User talk:Silliestchris

September 2021[edit]

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Multiple chemical sensitivity, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss improving an article, is on the talk page of that article: not on the talk page of some random admin who's just trying to end the disruption. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Multiple chemical sensitivity. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alexbrn (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

You have a rather massive problem with WP:IDHT. You have previously been blocked for edit-warring at Multiple chemical sensitivity. Subsequently, you have been warned that you cannot insist on your changes to the article without gaining a consensus for them. Yet, you persisted in your edits without consensus to the article despite being reverted by different editors. I see you have also been edit-warring at Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance, which for many years was a redirect to Multiple chemical sensitivity, and you removed it. I have indefinitely blocked you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Silliestchris (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got involved in the Wikipedia Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Page because it came to my attention that the page does not reflect a neutral point of view. Now, to be honest, I dove in without familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's policies, things got a little heated, and I did engage in edit warring. I won't do that anymore, in fact, I probably won't attempt to edit the MCS page whatsoever anymore. However, I do want to participate in the MCS talk page. What I have noticed on the MCS page is all additions of sources that do not conform to the present narrative are reverted, no matter where the citation comes from. There is one user in particular that compulsively reverts these reference additions. This user rarely if ever engages on the talk page, even when specifically named and usually only becomes involved to revert constructive additions. For example, the user I am concerned with recently reverted additions of references on the grounds of "fringe sources" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiple_chemical_sensitivity&oldid=1046113640, one of which is the American Journal of Epidemiology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Journal_of_Epidemiology. I am not sure how the 5th rated epidemiology journal in the world with an impact factor of 4.5 qualifies as a fringe source. The MCS page needs attention by a much larger group of admins and editors, as I believe the evidence suggests small group of individuals with a biased agenda to put forward have mastered the game of edit warring without getting caught. I beg of you to review the talk and edits in detail. In summary, the Multiple Chemical Sensitivity page portrays a heavily biased narrative and appears to be controlled by a small group of users. Silliestchris (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In reviewing your request, I would only unblock you with an agreement to not edit about MCS and knowing what other topics you would edit about instead. I am not convinced that you would not be disruptive even only on the talk page. I am declining your request, but you may make another to attempt to convince another administrator to unblock you. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.