Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:45, 8 March 2016

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

User:Vicky85144

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ylevental - COI and related issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Yossimgim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing to the F1 project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86.169.72.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

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

User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?

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

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

That Dr. is the real name of User:Bondegezou, a fact which if not immediately shown on his User page is easily accessed via external link. I'm not sure how that fits into any "outing" calculation. More broadly, Jonadabsmith is unhappy about a couple of AfDs, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luke Nash-Jones and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/London Students for Britain, and his comments at the AfDs and on the article Talk pages would appear to exceed the usual boundaries of WP:NPA and WP:AGF among others. JohnInDC (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree. At the very least, they should be blocked for the duration of the AFD, as suggested. GAB 23:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bondegezou, I'll pop over from the IHR if you need someone to watch your back mate. Bloomin' undergrads 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.139.189 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)‎

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

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

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

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

Urgent block needed for sock

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded. ~Oshwah~ 17:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Potguru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do with this IP?

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

Disruptive Editing and Ownership Behavior

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from “The Four Savvys”.

to “The Four Savvys.”

She changed it back to the incorrect placement

• I fixed another misplaced period, taking the text

from “7 Games”.

to “7 Games.”

She changed that back, too.

• The same thing happened with

"Parelli Natural Horsemanship University",

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

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

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

References

1. http://www.allmusic.com/artist/bauhaus-mn0000154998/biography
2. http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/?id=2838
3. Talk:Donald_J_Drumpf#mirror_mirror_on_the_wall
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship&diff=708129014&oldid=708105714
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Parelli_Natural_Horsemanship&diff=707869149&oldid=707746294

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2011/08/punctuating-around-quotation-marks.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interpretation of the phrase "Musical comedy"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MarcoAlbani1998

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editwarring to insert OR definition at Alt-right

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Bernstein, Joseph (January 21, 2016). "Conservative Provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos Starts "White Men Only" Scholarship Fund". Buzzfeed News.
2. Welton, Benjamin (2016-02-01). "What, Exactly, is the 'Alternative Right?'". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved 2016-02-05.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request lifting of Topic Ban of DrChrissy

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

Created: Grimace scale (animals)

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

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

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

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

DrChrissy 21:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above is a good example of the tendency to completely ignore warnings, topic bans, etc. and act like they've done nothing wrong. The evidence is already covered in the various topic bans. I'm not going to re-amass diffs of all the times they've repeatedly tried to test the edges the topic bans as that's been rehashed in previous administrative actions already (though see DrChrissy's recent talk page archives for examples). The recent added on topic bans and blocks should speak for themselves at this point that the behavior isn't improving. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support as WP:AGF. For the nay-sayers, consider it WP:ROPE if you need to. I agree with Kindzmarauli's assessment that bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I assume DrChrissy knows they'll be under heightened scrutiny after an ban is removed and will work on further altering their past behavior into something more constructive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The smoke hasn't even finished rising from the last messes this user started yet. Mabye in another six months. Jtrainor (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Admitted Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

User:Muboshgu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IP-hopping troll

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

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

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

User:92.3.2.181 and User:92.3.5.49

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editor

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

Moved from WP:AN

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

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

who to notify

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kohs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Potguru request

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reposting from the editor's talk page:

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

I, JethroBT 22:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Livelikemusic

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

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

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

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

Compromised account

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

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

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

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

Misquoting reliable source at Killington Ski Resort

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

Hunting in pairs by Two Editors

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

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

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

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

3. Defacing Talk pages with unsubstantiated allegations.

4. Using insulting tone and threatening other users.

5. Putting “cleanup” tags on pages

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

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

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

This coterie involves:

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

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

Examples of supporting each other:

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

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

(Kautilya and Joshua Jonathan)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent example. Kautliya posts on Talk Page of JJ:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regarding some of the diffs Adiagr provided:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propose boomerang for User:Adiagr

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

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

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

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

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

Nadir Hussain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting 208.87.237.201

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

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

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

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

Disruption by 184.88.43.62

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of Ben_Sasse in question

Editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ammodramus refuses to site sources which dispute Ben Sasse's claims about endorsements of Donald Trump from hate groups which is easily dispelled and has a record of such since the year 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.43.62 (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope! He's removing your edit sourced to a blog That edit can't stay, he's right to remove it. KoshVorlon 19:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This is the same editor I reported above (Section: Disruption by 184.88.43.62) for soapboxing and edit-warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards