harassment

Adamstraw99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am have found some irregularity in the article "Astra" [62] and tried editing it,and raise some points over the same in the talkpage of Adamstraw99 ,who had reverted my edit.I had refrained from edit-warring or making personal attacks,so I found his reply on my talkpage very disturbing and offending,and I quote,"rant like an emotional fool on my talk page".This makes any civil discussion on the topic untenable.Please check his reply "perhaps you don't know what vandalism is that's why you are getting so many warnings and blocks for your activities here. Also I am not posting any "general view". I neither contribute much to this article Astra (weapon) nor have I added anything in this particular section. Fact of the matter is that you jumped in from somewhere and deleted some text from the article and replaced with your own version riding on some clearly biased, POV, and above all not notable, non reliable sources. that's where I had to intervene.. I Request you to kindly not rant like an emotional fool on my talk page and try to understand what exactly happened because I never added any personal or general view at first and only reverted your acts when you replaced certain text with fake sources.. that's it..Adamstraw99 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC) I think this his reply doesn't comply with wikipedia policies-No Personal Attack and User Space Harassment. I request the administrators to take appropriate action against this user-warning,block or otherwise as they see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment (Non-administrator comment) The editor User talk:Ankisur2 has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING; cf. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Astra-the personal weapons of the hindu holy trinity and their purview. I suggest this is merely a content dispute which has no place here (or, indeed, probably the NPOV too). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by SchroCat and Tim riley

This report relates to user editors SchroCat and Tim riley. It refers to the wiki article John Gielgud. This article seems to have been created by or significantly fleshed out by two editors, SchroCat and Tim riley.

On the 2nd March, I corrected a minor grammatical and stylistic solecism in the text. The change I made is this: the original text read:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, and Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them.[10]"

This sentence has three subordinate clauses in one and a quarter lines; contains a category error (i.e. the use of 'academic achievement' when 'academic prowess' or 'academic talent' is clearly meant); and what grammarians call a 'denied conclusion' (i.e. it says 'John... did not follow them' thus implying the question 'Follow them where?' To Rugby? Or to Eton? Or to any public school?).

I changed the sentence to:

"After Hillside, Lewis had won a scholarship to Eton, as Val had done likewise to Rugby, but John, lacking their academic achievement, did not follow them."

By the 6th of March, the change was reverted by Tim riley. I reverted it again (the 3rd edit), and then completely rewrote the lineSchroCat - this was then reverted by SchroCat (which I believe breaks the WP:3RR convention. I opened up a topic in the talk page providing grammatical and stylistic reasons for my changes and asking them not to revert the edit. I did, I admit, ask them not to revert correct changes simply out of loyalty to their own edits.

On the talk page, I was abused by both SchroCat and Tim riley - with SchroCat suggesting, amongst other things, that I was a non-native English speaker who should defer to his own own native English-speaking status. A rude message was posted on my Talk page which I have since deleted.

Today - 12th March - six days after the last edit, I restored the corrected sentence. Within six minutes, it was reverted by SchroCat.

I am therefore making a report here of disruptive editing; I ask that my edit be reviewed; I also request that the page be protected.

The edit itself is the correction of a tiny piece of grammar. However, the unfriendly, discourteous and factually (or at least grammatically) incorrect approach by these two editors is exactly the kind of hostile behaviour that discourages good Wikipedia editors from participating.

Note: I should also say, I am a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia editor - if I have made any incorrect steps in trying to use the Disruptive Editing Report protocols, please inform me and I will correct them. Hubertgrove (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Hubertgrove, I'm sorry you were having a bad experience--but you come with guns blazing on that talk page, and if you're dealing with an FA, that's rarely a good idea. I left a note or two on that talk page; I do not (yet) see any need for administrative involvement, though I will be happy to block for anything; now that I went up in the ranks, my block payments have doubled. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply, Drmies (talk - which I do take to heart. Perhaps I was not sufficiently gentle in my tone; however I was not abusive and my changes were in fact necessary and correct. However, my complaint I think is still valid. I'm being double-teamed by two editors who are engaged in disruptive reversions of a correct edit. One of whom makes racist allusions. I really don't think this should be dismissed even with the friendly comment: 'Oh, you should have been nicer to them after they reverted you for the third time'. Is there nothing that can be done? Hubertgrove (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
    • There is something that can be done, sure, but you may not like it. First, you have to understand this is ANI, where we don't really deal with content but with behavior. Second, what could be done is I could, in much more stern language, point out to you that "you sound like British English is not your first language" or words to that effect is not a racist comment, and that bringing supposed racism into this muddies the water and makes you, in fact, guilty of the kind of thing that WP:NPA warns us about.

      So, your content edit may be valid, but the things you said in relation to it, I'm sorry--they are not. But I'm waiting for SchroCat or Tim riley to come by here to explain, in cool and calm words, how the milk of human kindness is to be distributed. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Again, thank you for your comment, Drmies. [I am going to pass on your opinion'"you sound like British English is not your first language" or words to that effect is not a racist comment,' though I do personally hope you may return to it. I believe other editors, perhaps from the UK and the Commonwealth too, and perhaps younger, might come to another conclusion. I am also very concerned that you think raising an issue of racism is itself a form of personal abusive; moreso, it seems than the actual real abuse on the talk page].

To the actual issue: You seem to view my complaint from my opening paragraph which while using 'stern language' was still not rude nor abusive, It was, however met with rude and abusive language. I cannot understand how you can let that pass.

With respect, you seem to have missed - or possibly deferred from commenting on - that I rewrote the offending sentence, to which you yourself objected, so that it avoided stylistic and grammatical solecism. It is this sentence which has been reverted without explanation.

I hope you understand that I am really not trying to be argumentative. I am just defending a correct edit and pointing out hostile editor behaviour. Hubertgrove (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hubert, I think you might be missing the crux of what Drmies is trying to tell you here. Let me preface my own comments with some context: I am quite at-home with British English, but also the dialects of the other anglophone countries I have lived in, all the more so for the fact that I have a degree in comparative linguistics. And I had the exact same reaction to that talk page comment as did Drmies (and apparently Schrocat and Tim riley). This is not a matter of syntactic variation between American and British English, I can assure you. That said, I actually fully agree with you that the phrasing of that statement was/is extremely unwieldy, even borderline garbled, and could use improvement. The problem is not your editorial approach to the content, it's your approach to your fellow contributors and generating consensus amongst them. Maybe you are right, maybe Schorcat and Tim riley are too attached to this content and maintaining it in exactly its current form (or for whatever reason they just don't see the grammatical issue that you do here). But assuming these factors as a given in your very first talk page comment is just a stupendously ill-conceived plan of action for resolving the matter amicably, and indeed borders on a blatant violation of one of Wikipedia crucial behavioural guidelines, WP:Assume good faith.

Drmies is absolutely on-target with their assessment that you went "guns blazing" on this issue, with the predictable result that you dramatically undermined the ability of the editors you needed to work with to view your perspectives in the best possible light. Even if you felt from the edit summary exchanges that you had reason to expect resistance to your editorial stance, the best thing to do in that instance is still to calmly present your argument (based on content and policy) without reference to what you think are the motivations of the editors involved. If they disagree, respond likewise to counter-arguments and if it looks like the issue is becoming intractable, and you think your version of the content is worth contesting over, host a WP:Request for comment or seek WP:Dispute resolution. Only after unambiguous and persistent evidence of a disruptive mindset is it appropriate to start making implication of WP:OWN mentalities or other behavioural accusations. Starting out with that is just begging for raised barriers and a magnificent waste of everyone's time as you struggle to overcome the combative mindsets when they are established at the very beginning of discussion. In this context, I don't think their behaviour was in any way more "rude and abusive" than was yours.

My best advice is that you go back to the talk page, admit you got off on the wrong foot and ask them why they are so married to original wording of the statement. If you feel they are stone-walling without a good policy reason, RfC the issue. If you are correct on the content matter, and garner the necessary consensus to support your view, they will have to accept it. But they definetly don't have to accept (or tolerate) speculative assumptions about their motivations for their editorial decisions, per WP:NPA. Best of luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Snow Rise. Hubertgrove, pointing out that "English is not your first language" is not racist. Doing so is silly. The comment can be factual, it can be snarky, it can be full of admiration, it can be lots of things, but it really can't be racist, and you can pass on that comment as much as you like but that only makes the observer question your judgment. As it happens, English is not my first language, and I don't understand where this misdirected anger comes from.

Now, it would be very nice if some other admin, preferably someone more competent in English than I/me/myself, would see if this shouldn't be closed. I think Snow Rise said all that needed to be said--wait, that makes this comment kind of redunda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 00:24, 13 March 1026 (UTC)

Drmies sadly passed away in the midst of this comment, but not before managing to hit the Enter key. clpo13_(talk) 00:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh thank goodness, it looks like Drmies didn't die afterall; they were simply sent 990 years, 7 months, 28 days, and 13 hours into the past (at least according to sinebot). What a relief! Snow ^{let's rap} 03:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Drmies trying to put in place preparations to stop the Norman invasion of England? Which won't happen for another 40 years....Blackmane (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! Blackmane used a sentence fragment! EEng 13:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And that's all you're getting from me today! Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page in Hebrew

The IP user 109.64.100.131 has just posted the following on my talk page in Hebrew:

שונאים אותך בכל העולם קליפטוניאן ההומו

אין לך חיים הא? תתאבד כבר תעשה טובה להורים שלך ותהרוג את עצמך כל היום 24/7 על ויקיפדיה עורך ערכים מה קרה ישראלים הביאו לך כאפות יא ילד מסכן יא מושפל חחחחחחחחח תתאבד תהרוג את עצמך אין לך חברים כולם שונאים אותך המשפחה שלך שונאת אותך תשים קץ לחיים שלך קח אקדח ותירה לעצמך בראש אף אחד לא אוהב אותך אף אחד לא אהב אות כולם צוחקים עלייך אל תחזור לישראל אף אחד לא רוצה שתהיה פה יא חתיכת יצור אובססיבי מסריח כל מי שרואה אותך נגעל ילדים קטנים מפחדים ממך וכל הבנות גם בישראל וגם מהמדינה שלך חושבות שאתה יצור מכוער ילד כאפות מסריח אמן מחבל ידקור יזיין את אמא שלך ויכניס אותה להריון ויצא לך אח מחבל ערבי שכל היום ירביץ לך יא קוקסינל מסריח איך אתה 24/7 שעות על ויקיפדיה איך? אין לך חיים? חחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחחח

My own translation, retaining grammar errors etc:

They hate you in all the world Cliftonian you gay

You've got no life, eh? Kill yourself already do some good to your parents and kill yourself all the day 24/7 on Wikipedia making edits what's going on Israelis slapped you up you miserable and humiliated kid hahahahhaha kill yourself kill yourself you have no friends everybody hates you your family hates you put an end to your life take a gun and shoot yourself in the head nobody loves you nobody loves you everyone laughs at you don't come back to Israel nobody wants you to be here you piece of obsessive stinky creature everyone who sees you gets disgusted little children are afraid of you and all the girls both from Israel and from your country think you are an ugly creature a stinky bullied child Amen terrorist will stab you will fuck your mother and get her pregnant and then there will come for you an Arab terrorist brother that all day punches you you stinking shemale how are you 24/7 on Wikipedia how? don't you have life? hahahahahhahahaha

I hope appropriate action will be taken.

All the best, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

They've made similar attacks on their talk page. clpo13_(talk) 22:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion has temporarily blocked the IP and the attacks have removed from the edit history. Hopefully this is the end of the matter, as it is a shame that Cliftonian has had to deal with such ugliness. I almost closed this discussion as resolved, but then thought better of it because I wanted to add that the attacks here are of such an unhinged and disturbing nature that I would personally support a longer-term block of the address and further measures if the attacks resume after this initial block. Cliftonian should definitely feel encouraged to be proactive here in reporting any further abuse. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Should we expunge the quoted attacks above? It seems rather counterproductive to leave them there... GAB^Hello! 22:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not the first time this kind of thing has happened: the same thing happened back in October (see 6–8 October 2015 here). The overall message is fairly similar and it's probably the same person. As in that case I have chosen to leave this evening's message on my talk page with an English translation so people can see it. I will report any more of this. Thanks for the support. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: take them off this page now if they really disturb you, but I would really rather have it left on my user talk page with an English translation. It is important to me that people know that this was written to me. —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Cliftonian, I'm really sorry that you were subjected to this level of abuse. It really justifies a long block. I was just wondering if anyone else thought it should be removed. GAB^Hello! 22:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I'd really rather have it left up on my talk page, if that's okay. This iteration I've copied here I have no problem having taken down if others would prefer. Thanks for being sympathetic. I'm off for the night now, cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  22:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Good night, GAB^Hello! 22:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Before this user went completely off the rails, they started edit-warring on various pages, then revenge-templating on my talk page. I had reported them to 3RR and went out for awhile. I come back to see they continued edit-warring, then vandalizing and then of course the absolutely disgusting comments about Cliftonian on their talk page. There is also a report against this user pending at SPI. For all this... they only get a 48 hour block? Double-you-tee-eph to that. - ^theWOLFchild 23:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can always get a community resolution started here to increase the block. The thing is, with IP's, who may in fact represent numerous different editors sharing an ISP, it is generally considered appropriate to block short-term because the block might otherwise end up restricting other parties than that bad-faith actor (who may have moved on to a new address in some instances anyway) meaning the cost-benefit analysis of a long-term block is a little different from the same sanction directed against a named account. However, in this instance, given the nature of the comments, it seems appropriate to take the strongest available measures that we can without catching others in the net. Can you point us to the SPI in question? Snow ^{let's rap} 23:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. clpo13_(talk) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Considering that more disruptive editing is coming from the same 109.6x.xxx.xxx range, both a lengthier block as well as a range block is order. - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thewolfchild I sympathize with your views. I considered extending the term set by the blocking admin when I revoked talkpage access and deleted the revisions, but left it alone. One of the problems with The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit is that IPs move on and start again somewhere else. I generally block for about a week for this sort of thing, unless evidence suggests a static IP. I'll take a look at the rangeblock potential, though. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion - Actually the block should be extended at least for the edit warring (see 3RR report) - ^theWOLFchild 03:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring's the least of their problems. Rangeblocks are impractical - the smallest range I could find to block was a /16 range, which is too big. Since their address appears to change on roughly a weekly basis I've upped the block on that IP to two weeks. Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It may appropriate to apply semi or full protection to Cliftonian's talk page for a while. If it comes down to it, permanent semi protection to the main talk page could be applied while an "for communication with IP's" sub page is created. Blackmane (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing by Lewisthejayhawk

Lewisthejayhawk (talk · contribs) has made numerous disruptive edits on a variety of women's college basketball pages. This has been discussed by me, Sphilbrick (talk · contribs), and WilliamJE (talk · contribs). We have attempted to contact Lewisthejayhawk and instruct them to stop making these constant disruptive edits, however the user will not oblige. The user has also done this in the past, and has been temporarily banned for a very similar situation.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Zachlp, I can see hints of the issues involved on the editor's talk page (including recently deleted comments), but as to the disruption you allege in the articles in question, you must provide diffs if we are to examine the behaviour. Further, when you open a thread about another user here, you must inform them on their talk page. It looks likely that it will simply be deleted with some quasi-cognizable insult in this instance, true, but you still most formally inform them that their behaviour is being discussed here. Snow ^{let's rap} 22:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: Sure thing. If you don't mind, I am going to copy to here some of the same examples I gave to another user earlier in our discussion. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. For context, we repeatedly tell Lewisthejayhawk to stop making the dates of the CBB Standings to a date that is further in the future than the most recent date played. Even after the user responded to me and Sphilbrick both, this still continues today. This is just one example of their disruptive edits, and I can provide plenty more if need be.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Lewisthejayhawk is currently online and making a TON of disruptive edits. Can this be handled quickly, or can someone refer me to how I can resolve this situation faster? Thank you!--Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Can't you just leave it alone? Damn, you always put it like you had and wonder why I keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisthejayhawk (talk • contribs)

I am currently busy but wiil make a few quick comments. If this thread is still active, I will comment more tomorrow.

• I notified Lewisthejayhawk at his talk page of this thread. This thread wasn't started by me. When I am through with this post I will also notify Sphilbrick.
• Lewisthejayhawk wasn't banned but blocked by Administrator Sphilbrick. That was after I notified SP of Lewisthejayhawk's habit to put in links to nonexistent categories in new articles he was creating. Administrator Bearcat attempted addressing this issue with Lewis even before I did. Relevant talk page threads can be found here[63], here[64], and this one[65] after Lewis was blocked. It wasn't till Lewis was blocked that he responded to other editor's concerns.
• Despite promises to not link to nonexistent categories anymore, Lewis has gone back to that behavior. I addressed[66] him about this at his talk page today and earned this[67] less than stellar reply.
• Lewis does a lot of work on Women's College Basketball articles that few other editors work on.

That is all I can write for now....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is so painful.

I get that most readers of this section couldn’t give a fig about coverage of wbb, but I do, and appreciate the extremely small community of editors who add content in that area. Lewisthejayhawk is one of the more prolific contributors.

However, for reasons that I cannot fathom, he has his own ideas on as of dates for conference results (one can make arguments for more than one convention, but I believe we have established a convention, which Lewis sometimes ignores). More disruptively, he creates category redlinks, despite being told repeatedly not to do that. I happen to think the messages were clear, but maybe I’m biased, because I sent some of them. Maybe a message in different words from a different editor will sink in.

Please note – Lewis is not the usual case on this page, an editor who is mostly disruptive. Lewis contributes a lot of good content, and I honestly don’t think it is his goal to be disruptive, but messages are not getting through.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the history of pages such as this or this, I add information to the pages, and Lewisthejayhawk promptly removes it without reason within minutes. I gave up on trying to add information until this is resolved because he just keeps taking it down.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please help out with this? Any time I make an edit, Lewisthejayhawk keeps removing them. It's ridiculous at this point. I get that Lewisthejayhawk contributes a lot in an area where there are few contributors, but that should warrant allowing him to keep making these Disruptive edits time and time again without any consequence.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Further disruptive edits

Prime examples of these disruptive edits are persisting today. Examples diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The user keeps removing the same information on multiple pages with no reason or comment. There are other cases with different information where the user is taking similar action of disruptive editing.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the IP keeps going on daily. It would be really appreciated if an administrator had a look into it our gave us some advice.Tvx1 22:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

BillieKing

Hello,
First, sorry for my english (and sorry if I don't post in in the right place).
I request for blocking the account BillieKing for vandalism (he did the same vandalism on wp:fr) basically he suppresses the fact that the French singer Tal is also a songwriter [68] [69], but the website of the SACEM (a kind of RIAA) indicates she has written 12 songs [70]). Plus on wp:fr BillieKing is the 5th sockpuppet of Billie Aiden (full list here). Billie_Aiden was blocked twice WP:fr (for the same kind of modifications). Sebk (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

he also vandalized these pages Le droit de rêver [71] and Le sens de la vie [72]. Sebk (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I've left an ANI notification on their talk page, which as a friendly reminder is something editors need to do when reporting other editors to this page or to the administrator's noticeboard. I've also left them a warning to discuss their changes to the talk page. I recommend that if they continue with this unexplained removal of content, it would be worth reporting them to the vandalism noticeboard or if they are repeatedly reverting other editors' changes, report them to the edit warring noticeboard. Blackmane (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru ongoing disruptive behavior at Peyton Manning

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

Since yesterday, QuackGuru has been very disruptive and is now edit warring at Peyton Manning, particularly with regard to a claim in the article which describes the Manning family as "football's royal family". The content originally stated it as fact (in Wikipedia's voice), with no attribution as to who said it. It said, "Because of Peyton and his brother Eli's success, as well as the success of their father, the Manning family is seen as Football's Royal Family." The only source attached was a woman's book, titled Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family. Amazingly, QuackGuru insists that the "royal family" moniker is not an opinion and therefore should not be attributed to who said it. To correct the problem and give proper context and attribution, per WP:PEACOCK, I changed the text to, "Because of their success, the Mannings were described by author Jeanne Nagle as football royalty in her book Archie, Peyton, and Eli Manning: Football's Royal Family." QuackGuru just reverted the content three times,[73][74][75] and has ignored the editors on the talk page, including myself,[76] explaining to him that the "royal family" content must show attribution to who said it and that it is indeed a peacock term. Tracescoops (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim it is a peacock term when you have not shown how it is a peacock term and there is no serious dispute among sources. The dispute must be with sources not editors. See WP:ASSERT.

There seems to be no consensus for the current wording with over-attribution and extra verbage. If you check the recent edit history it started with this disputed change to replace sourced text with OR. There are more sources to verify the exact same claim. Tracescoops is commenting on the editor rather than focusing on the article. As early as late 2004 the Mannings have been described as "football's royal family". This is old news. It is common knowledge they are referred to as "football's royal family".

There is an obvious sockpuppet commenting on the talk page. ‎Tracescoops, do you know who CharlatanGourou is? QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to get any deeper into the content issue here than is strictly necessary for the behavioural discussion, but deciding that this moniker is so well-established that it needs no attribution on the basis of a one-off incidental mention in an a single article and the subtitle of a book seems to pretty clearly move into WP:OR territory to me. But putting that aside for a moment, what exactly do you see as the harm in attribution? We'd not be denying a formal title in including it, we'd simply be contextualizing a metaphorical allusion.

Anyway, getting away from those content issues and to the crux of the matter, 3RR has been violated here, so you need to pause and consider how much this wording means to you, because it looks like consensus on that talk page reflects a 5-to-1 opposition to your position. This seems like an awfully trivial change to court a block over, especially considering no one is proposing to remove the phrase outright, just qualify its use a little, which is context that can't hurt our readers. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) In this section on the talk page, no editor agrees with QuackGuru that the information should be left unmodified. The consensus therefore is for it to be modified, however the discussion is has not offered any alternatives to this. They only state that it should be attributed to the author, and others should sources be presented. My own personal opinion is that it can be mentioned, but that the wording must be more careful than stating that they have been called the royal family of football. But this noticeboard is for editor behavior, so I'll leave that there.
  

QuackGuru, while I understand your desire to see things the way you believe them to be, this is the wrong way to get them that way. You need to take things slow. Whether or not you are correct is irrelevant; if the actions you make are disruptive, then you will get blocked. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 02:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reason, my comment got removed by the archive bot.... huh. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 03:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are obviously alleging that I am also the editor (CharlatanGourou) that posted that talk page comment to you, which I am not. It would be pointless to create a new identity solely to post a short, simple comment when so many other editors disagree with you. Perhaps it's one of the many other editors with whom you've been arguing the past few days. In the meantime, I hope you will listen to what Snow and all the other editors are telling you. Now I want to go look up exactly what "WikiLawyering" means, since that's what CharlatanGourou has accused you of. The fact remains that you violated the edit warring rules and should therefore either be blocked, or be banned from editing the Manning article. Tracescoops (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Tracescoops, you don't need to explain yourself as far as alternate accounts are concerned. If QuackGuru believes you are socking, they need to report that to SPI, with evidence, otherwise withdraw the accusation and apologize, as accusing someone of socking without proof is a personal attack (and could also be considered a red herring here).

@ QuackGuru, Snow Rise has given you some very good advice here and I suggest you follow it. This is such a minor issue, it should never have needed to come to ANI. Surely you guys can wait until there is some consensus on the article talk page and then just go with that, no? - ^theWOLFchild 02:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"@ Thewolfchild, you claim "no verification is required."?[77] Are you suggesting we add a SYN violation to the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've added some sources to the talk page for editors to discuss.--173.216.248.174 (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IP, I've replied to you on the Manning talk page. However, the issue with regard to QuackGuru's edit warring and disruptive behavior still remains and should be addressed. Tracescoops (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, there is no dispute. We can add more sources if editors continue to deny what reliables state. There are many sources. Here is a new source. See Talk:Peyton Manning#More sources. Is there a valid reason to keep the over-attribution now? QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a dispute, as others like Meters have told you. In any case, the reason we're here is because of your behavior and edit warring. And you have just exhibited your disruptive attitude again by refusing to even acknowledge that content that's been under dispute has only ever had one source to verify it (the woman's book). Instead, you are once again misreprenting the facts by implying there were "many sources" being used, when you know it's untrue. There were never any additional sources and the IP just presented the additional ones. The issue remains, you edit warred and have been blocked for it, and numerous other disruptions, many times before. Tracescoops (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources being discussed on the talk page. See Talk:Peyton Manning#More sources. Since it is not one source the wording can change rather than implying it is only one source and a minor view. The proposal to use the word "some" instead is not verifiable. I think V policy is relevant here. QuackGuru (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Can an administrator please review this request for appropriate sanctions against QuackGuru. And please note his latest obstructionist behavior here. Tracescoops (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Well, you could always propose something, like a topic ban for QuackGuru on the Manning article. Or you could report QuackGuru's edit warring on the appropriate noticeboard--I'm not good at counting but I think they've gone past 3RR. Is QuackGuru aware of WP:NEWBLPBAN? By the way, Tracescoops, you're remarkably well-versed in policy and editorial skills for such a new account: congratulations. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

A bit passive-aggressive there, Drmies. If you're accusing me of doing something improper, then perhaps you should read The Wolf Child's comment above. In any case, reading and understanding policies, and watching how others do things doesn't require a Ph.D. Tracescoops (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, congratulations. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

While per here[78] User:Tracescoops appears to have made 4 reverts in 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is so well established, why not using {{Infobox royalty}} ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion on the talk page where editors support "some". But "some" is a WP:SYN when combining different sources together. Verification was not provided after asking for V.[79] User:Drmies, the word "some" failed V. What should be done about the sock CharlatanGourou? Can you have a checkuer run? QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

QG, you have been around long enough to know that you should never accuse anyone of being a sockpuppet except at WP:SPI. Knock it off. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

He also made socking accusing yesterday, see above at 02:55 - I advised then that such accusations were WP:NPA and that he needs to either provide evidence and file an SPI or stop. Obviously he didn't stop... but 'not stopping' is one of the reasons we're all here. - ^theWOLFchild 04:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

CharlatanGourou (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) is a username that is an obvious parody of User:QuackGuru, and their only edit is a rejoinder to QG on Talk:Peyton Manning.[80] QuackGuru (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt... so what? If you don't have evidence, then you shouldn't be making accusations. How many times do you need to be told? Like Guy said, take it to SPI or knock it off. - ^theWOLFchild 04:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (did you just refer to yourself in the third person?)

Attribution sounds simple enough. Don't understand the issue with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note. I started a new discussion to include the part "Because of their success",... This adds context that will explain to the reader why they are perceived as the royal family. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#Proposal_to_add_context_and_straw_poll. I'm curious what others think of me starting a new discussion. This specific proposal is not about the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for sanctions against QuackGuru

• (As per request to post this comment here) - Perhaps time for a mentor....what is needed is guidance in debates. The community has talk about this allot..that is how QuackGuru lacks the debating persona most here expect to see. Having a mentor advice on the best ways forward in debates might help QuackGuru and thus less time spent trying to ban/block/restrict them.-- Moxy (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I would think a block would be order first. - ^theWOLFchild 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support - both mandatory mentoring and a lengthy block. - ^theWOLFchild 20:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Support editing restrictions in place of mandatory mentoring. - ^theWOLFchild 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - support topic ban as well.
• Oppose mandatory mentoring. QuackGuru is an experienced but combative editor. Mentoring is for inexperienced editors. Support escalating blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This statement is just wrong...Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is for new users...Wikipedia:Mentorship is for users that have been involved in problematic behavior. But I agree mandatory mentoring is not the way to go...was hoping he would agree to do it on his own. -- Moxy (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I explained on the talk page that combining different sources together to come to a new conclusion was a SYN violation. According to WP:WEASEL, it is an unsupported attribution. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions. The text that failed V was removed.[81] QuackGuru (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Do you really think that if you say it over and over (and over, and over) enough times, that everyone here will finally say; "Gee, you're right!"...? When you have so many people lined up on one side, and a single person on the other, what does that tell you? Quite simply, you are wrong. "Some" is not being attributed to any source, "some" is an adjective being used to describe the sources. Let. it. go. already. - ^theWOLFchild 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • You acknowledged that "Some" is not being attributed to any source, "some" is an adjective being used to describe the sources." The part "some" cannot be used to describe the sources because editors cannot conduct their own review of the sources. The source should make the claim, not the editor. Combining different sources together does not equal "some". This is a clear SYN violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • I think you mean pronoun, not adjective. It's not "describing" the source, it is taking the place of an enumerated "list" of sources which are the nouns "some' is replacing. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: this is ridiculous and a bunch of the parties involved in this are acting ridiculous *slams door* LjL (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose mentoring, Support block and editing restrictions - QuackGuru has been editing a long time so I doubt mentoring would help at all. The editor's constant obstructionism, inability to listen to others, refusal to accept consensus, edit warring, and extensive block history justify a lenghty block. There should also be restrictions on their editing, including an indefinite limit on how many reverts can be made each day. Tracescoops (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC) 00:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support escalating blocks. Clearly repeated short blocks are not working to convince QuackGuru to follow Wikipedia policies. I suggest that he be given notice that from now on the length of each block will be at least double the last block, and perhaps a lot more depending on the nature of the violation. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support blocks. There is a line between constructively following guidelines, and blindly following guidelines. That line has been left far behind. Neutral on the matter of mentoring. If QuackGuru does not understand what we are telling them now, I doubt they will listen to anyone. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks. As stubborn as QG can be, the others in the Manning debacle haven't been helping. Instead of considering a compromise wording that doesn't change the meaning, they're sticking to the very word QG is making such a fuss about. There are better ways to resolve this than sanctions. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The consensus for the wording is clear. In any case, we're not here because of a wording issue, but rather because of an edtior's ongoing disruptive behavior. Tracescoops (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The word "some" was added when it failed V. Tracescoops, you restored the word "some" again when it failed V.[82] This is about your behaviour to ignore policy and a compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support escalating blocks. QuackGuru consistently has refused to accept consensus when it has clearly been against him, and that can only be put up with for so long before it requires sanctions. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • You were edit warring and you were not able to provide V. QuackGuru (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Reverting once and then discussing the issue on the talk page, which is exactly what I did, is not edit warring. And I've addressed the verification "issue" (which is really a nonissue) plenty of times now, as have others. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
      • You addressed the verification issue by claiming it is not relevant? You think supporting text that failed V is appropriate? QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes, and my claim that it is irrelevant is true because it is not an issue of information verification, it's purely an issue of wording. How many times does that have to be repeated to you until you understand it? --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support blocks against any editor who is disruptive or edit wars against consensus. If QuackGuru is continually exhibiting this sort of behavior, and has previously been blocked for this behavior, then escalating blocks are already on the table.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • My edits to the article were made before most of the discussion began. QuackGuru (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Propose 1RR indefinitely - I'm uninvolved in this mess and appalled by what I've read while looking this over. For what it's worth, I have no ill will toward QuackGuru and actually think of them as a good user, if known to be stubborn (which I've been known to be). But frankly, QuackGuru is incorrect here and this is quite possibly in the top 10% of stupid hills to die on. Searching terms like "football royal family" and "football's royal family" yield Nagle's book, soccer stuff about the British royal family, and some various links to NFL related sites ([83], [84]). It is clear that the moniker is not widely used and to suggest it is in Wikipedia's voice is wrong. It makes perfect sense to attribute the opinion of Nagle to the moniker. I cannot fathom what QG is thinking here, but it's clear to me QG has ignored consensus on the talk page, edit warred, bludgeoned, ignored others, and has killed enough horses to supply Elmer's for a year.

Given QG's rather extensive block log, I'm not convinced a block will do much here. I am fairly certain mentoring won't do anything either; this user is a long time editor and doesn't need to be shown the ropes. An article ban will only address this case and a topic ban doesn't make sense here as QG doesn't often focus on sports pages to my knowledge. Rather I'd like to address the pattern of behavior instead of the places it occurs. Looking through QG's block log (see break down here) and sanctions on WP:ARBPS, WP:ARBEC, and WP:ARBACU, edit warring is one of QG's main forms of disruption. Per WP:RESTRICT, I am proposing an 1RR restriction on all pages (except user's own userpages) indefinitely. In the spirit of preventative-not-punative sanctions, this will allow QG to make constructive edits while hopefully stopping the disruption on articles. I know this won't address the horse carcasses on the talk page, but I hope that should such behavior occur again it could be addressed by the community or admins. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The moniker is commonly used. There are at least five sources used in the article. The current text is not attributed to the opinion of Nagle to the moniker. [85],[86], [87], [88], [89]QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not consider 5 sources on the hundreds of articles about the Manning family to be "common". But we're not here to argue about the content dispute; I gave my interpretation of it to demonstrate having reviewed the conflict. Instead, the issue is behavior. Refusing to drop the stick on the content dispute isn't helping. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "It makes perfect sense to attribute the opinion of Nagle to the moniker", but the attribution to the author Nagle was removed by Tracescoops. I'm not the editor who is continuing to make reverts. Check the edit history. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, not the venue to discuss the content of the article. If I want to discuss Manning, I'd go to that talk page (but I don't want to enter this content dispute any further). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, QG, you are presenting information out-of-context and diverting from the real issue here: your disruptive behavior. Yes, new sources were presented by an editor and, as a result, we started a proposal discussion/poll, which resulted in consensus to add the sources and use specific wording. Originally, though, the only source being used was Nagle's book, yet the wording for the "royal family" moniker was in Wikipedia's voice, as if it were fact that the Mannings are royalty. You actually even claimed that it is not an opinion. It was then changed to give proper attribution to Nagle. Finally, after the new sources were given and consenus was reached, the text was updated to its current version. In any case, we're here about your behavior, not about content. Tracescoops (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You are continuing to edit war based on what you call consensus. When you made the original changes there was a discussion about you adding the word "sometimes"[90] when there was only one source being used at the time. I tagged the unsourced part of the claim. On the talk page you were arguing I was wrong. See Talk:Peyton_Manning#The_word_.22sometimes.22_failed_verification. QuackGuru (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant Support for escalating blocks. My first impulse here was to avoid supporting or opposing this block, because I felt like after the IP provided those additional sources, a reasonable middle-ground solution should have been easily achievable and it reflects poorly on all involved that it couldn't be achieved. Further, I feel like the fact that there is an obvious hounding sock in the mix here suggests that there are bad-faith players on both sides of the content issue. But after seeing QuackGuru's further comments, its clear that this is a massive case of WP:IDHT.

QuackGuru seems utterly incapable of accepting that they can have a solid content argument and yet can still be acting in a highly disruptive fashion. The problem is not what part of speech a single word of prose is, or how that reflects on proper attribution, the problem is this editor's complete inability to attempt to work within the rules of consensus building to make the best case for their preferred approach. They instead prefer to edit war, even when it is clear they are int he extreme minority of an issue, even though they must clearly know this is not going to accomplish anything but to waste a lot of community time and energy. We can be certain they are aware of this (or at least should be), because this user has a massive block log that goes back almost nine years, and almost every one of those blocks is for edit warring. Enough is enough for the WP:ROPE on this editor and his clear disregard for Wikipedia's collaborative model. I support a two week block, a 1RR restriction and Guy Macon's suggestion that each subsequent block for edit warring doubles the length of the previous block for same. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You claim "But after seeing QuackGuru's further comments, its clear that this is a massive case of WP:IDHT." There was no IDHT on my part because I have a right to disagree over the word "some" when it is unsupported by the sources presented. You claim I prefer to edit war, but it was another editor continuing to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You maybe have the conditional right to contest content you oppose, but you definitely have an obligation to accept consensus when it is obviously and overwhelmingly against you. Again, you are completely missing the point. IDHT doesn't refer to content issues, it refers to behavioural issues. I don't know where you got the impression you have the right to continue doing whatever you think you have to represent the WP:TRUTH, but that's not the case. Wikipedia is not a platform for unrestricted free speech, and participation here comes with a lot of stings attached. We offer a great deal of leeway in content discussions because it is a functional necessity of getting things right that we vet alternative perspectives thoroughly, but you are not entitled to say or do whatever you want just because you feel you are in the right, even past the point where you clearly should be aware that your behaviour is becoming WP:Disruptive. The fact that you cannot figure out where the line is between being certain your are right and doing the right thing under our community standards is exactly why you are here (and, I assume, is also the reason you have been blocked so many times). Snow ^{let's rap} 00:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

At the time I made my edits to the page consensus was not established for any particular version. The dispute is only a few days old. It started with the word "sometimes"[91] being added when there was only one source. I am not the only editor who disagreed with the wording. QuackGuru (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, completely out of context. The editor did not disagree with the wording. The editor made the change and was willing to violate the consensus solely to calm you down because of, as sh/e described it, your "bizarre fixation on the word 'some'". The editor even commented on the possible need to "appease" you when sh/e "voted" in the poll, and added that "There isn't really a problem with 'some'". So, while the editor should be commended for trying to put an end to your obstructionism, no article or discussion should ever be held hostage by one editor over the preferences of many other editors. Tracescoops (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Another editor supported the compromise, but you chose to revert. QuackGuru (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of context, yet again. The edtior, Isaidnoway, was simply commending the other editor who was trying to appease your "bizzare fixation" after consensus was already reached. But Isaidnoway's "vote" in the proposal poll makes clear which position sh/e supported. Do you seriously not get it? I have no intention of being rude, but the only way I can explain it to you is that editors were simply trying to figure out a way to finally get rid of you after you had already caused so much chaos and consensus had already been achieved. You really need to stop diverting to content issues and focus on the real issue here: your disruptive behavior. Tracescoops (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am concerned here that QuackGuru does not understand what the bigger problem at hand is. Not sure if that is deliberate or not....but I now hold the position that a 1RR restriction may be best for the community. -- Moxy (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support block The editor in question is frequently brought up here. At some point, enough has to be enough. --Tarage (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Blocks + some form of 1rr. QG's editing behavior is routinely like this. Take a position, refuse to budge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support: I'm in support of everything that's been suggested. Given QG's combative behavior, refusal to drop the stick, and block log length, I'm in support of a block that's at least six months. This user obviously isn't getting it as they are continuously repeating the same argument against those with a different view than them. I should know as this is how I used to be, but I changed, and I was blocked indefinitely at one point for edit warring. However, it didn't take me quite so long to figure out that my behavior was wrong, and I haven't had any problems since my unblocking. Amaury (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• oppose this is a ridiculous argument with a newbie editor Tracescoops who is a WP:SPA about the Mannings and who has obviously even SOCKed during this. SPI filing anon on that. Jytdog (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It took me a while to find the page where socks are reported, but I finally found it here. I didn't even know I was reported until I just read this comment by Jytodog. Jytodog's report begins with, "Sorry, this is a really petty thing, but aggravating in its pettiness and the Master has had the audacity to launch an ANI with such unclean hands. The Master is a new user (Feb 25, 2016) and appears to be a big fan of the football Mannings from their contribs. The user got into a silly argument with Quackguru: I will just copypaste the exchange here and it will be as obvious to you as it was to me. It is from the talk section". "Obvious", Jytdog?? That's interesting because I see that it's already been proven that CharlatanGourou is not me, as I've been saying all along! "Obvious"? How foolish you look now. I'm sure there are many editors who make fake accounts to cause trouble, but it's amazing that people can go around in discussions like this, accusing someone of using multiple accounts without any proof whatsoever, especially if they haven't even reported it! Believe me, if I wanted to make that silly little comment to QuackGuru, I would have done it on my damn account, like I've said everything else to them. So to those who accused me of being that user and were "certain" it was me even though you had zero proof - Jytdog, Drmies, Doc James, and of course QuackGuru - go screw yourself! Next time, make sure you're right before you call someone out like that in a forum like this. Tracescoops (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not think I have ever accused you of being a sockpuppet. I did mention you account was less than three weeks old though which is simply a fact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose This "proposal for sanctions" is coming with unstated baggage. In this proposal, neither the cause for sanctions nor the proposed sanctions are clearly stated. What I see here is a plan to decide sanctions without stating the offense or judgement of the merit of the offense. More than anything else, I think there is unclear communication here. The parties in the dispute have different motivations and I fail to recognize evidence that there is mutual understanding among the disputants. At the least, I expect to see a clear statement of the offense and confirmation that there is an offense before sanctions are decided. The "unstated baggage" in this claim is that since QuackGuru has been present in editing at contentious articles in the past, then QuackGuru should be presumed as a problem editor. I do not accept that claim and if sanctions are issued then I want them issued on their own merits and not for unstated reasons. Simplify the claim made here. State the offense. From what I see, QuackGuru has a fair reason for doing what they are doing. Specifically - it does seem right to me that attribution for the phrase "royal family" should not be given to one source if there is no confirmation that this source is the origin of the phrase. This seems like a typical wiki sourcing discussion that needs to continue till it comes to a resolution, and sanctions would not advance the conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

pause for clarification

Perhaps we should decide on a more unified and clear proposal. There have been suggestions (and !votes) for;

• a block,
• a series of escalating blocks,
• mentorship,
• a 1RR restriction and
• a topic ban,
  

as well as unspecified sanctions, and various combinations of 'all of the above' (did I miss anything?). We should determine exactly what it is we're proposing so that we can achieve a clear consensus. - ^theWOLFchild 00:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Given QuackGuru's history with edit warring, I would support a block and 1RR restriction. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe best to put into multiple subsections for !voting and ping anyone who's already !voted so they can move their comments. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

related 3RR report - QuackGuru reported for edit-warring on Peyton Manning (see here)

• Thewolfchild, you reported me to 3RR, but there was no violation of 3RR. Do editors think edit warring is allowed even if they think they are right? Tracescoops was continuing to revert over the text and might of made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours.[92][93][94][95] But it seems editors don't think that is a problem because they are on the right side. Why were editors claiming I was edit warring against consensus before consensus was even established. It was a minor issue over a few days that was blown out of proportion. Tracescoops falsely accused me of making 4 reverts. I started a new discussion on the talk page on March 12, 2016. At that time I made my edits there was no consensus for the changes made by Tracescoops. QuackGuru (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• USer:Tracescoops has supported a block of QG while breaching 3RR themselves in the wording dispute and User:Thewolfchild has filled a 3RR against QG with evidence that does not support a breach of 3RR. Nothing wrong with attributing the text in question though QG and consensus now appears to be to use the word "some". QG's last edit to the content in question was on Mar 12th while consensus via the straw pole occurred on the 13th.[96] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet the behavior is still highly problematic and a clear trend. One need not breach 3rr to be edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understand. I simply find it concerning that one of those supporting the block did breach 4 reverts themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a time and place for boomerangs and this clearly isn't it. If you feel another editor violated 3RR, I would suggest filing a separate report. There is long-term, disruptive behavioral issues here and the community is asking that they be addressed. Deflecting will only lead to enabling. QG was edit warring and the report was warranted, just as this ANI is. - ^theWOLFchild 03:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild you have not provided sufficient evidence to support the 3RR you filled. You would thus do well to withdraw it. This does not mean I am suggesting a boomerang. I do not believe User:Tracescoops is going to edit war further so me filling a 3RR would not be preventative at this point. I am just not seeing the big issue here. Consensus developed today. And QG has not made a change since yesterday. He appears willing to accept the consensus that has developed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to withdraw the report. AFAIC, he was edit-warring, and taking into account his behaviour leading up to that point and his history of edit warring I believe the report warranted. We both know for a fact that a 4th revert isn't the only deciding factor. I've seen others blocked for less. "He appears willing to accept the consensus that has developed." - You must be joking. Just because an ANI/3RR report combo scared QG from further edit-warring, doesn't mean he has "accepted" anything. His continuing contributions to both this ANI and the 3RR, as well as the Peyton Manning talk page, show the exact opposite. He has persistently, vehemently and even defiantly argued his point to death. And still does so, even now. Have you proved the V for the word "some" yet? Because that's what he expects of you, along with everyone else. - ^theWOLFchild 04:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am looking at the time line here:

• 23:36 Mar 12 the last concerning edit by QG
• 00:32 Mar 13 this ANI thread opened
• 05:10 Mar 13 consensus becomes clear[97]
• 05:57 Mar 13 the 3RR tread opened[98]
• 05:22 Mar 14 QG states "Based on my edits I did accept that consensus has formed because I did not revert after consensus was formed on March 13"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Surely you realize there is a lot more to "look at"...? But, anyway, I'm not here to argue with you Doc. QG was edit warring, and disrupting the talk page with his bizarre form of IDHT/battleground mentality, which he carried to the noticeboards. The 3RR was worthwhile, and while I didn't file the ANI, it was also worthwhile. I suggest you "look" at;

• QG's conduct on the Talk:Peyton Manning page,
• his conduct here at ANI,
• his conduct at the 3RR report,
• the sheer volume of complaints filed against him over the years,
• his staggering block log,
• his unapologetically stubborn refusal to acknowledge any wrong-doing, and
• the mounting consensus and waning patience of the community.

Then perhaps you'll have a better notion of what the real issue is here. You act as if he's innocent and we're all out to get him in some kind of witch hunt. That's simply not the case. Surely you realize there is more here than just a timeline and a missing 4th revert? Res ipsa loquitur, bro. - ^theWOLFchild 06:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay so looking at his block log I am seeing 5 blocks in the last more than 6 years. Is that "staggering"? While I do agree it is more than it should be.

We know that QG gets attacked by a lot of sock puppets such as User:CharlatanGourou among others. So yes when a new account posts evidence against them it deserves a close looking at.

I did not say "you are all out to get him" but there are definitely some who are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, give it a rest. You have repeatedly implied that I am also CharlatanGourou with no proof. Well guess what? I'm not! It took me reading the comment above from the guy who reported it, Jytdog, to even know I was reported. So why don't you stop going around making malicious accusations in forums like this without any evidence whatsoever and, most importantly, without reporting it! If you actually "know that QG gets attacked by a lot of sock puppets", then why don't you gather your evidence and go to that that sock noticeboard to report it. Otherwise, shut up. I was falsely accused by at least four editors on here, including you, of being CharlatanGourou. You all look like fools now. Just saying. Tracescoops (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never once stated or implied that you are CharlatanGourou. We have the sock puppet reports that shows GC has been harassed by sock puppets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, if you find my opinions concerning, then everyone can ignore them. Will that affect the impact of the other 15 or so editors commenting here? In any case, this edit by me was the original implementation of the overwhelming consensus. The second one was to restore the consensus content. If I had known that implementing consensus was an edit-warring violation, I certainly wouldn't have done it; I would have asked someone else to do it. So if what I did was an edit warring violation, then I accept that. I'm not sure why the 4 diffs showing 4 reverts in 2 hours 55 minutes by QuackGuru only count as 3 reverts. With regard specifically to edit warring, QG has been edit warring for nine years. So, when an editor referred to the "bright line", I had to look it up to see what it meant. I found WP:EDITWAR, which explains it. However, the edit warring policy goes on to say "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." So if someone, such as QG, has been edit warring and blocked for it many times over many years, does it make any sense to keep applying the soft "bright line" standard? Tracescoops (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Fair enough point. Hopefully a reviewing admin will take that into consideration. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Doc James, your timeline is significantly out of context and missing a lot of key information. Here's the actual in-context timelines. (All the times are my local times.) First, as the Manning talk page shows, the problems with QuackGuru regarding to the "royal family" issue started Thursday night, shortly before midnight. See the talk page. QG reverted in the Manning article four times late Saturday afternoon. It was during that time that the talk page exploded with QG's non-sensical objections to things like the use of the words "sometimes" and "some", and insistence that the "royal family" moniker was not a peacock term and therefore didn't need attribution. Shortly after that, early on Saturday evening, this ANI was started. Late Saturday evening, the proposal/straw poll thread was started and, other than QG, a unanimous consensus developed quickly. In the wee hours of Sunday morning, consensus was determined and the changes to the article were implemented. Shortly after that (unbeknownst to me), QG was reported at the edit warring noticeboard. About 12 hours later, on Sunday afternoon, QG reignited the "royal family" dispute by complaining about the consensus and text, and it continued for another several hours until QG was reminded about ANI and then discovered that the discussion had just proceeded to the point of sanctions being proposed. Finally, on Monday morning shortly after midnight, after two new sets of sanction proposals were well underway, QG claimed for the first time that s/he agreed with the consensus, and then repeated it on various pages. So, this sudden 180 by QG about accepting the consensus was long after everything else had already happened, and it occurred in the midst of a strong consensus being developed for some type of sanctions. Tracescoops (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You claimed "QG reverted in the Manning article four times late Saturday afternoon." I did not breach the 3RR policy. You reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. I accepted consensus, but that does not mean I agreed with the specific wording. I preferred the compromise wording added by another editor. Rather than reverting during the straw poll discusion I followed WP:TALKDONTREVERT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Limited concrete proposal

I propose the following:

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that each time QuackGuru is blocked for any reason, the length of the block should be a minimum of twice the previous block.

Details:

• This is completely separate from any decision as to what to do about this latest incident. It is meant as guidance for the future.
• This is purely advisory. Administrators are still allowed to use any amount of discretion that they see fit, but are asked to at least consider the consensus of the community on this.
• If an administrator applies a shorter-than-double block, this should not "reset" the suggested escalating progression.
• Blocks that are undone because they were in error or otherwise unambiguous bad blocks should not count. If they are reduced for the same reasons the reduced length should be used as the basis for future doubling.
• The escalating lengths should max out at a year. (Longer? shorter?)
• All of the above details are subject to change, and any admin is free to strike them out and replace them if there appears to be a consensus for the change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

---

• Support as proposer. Clearly what we are doing now is not effective at convincing QG to follow Wikipedia policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• User:Drmies warned User:Tracescoops for violating the 3RR on March 8, 2016 and User:Tracescoops violated 3RR again,[99][100][101][102] while accusing me of violating the 3RR rule when I did not violate it. User:Guy Macon, exactly what rule do you think I violated. My last edit was on March 12 to the disputed text, but the poll was later on March 13. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trace doesn't have the block log length that you have—in fact, they have no block log at all. Any time it's someone's first offense, discipline isn't going to outright be on the heavy side. No, start with a polite note and then escalate discipline if the user doesn't listen. You have a history of edit warring and are now edit warring again, yet you continually deny it. Amaury (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Recommend you let Drmies deal with Trace then, QG. You've made your point about their behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Neutral/Ambivalent - I'm torn on this one. Not convinced it will help, but it might. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am reminded of something Will Rodgers[ Citation Needed ] said. He was advocating an increase in military spending, and someone asked "do you think all of these weapons will keep us out of war?" He replied "Well, they sure will come in handy if they don't!" If the escalating block length doesn't convince QG to follow our policies voluntarily, the fact that after a while every new violation will kicks him off the encyclopedia for a year or two will certainly reduce the damage. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support but with the notation that this is the kinder approach and should be used for that reason. The alternative, looking at the long block log and the fact that he hasn't learned and continues to insist on his own right to right great wrongs against consensus would be a Site Ban. If there are three more escalated blocks, treat this as escalating into formal site-ban rather than mere indefinite block. Enough is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If anyone proposes a site ban, I will support it. Enough combative editing over many years is enough. It is true that he is usually right, but sometimes he is wrong, and when he is wrong, he insists on that he is right, and is a net negative to Wikipedia. It's a choice between escalating blocks and a site ban. I will defer to the optimists, and I am not one of them, in thinking that escalating blocks may actually teach him to discuss rather than to push. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support. I like this idea in principle, but I wonder if it isn't going to be completely unwieldy in practice. The admin blocking for any further edit warring is not necessarily going to be aware of this sanction and even if they are, there's a good chance that they still might apply the block length that seems reasonable to them in the circumstances. I wonder if maybe a single long-term block (on the order of several months) might not be better all around, as it would be much easier to effect and would hopefully send the same message that the community is serious about stopping this disruption. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I too would support this, but strongly agree with Snow Rise's concerns. This is essentially passing the buck, hoping another admin will deal with problem later, (but only after QG has been given the opportunity to create more problems that is). I say deal with this issue here and now.
  • Support - minimum 30 day block, followed by indefinite 1RR restriction and 1 year BLP Topic Ban. If that doesn't finally turn things around, then perhaps Robert McClenon's suggestion of a site ban might be necessary. Let's hope not. - ^theWOLFchild 03:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• It should be noted that Thewolfchild filed a 3RR report for a 3RR violation against me, but there was no breach of 3RR by me. Thewolfchild has not withdrawn the 3RR report.
• I think editors are missing the point. Based on my edits I did accept that consensus has formed because I did not revert after consensus was formed on March 13. My edits to the text were on March 12 before there was a consensus for the change. On reflection the issue is not that important to me. After there was a strong objection on the talk page I left the matter for others to decide. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the fact that there is a strong consensus so far in favor of my proposal or something stronger, your arguing that someone miscounted and incorrectly called your 3RR edit warring 4RR edit warring is just another example of WP:IDHT and the Law of holes. Instead of getting bogged down in details (you can be blocked for edit warring without hitting 4RR) could you please address the concerns that multiple Wikipedia editors have with your behavior? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I did explain the events in more detail for others to understand when there was consensus. After there was consensus on March 13 I did not make any more changes to the text. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the evidence shows that you not only did not accept the consensus, but that you argued with the other editors about it for hours afterwards. You also continued to dispute the validity of the consensus here, where you have argued with the dozen or more editors who told you you were wrong. And it doesn't matter if you edit warred before or after the consensus because it's beside the point. Just because you didn't continue to revert doesn't mean you accepted the consensus. You didn't accept it and everyone knows it. They know it because they can read the discussion on the Manning talk page and here to see exactly what you said. The only reason you didn't revert again was because you knew you were already on the edge with regard to edit warring. But after consensus, you continued to fight with everyone, for hours, and held the discussion hostage because you had to "win". Now, all of a sudden, you accept the consensus. You should have done it originally so we could have avoided all this nonsense. In any case, none of your explanations explains your nine-year history of doing these things. Tracescoops (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did accept that consensus was formed because I did not continue to revert. I wanted to make a few edits to the talk page what my concerns were. Another editor tried a compromise, but you reverted that edit. Editors are allowed to comment, start a RfC and seek dispute resolution. I thought it was better to discuss after the poll discussion rather than revert. QuackGuru (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

See, there you go again... repeating your exact same illogical points and completely ignoring what was just clearly explained to you. Again (ugh), just because you didn't revert again does not mean you accepted the consensus. One has nothing to do with the other. You obviously did not accept it. If you accepted it, then you wouldn't have returned 12 hours after consensus and the changes were made, insisting there was no consensus. Your first comment after consensus was "You violated SYN. Please try to come up with wording that is supported by each individual source. Combining different source together is a SYN violation."[103] And you continued your fight with editors for hours after that. Someone who accepts consensus would simply move on, not return to reignite an already-settled dispute. And, again, the sole reason the other editor proposed a "compromise" was solely to get rid of you because no one could actually believe that you started yet another battle when the matter had already been resolved. Your comments throughout this ANI only prove everyone's points and reinforce the need for sanctions. You either just don't get it, or are pretending not to. Tracescoops (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor can accept consensus and still discuss the matter on the talk page. Rather than reverting during the straw poll discusion I followed WP:TALKDONTREVERT. QuackGuru (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Escalating blocks is a fundamentally sound idea, a 1RR restriction should also IMO be included, and I also think that a block now for a non-trivial amount of time is valid to let the dust settle, but I am open to persuasion on this. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support both escalating blocks and 1RR. The alternative would be a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a hurtful proposal. The intent might not be malicious, but could be just an inappropriate presumption that wrongdoing has occurred and that an accusation is the same as guilt. Whatever the case, it is contrary to Wikipedia:Civility to plan punishments in the context of a content dispute discussion. There is no need to invent odd punishments before an offense is confirmed. It is inappropriate to create a section for developing entertaining punishments for editors when there is not even consensus that they did anything wrong.

Please slow down with the aggressive punishment planning. Back up and have a civil conversation in the text dispute. Apologize, be nice, assume good faith, and avoid hounding other volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Based on the responses to the above proposal, editors do not feel it would be effective and/or feel that more firm sanctions are necessary. Therefore, I propose the following.

It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community that based on their block history over nine years of editing and current disruptive behavior under discussion, QuackGuru will be blocked for (TO BE DETERMINED) months, followed by a 1RR restriction indefinitely. If QuackGuru is blocked thereafter, it will be for a minimum of (TO BE DETERMINED) months, with the exact length left to the discretion of the blocking admin or the consensus of the Wikipedia community. After that, the sanction will be a minimum of an indefinite block, again as determined by the blocking admin or community consensus.

If you support this proposal, please replace the two "(TO BE DETERMINED)" insertions with the number of months you prefer, such as "3 months and 6 months". The deciding admin will review the choices and make the final determination. Tracescoops (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support: Per my statement above, I feel at least six months is fair. Given their behavior, I would actually call that a little lenient, but it's not too long and not too short, either. They need to learn that there are consequences for their actions. Amaury (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I fully accept the consensus on the talk page that developed on March 13th, 2016. I was not reverting after consensus was established. I discussed the matter on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite 1RR restriction, and probably also a reasonably lengthy block right now. QuackGuru has been here many times before. Every time, he professes determination to mend his ways, and every time he carries on in exactly the same way. And I say this as one who almost always agrees with the edits QG is making. Truth is, if QG were supporting WP:FRINGE content instead of mainstream he'd have been shown the door long ago - and even then he annoys supporters of scientific accuracy almost as much as he annoys proponents of bullshit. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Second choice if my "Limited concrete proposal" above does not pass. Consider, if you will, the actual difference in outcomes between this proposal and my proposal with a 3 or 6 month ban and 1RR as a starting point. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a lengthy block and 1RR restriction. I believe QuackGuru has been a net positive to the project. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. When I deleted an entire article rather than start a AFD discussion or merge the text almost all editors did not have a problem with that. User:Tracescoops did not mention that because they agree with my edits to the other page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• As per User:Guy Macon - Support as second choice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• oppose QuackGuru has been a positive editor at wikiproject Medicine/articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose "It is the consensus of the Wikipedia community " - no such consensus exists. QuackGuru has delivered many positive outcomes to Wikipedia in medicine and beyond. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This reply is to both users above. Projects a user has been positive on or the user generally having positive edits means squat if they're being disruptive in other areas. Their positive edits should have a role in administrators' decisions, but when a user has had multiple blocks that have done no good as they refuse to soak in the advice, it's time to start getting tough. Amaury (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose When I see an editor who uses one account getting attacked by those who use many (ie User:CharlatanGourou and family) and evidence being claimed to be more than it is such as at the 3RR[104] I am willing to give that editor the benefit of the doubt. While 5 blocks in the last 6 years is more than it should be I would not describe it as "staggering". QG does need to back of sooner but someone with an account less than three weeks old calling for a 3 to 6 months block, meh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Get your damn facts straight, Doc. I never called for a 3 to 6 month block! Either show a diff that proves your claim or retract it and apologize. Tracescoops (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears you wrote above "If you support this proposal, please replace the two "(TO BE DETERMINED)" insertions with the number of months you prefer, such as "3 months and 6 months". The deciding admin will review the choices and make the final determination. Tracescoops (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)" It appears you put in quotes such as "3 months and 6 months".[105] QuackGuru (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's called an example. Amaury (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Amaury, but QG knows perfectly well it was merely an example as part of the instructions that supplemented the proposal. Their behavior is now verging on trolling. Tracescoops (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It appeared you were making a suggestion. Your claim "Their behavior is now verging on trolling."[106] I was merely quoting what you wrote and gave my thoughts about what you wrote. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It was quite clearly not a suggestion, especially with the way Trace began the sentence. The wording was clear and not confusing in the slightest. Amaury (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"When I see an editor who uses one account getting attacked by those who use many (ie User:CharlatanGourou and family)"... Doc James, you have lodged this allegation against me multiple times in this discussion with zero proof that CharlatanGourou is me. Perhaps you should shut up now because as I've said all along, I'm not CharlatanGourou and the sock noticeboard just proved it. I didn't even know I was reported about it until I saw the comment above from Jytdog to even know I was reported. Then I had to figure out where that noticeboard is located. So why don't you stop going around repeatedly making malicious accusations in forums like this without any evidence whatsoever and, most importantly, without reporting it! And if you're so sure that QG is being attacked by some "family", then gather evidence and report it. Personally, I thought CharlatanGourou's comment was silly and stupid, but it was the only edit that account has made. So droning on and on about one nonsense comment from one immature person is a little ridiculous. It's not as if that account was here in this ANI (or anywhere else) trying to get QG blocked. That was obviously a fake account, but I do not see any other editors involved in this discussion who stand out as being fake. Tracescoops (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said you were a sock User:Tracescoops. You are not mentioned in that quote. Another user that was referred to is this one User:Renameduser024 who reported QG here as it appears QG was trying to link some socks together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

If you thought it was a "fake account" then why did you go to the talk page of the fake account to encourage the account to comment on the discussion? You wrote "Your participation to resolve the matter would be welcome."[107] QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh, because I didn't realize it was a fake account at the time! I didn't know until I read the comments here about it and someone pointed out how the username was similar to yours. And everyone who had recently participated in the dispute was notified about that discussion, regardless of what side of the issue they were on. So about 10 editors were invited and they all received the identical notification. In any case, you're the last person in the world who should be questioning me about this. How about an apology for repeatedly saying on here that CharlatanGourou was me? Wrong! Tracescoops (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this is just laughable. It is one user being railroaded by another group of users. I find it very hard to believe that a brand new user to Wikipedia is so secure in Wikipolicy and competent enough to do all that he is doing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not stereotyping or a personal attack in the slightest. Not at all... Amaury (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

WOW...just wow ...so in the real world all of you would allow a rapist backinto the community just because they do good work for that community . I now fully understand why there is such a problem with behaviour here on Wikipedia.. Ok to be extremely disruptive over a long period as long as you do good work. This is the reason Larry Sanger left the project. - Moxy (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Railroaded? The editor's behavior and history speaks for itself. So give us a break. Tracescoops (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Moxy that comment is not cool. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

And how about your "not cool" comments in this discussion, Doc? Pot, meet kettle. Tracescoops (talk) 20:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

new development

So, after a very lengthy debate over the language of a specific sentence that was frustrating for many, but that had finally reached consensus only yesterday... now QuackGuru has opened a new RfC and "straw poll" to re-open the matter. He wants to re-word that same sentence again, only now he wants the word "some" to remain in there and he also wants to add content that is apparently not supported by the attached the sources. The very issue he doggedly railed against for the last three days. And he does this despite the fact that neither the ANI or 3RR against him, both started because of the debate, have even been closed yet, and there are still several editors here calling for him to face a lengthy block. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be funny or if there is a competency issue here, but if someone here knows QG and can reach out to him, perhaps convince to stop this nonsense... please do. - ^theWOLFchild 19:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I did explain this above. It is a different proposal to add context. I am not going on about the word "some". This is only about adding Because of their success,..." I also welcome alternate proposals to add context or improve the text.

The book says "Combine that with a strong work ethic and a love of the game that Archie had instilled in his boys and it's no wonder that Peyton and Eli have been so successful. The result is a legacy that's rarely matched in professional sports. Today, the Mannings have become the country's royal family of football."[108]

You claimed on the talk page "Just to be clear, I don't just oppose your suggestion, I oppose this entire "poll/RfC"."[109] To be cystal clear, you opposed the proposal before there was a RfC. I started the RfC after you opposed since you did not provide a specific reason for opposing the text. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Apropos nothing, why do you keep having your UP deleted? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, QuackGuru?! And what happened to your whole "I now accept the consensus and don't care about it any more" mantra? Do you ever stop this nonsense behavior? Tracescoops (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a different proposal to add context that does not involve the dispute over the word "some". QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't care what it involves. The consensus included the precise wording. This nonsense proves that your claim of accepting the consensus was a bunch of bull. Tracescoops (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You made it clear that you don't care what it involves. That's not being collaborative. You are trying to chill the discussion by claiming it is nonsense when this proposal has nothing to do with the word "some" regarding a previous discussion. The previous discussion was not about including "Because of their success,". It should not turn into a huge discussion at AN/I with me making a new proposal on the talk page. User:Tracescoops, you can explain your position on the talk page about the different proposal and it would be better to WP:FOC on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you ever take a freaking hint? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Honestly, what you are doing is on the verge of trolling. Tracescoops (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought I was making a good proposal to add a little context. So what is the specific objection? Discussion over content is based on the validity of the arguments. Your argument "Honestly, what you are doing is on the verge of trolling." is not about the specific text. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Promotional material by IP

The IP in this thread is promoting his own beliefs. I just commented there but they kept on the same behavior. Can any one take a look at it? Mhhossein (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:Reference Desk/Humanities

Yet another sock of the antisemitic troll needs a banning. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Report them as sock of Soft skin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over on WP:SPI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest IP's of a troll

Last AN/I entry here. Eik Corell (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked 86.187.160.8 and have now blocked User:86.187.165.80, the latest IP used. P.S. And semi-protected Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six‎ for a couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Gilgit Baltistan

User SheriffIsInTown being a shia muslim has made controversial edits [110] with an intent to show Gilgit Baltistan a shia majority area. His edits contained 2 sources which I proved self contradicting with in themselves and also with these 9 independent sources which I provided. [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119]. If you review all the material you will safely conclude that Gilgit Baltistan is a Sunni majority area. I tried very hard to make him understand wiki pedia policy that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content Still he edit warred. I made a balance edit [120] which shows both side of coin containing all 11 sources (9 mine and 2 his) but he and few admin/users influenced by him are not allowing the edits by me. Admins should be restoring Wikipedia policies but un fortunately they are not. Please some independent admin intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Content disputes are not decided at ANI. I can see that involved article talk page discussion has been ongoing with editors taking several different position on these content changes. If the dispute is about the reliability of your sources, please bring the issue to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If you are unable to resolve the edit questions, please take the dispute to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and enlist the help of a mediator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that there has been sockpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert at that article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• As far as I am concerned, this IP should be blocked as a sock-puppet of LangaugeXpert and my advice to him is that he should take a break of at least 6 months and then come back and apply for a standard offer and contribute productively instead of creating a new sock-puppet every few days. Only then he might be allowed to edit. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Another troll IP

User:86.187.161.44 Eik Corell (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

New one: User:86.187.160.92. Hope that edit filter comes up soon. Eik Corell (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That's blocked too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Round 3! User:86.187.166.68 Eik Corell (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I had a bit of fun whacking those IPs, five in all, but, enough, I've semi-protected the page for a couple of days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As a non-involved non-admin I saw this discussion and the speed with which the user was blocked without discussion or diffs puzzled me. Looking just at the user's/Ip's edit history there was no context for understanding why this user was blocked. Eventually I saw the article's edit history and the discussion at Talk:Metin2#The p Server Scene (pServers) and it all made sense but even there the behavior is not "trolling", it is just a way over the top case of tendentious editing and apparent multi-IP socking/block evasion. My point is nobody should have to go look this stuff up. An ANI post is supposed to contain the necessary information/diffs/links for others to review. The link to the talk page should have been there at the least and frankly there probably should have been a single post being re-used for the ongoing problem instead of starting a new one cold. @Eik Corell:, Obviously Malcolmxl5 was previously involved and intrinsically understood the problem, but imagine if he was offline for some unforeseen reason (like a power outage) and someone else had to act on the matter. Shortcuts at ANI are not helpful if it means Admins have to go do their own research to find the history of the problem. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, there are two discussions further up the page and others in the history about this IP who is harassing Eik: this one will be helpful. IP-hopping troll, continued. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that. I tend to be a bit of a bulldog and not let stuff go easily so I dug in and found the following:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive911#Returning_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#Latest_IP_of_a_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#IP-hopping_troll
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Latest_IP.27s_of_a_troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koala Tea Of Mercy (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_troll_IP (this post)

Based on all of this is seems it is indeed trolling after all. Seems to me Eik Corell should revisit the ISP and try again, explaining to them that WP does not make its raw server logs available for reasons of user privacy but that the edit time stamps should provide sufficient information to identify the user involved. It has been six years and maybe they have a more enlightened view of WP these days. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• It would probably be useful to put together all the reports of this 86.187 IP. I've pulled together a list at User:Malcolmxl5/86.187. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

IP trolling at Talk:Jewish Bolshevism

Previous discussion: [121]

At Talk:Jewish Bolshevism, a sockmaster keeps on returning under different IPs after a page protection expires. Just recently, a page protection had expired yesterday and the sockmaster has returned today edit warring and being disruptive. Here is a list of their used IPs (bold is the recent one):

Is it even worth filing an SPI complaint or even use a range block? They will just keep coming back. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Do you know who the sockmaster is? Smells like Mikemikev or Blastikus to me... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea. I only got myself involved with these IPs through an ANI complaint and have the page on my watchlist ever since. My history with this person is very little. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: I've just updated the list now the IP is back with another sock. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Page protected for 2 weeks. It's not Mikemikev who is now in the UK. Doug Weller talk 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Thanks for the page protection. Doubt it's Blastikus since they're quite stale by this point... but it's possible. Or just a new vandal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's Blastikus. They are both dumping loads and loads of purported sources on the page and using original research in a pretty characteristic fashion. For example, see the contribs of sock Joel Slovo. GAB^Hello! 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a match... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Day old editor commited personal attacks in the context of vandalism.

The user in question is King leer01.

Most importantly: here, the editor vandalise a talk page, in order to insult another editor based on his agenda.

Here he regard to the same editor, calling him a "scumbag".

And here he generally expose an agenda, saying he doesn't mind if Israelis or Jews die and say they 'deserve it', which is something I, as an Israeli-Jew, doesn't feel comfortable seeing on Wikipedia.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Reverted. I see you have no problem with the editor's post in question, or his obvious agenda. That's my personal talk page. Shall I dig through everything you post on your talk page and do the same? Personal talk page. It has nothing to do with what I've actually tried to edit. Personal opinion on my personal page. King leer01 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You're also deliberately being vague in regards to the context of what I was talking about, probably in order to try and make me look like a "bigot" when it comes to Jews in general. King leer01 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Please keep to a proper threaded discussion, see WP:TPG -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss

The fact that these are comments on your own talk page is no excuse. Wikipedia has no place for users who attack other users. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 22:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that you'd take a look at the person who I was referring to in the first place if you're so hot and bothered about people who act objectionably on this site. As I've already made plain, nothing I've actually said in the context of editing articles constitutes an insult or personal attack. King leer01 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

To provide some context, I warned them quite categorically against making personal attacks, then they replied with the "scumbag" remark. I was uninvolved in the article dispute anyhow. The POV-pushing, incivility, tendentious editing, soapboxing and personal attacks are pervasive: [122][123][124][125][126][127][128][129][130][131][132][133]. I leave it to an administrator to decide on the proper course of action, although I recommend use of discretionary sanctions. GAB^Hello! 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just lying. Lies in regards to all of those links that you posted; you're just upset that the facts in all of those matters go against your personal point of view as an Israeli Jew who supports the occupation and the "settlements". King leer01 (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

He also made attacks against living persons who are not editors. Against Khaled Abu Toameh on his talk page [134], and another person on Talk:2014_Gaza_war_beach_bombing_incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support a ban User is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push a POV. He's a SPA too, looking at his comments. 142.105.159.60 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy Hello! Do I hear the individual who's made repeated attacks on pro-Palestinian elements like Max BLumenthal? While standing with people who accuse Blumenthal of everything under the sun?

KAH is undoubtedly a legitimate example of a "self hating" person, in the sense that he (unlike Blumenthal) is a self-hating Palestinian who is essentially in thrall to the likud party and the "settler" movement. Likewise, Thomas Wictor is little more then the equivilent of David Duke on the Jews when it comes to his ranting on Palestinians, Arabs, and of course "the Muslims". King leer01 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block (not a ban). Clearly not here to contribute and the personal attacks are as unnecessary as they ever are. Amortias (T)(C) 00:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The PI articles are enough of a hotbed as it without people being deliberately inflammatory. Normally, I'd say that a discretionary sanction warning to begin with as that has not been supplied, but given the BLP violations, personal attacks and basically outright trolling, support an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Support indefinite block. Clearly WP:NOTHERE; This user's personal attacks, harassment, and general incivility preclude any contemplation that there is value in keeping them around for good-faith contributions. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for the talk page edit, followed by the personal insult on their own talk page. What else? I don't see, User:Bolter21, what you thought you or the project could gain from your lengthy interaction with that user, but that's by the by. I see that MrNiceGuy placed a notification about ARBPIA on the talk page, so that's that. What next? If any admin thinks that the editor stepped out of ARBPIAbounds since that notification was placed, they have my blessing to extend the block; if any admin thinks that in general this user is indeed NOTHERE, they have my blessing etc. I just don't have any indef blocks laying around right now. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I just hope that I won't have to deal with disruptiveness of this user. Two other editors acted the same, made a lot of mess, and were banned. I hope by warning this user now, we could maybe prevent future violations from him.--Bolter21 10:18 UTC+2, 14 March 2016

Possible segregation of article content based on race

I am concerned that User:Rjensen has used a race based approach to editing the Reconstruction Era article. Please see African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95)#Merge discussion in progress for complete discussion.

He has stated that "much of the Reconstruction article is about how southern whites should be treated" and "much of the reconstruction literature does not deal with blacks Primarily, but deals Primarily with the treatment of whites". I have asked him to cite sources supporting this claim and he has not complied.

He is currently adding content to an article I proposed to merge into the Reconstruction article. The content he is adding appears informative and accurate. The article looked like this before he began adding content today. However, my main concern is that he will edit the Reconstruction article based on the above stated assertions which are categorically false. I am seeking an administrator to step-in and have this user present reliable sources that support his claim. Otherwise, he needs to cease and merge content to the Reconstruction article to avoid the appearance of segregating content based on his unsubstantiated claims.

I have no problem with moving relevant content from the proposed article African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) to Reconstruction Era then create new WP:Hatnotes for each lengthy section to comply with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Content forking. However, any attempt to limit content on Reconstruction Era article based on race will be vigorously challenged. Mitchumch (talk) 06:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. our Reconstruction article is very long and is not a good fit for a merger. The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) material will get lost in it. They should not be merged. In my opinion The African-American Civil Rights Movement (1865–95) is an important topic that deserves its own article. I did not start the article (it originated in 2009) and only started work on it yesterday. He APPROVES all my edits to it (The content he is adding appears informative and accurate). He then plays his attack card stating: my main concern is that he will edit the Reconstruction article -- well this is not the place to complain about future edits that have not been written but which he might disagree with. I have no plans right now for any major addition to Reconstruction Era, but new RS appear all the time and I scan them for usable materials. Mitchumch hyas changed his tune--yesterday hedemanded a merger because of an illegal fork, which is false. There is no fork and the articles have no POV battles. Rjensen (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a totally frivolous complaint. Mitchumch has proposed the elimination of a half dozen articles dealing specifically with African American issues. All articles are properly sourced and of significant size. That, to me, seems to suggest that maybe the problem does not lie with other editors. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Estee sch - promoter

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

---

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

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

Anonymous editor persistently using ridiculous edit summaries

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

This particular editor has had his share of not-so-constructive edits, like multiple unsourced additions to BLPs, twice reverted by an admin.[135][136] That wasn't the only one. This was another reversion by an admin. I'd like to assume that "Lost Angeles" and "Actir" were accidents but, as I said, I'm pretty sure I've encountered this editor before and he did do some sneaky, subtle vandalism like that. I can certainly appreciate Robvanvee calling the edit summaries disruptive. When you are doing a lot of cleanup work and you see an anonymous editor making edit summaries like this, you tend to think the worst (especially with edits such as this) and it can be quite distracting from the task at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another IP with legal threats re Tube Challenge

This edit to London Underground appears to be yet another incarnation of the various IPs offering legal threats regarding Tube Challenge. See 81.101.104.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for one blocked example. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ah yes. And so ungrammatical. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I blocked an NHS IP for NLT on my talk page several weeks ago, and I think this is the same person. Similar 'going to personally sue' me and JBW and whoever else. I'd make the block longer than 31 hours but I'm not going to override Drmies. Katie^talk 14:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The pages are now semiprotected (not by me). Guy (Help!) 15:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to contact system administrators at the NHS. It cannot possibly be part if this person's job description to add crap to Wikipedia while at work. They may be able to trace "andi james" down. But then I guess he'll sue them too. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The NHS is one of the largest employers in the world. As well as all the employees many NHS services provide public wifi for members of the public to use. (And the NHS deals with over a million patients every 36 hours, which doesn't include carers or relatives). The NHS is not a monolithic organisation - there are CCGs, Hospital Trusts, Ambulance Trusts, Mental Health Trusts, GP surgeries, etc. Telling the NHS is unlikely to achieve anything. DanBCDanBC (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe. Katie, you are always welcome to override me; I did not see much point in blocking that IP address any longer, given that I saw no other similar edits in the last 500 from that IP address. That 81 IP is a different kettle of fish--but HandsomeFella, I don't think the NHS is going to care much for that one edit from the 194 IP. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Tachlifa of the West

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive279#Tachlifa the Palestinian, please can somebody mediate so an edit war does not erupt. Many thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)