Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents and 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)

Start a new discussion

Knights of Columbus

• Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slugger O'Toole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278 § Avatar317 removing WP:ABOUTSELF material

My reading of the RSN discussion was that the use of ABOUTSELF material is excessive and that the article is bloated with self-sourced promotional and trivial content.

Slugger O'Toole has been around since 2006 and has around 20,000 edits. He has been mainly active since 2018. His top edited articles are connected the Knights of Columbus: 636 edits to the KofC article (highest of any editor by a large margin), 525 to Catholic Church and homosexuality (second highest), 349 to Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (highest, again by a large margin). He refuses to state whether or not he is a member or affiliate of the KofC, but asserts that according to his own reading of COI, he has no conflict. However, according to his own reading of WP:ABOUTSELF there is no limit on the amount or type of self-sourced material that can be included in an article, so I take that with a pinch of salt.

The article is, in part thanks to his reversion of any removal, extensively sourced from KofC and affiliated websites, including much promotional material such as claims of membership numbers, revenues, charitable giving etc. When I first checked, around half the inline citations were to KofC and affiliated websites or obvious press releases, and most fo the rest from a handful of books including at least one commissioned by KofC.

This looks very much like promotional editing. I am concerned by his refusal to acknowledge whether he has any connection with the subject and much more concerned by his bloating of the article with trivia, asserting that WP:ABOUTSELF provides effectively carte blanche to include as much detail as cannot be sourced independently, from affiliated sources, and his reversion of attempts to remove excessive self-sourcing. Guy (help!) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a shame that this has reached the stage of ANI. I've encountered Slugger O'Toole's work in the past and he seems like a solid content creator. I don't know if he has a genuine COI with the Knights or if he is just an ardent fan, but the state of that article is unconscionable. If he doesn't want to disclose his relationship with the group, that's fine, but his editing behavior is not justifiable. The Knights are a fairly high profile organization; there are reliable third-party sources out there, and there's no excuse for so much of the sourcing to be taken directly from the organization's own website. Michepman (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, normally I'd support anyone on Wikipedia not wanting to reveal personal information, however, when it conflicts with that person writing an article, especially if they're connected to it, yeah, that have to disclose it. Slugger O'Toole's responses smack of literally not answering the question at all. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't agree. Our policy explicitly does not require people must disclose (have to) a COI unless it's WP:PAID territory. People are strongly encourage to disclose, but if they do not do so, we have to consider whether their editing is causing problems. If it is, it may very well be appropriate to block or topic ban them, but this will be based on the problems their editing is cause, not the fact they may have an undisclosed COI. Editors should be aware that failing to disclose a COI means others may be reluctant to help them with any edit suggestions, and they will be given short shrift in any discussion, but still it's not a requirement. Personally I find an editor who refuses to comment on a COI slightly better than an editor who comments but misleads, although the former doesn't seem to apply here since as I understand it, the editor has refused to comment on any connection, but says they have no COI. Whether the latter applies, I have no i dea. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne actually, WP:COI actually requires those with a COI to disclose it. Up near the top it states:

Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content. Anyone editing for pay must disclose who is paying them, who the client is, and any other relevant affiliation; this is a requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Even non-paid editors with a COI need to disclose it. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Wekeepwhatwekill: Did you read what you quoted? It says "Expected". It does not say you are required or must do so. And later it says "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles" (emphasis mine). Notice these words. They were chosen carefully. The only parts were it says "must" is in relation to paid editing. In that case, it is indeed required, and an editor can be blocked simply for failing to disclose their paid editing. It doesn't matter if their paid editing is stellar and no one can find any problem with it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, and refusal to either confirm or deny is as good as a confirmation, as we all know. But that's not the main issue. The main problem here is a terrible article that makes a notable subject look like some crappy little group because it is mostly promotional text taken from the group's own sites and press releases. Guy (help!) 15:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: I don't know if I'd necessarily agree on that, and I'd argue your post demonstrates why. Someone may consistently refuse to confirm or deny precisely because if they start to deny, then they also have to confirm even if they don't want to. If you ask me whether I live in Wellington, and I refuse to confirm or deny, it may be because I live in Wellington. It may be because I live in Auckland and don't want to reveal that, and so don't want to go down a path which may eventually require me to either confirm I live in Auckland, lie about it, or basically tell people I do by the one time a question which I cannot truthfully deny is asked, I have to refuse to confirm or deny thereby confirming it anyway, or point blank refusing to answer which again if I normally reply will be taken as confirm it.

Likewise if you ask me if I am a member of Knights of Columbus, maybe the reason I may refuse to confirm or deny is because I am a member of Knights of St Columba and don't want to have to effectively reveal that when I feel there is no valid reason. I'm fairly sure some politicians have such a policy of refusing to confirm or deny a lot of rumours precisely for this reason.

Undoubtedly an editor should not be allowing their COI to cause problems, and the best way they can avoid having to disclose a COI is by steering well away from any area where they have a COI. But I'm also completely sympathetic to people who want to keep their private lives private despite editing here. And so fully endorse our current policy which IMO is clear that we cannot force people to declare an ordinary COI. Only when it comes to paid editing are editors required to disclose with no ifs or butts about it and their failure to do so is completely blockable.

Hence why as I said, we need to concentrate on problems this editor may be causing, putting aside whether they may or may not have a COI, rather than making misleading claims that a COI must be disclosed (which would imply it's ultimately a blockable offence to consistently fail to do so).

Nil Einne (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne, when someone is engaged in promotional editing, it's legitimate to ask if they have a conflict of interest. If they refuse to answer, then it's equally legitimate to restrict them to the talk page as if they did, because the problem is promotional editing more than it is a conflict of interest. That's what I mean here: Undisclosed COI versus non-COI promotion is a distinction without a difference as far as the content goes. Guy (help!) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Nil Einne Yes, I read what I wrote. I guess it comes down to how we interpret "expected to ". We're expected to stop at red lights, but it doesn't mean it's voluntary.

I read the COI statement the same way. NO, I won't get into a discussion about semantics, I totally see how you read "expected", you read it as something voluntary, and I don't. That's fine, we can agree to disagree. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Even if it means "required", they need not disclose anything other than the fact that they have COI. It's usual for editors in this situation to explain what the COI consists of (a member, and officer of the association, a close friend of a member, etc. ) but this is not required. We assume good faith, and recognize that the need to disclose further may be in some way identifying DGG ( talk ) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two issues here. The first is the amount of WP:SELFSOURCE material that is appropriate and for which facts it is appropriate. The second is when a COI needs to be disclosed. I was of the opinion that a primary source was acceptable for things like membership numbers. Due to the longstanding stable nature of the article, I believe there was a consensus for it. Others have come in and started removing that material, claiming it to be promotional and not appropriate for a primary source, without changing the consensus first. I think this is inappropriate, but as a gesture of good faith have endeavored to find additional sources. I haven't seen that reciprocated on the other side, sadly, and in fact have found the tone of some other editors to be downright hostile. If the consensus changes on this, I would be happy to abide by it.

As to whether or not membership requires disclosure, this issue has arisen before on this article. Two admins, @TonyBallioni: and @SarekOfVulcan:, have both declared that we "have never interpreted the COI guideline to require disclosure for things such as" membership in a fraternal organization. I think this is a wise move for those who are not in the upper ranks or paid employees. As I said on the talk page, declaring membership in an organization like the Knights would reveal several pieces of personal information, including age, gender, and religion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my impression as well. The general rule seems to be that you don't have to declare whether you are or ever were a Boy Scout to edit articles about Boy Scouts, but you do have to declare your association if you're paid for your involvement (either on staff for the organization [at least above a trivial level; mail room staff need not bother] or it's your job to promote the org [whether for pay or as a volunteer]). The same rules that apply to members of the scouting movement ought to apply to members of other large organizations. (For the smallest clubs, the situation is more complicated, because it's less likely that someone would technically be a member but not be involved in promoting the group or its aims in some way.)

As noted above, and according to the lead of that article, it appears that for this org "please disclose that you're a member" means "please disclose your religion on wiki". I can understand someone being reluctant to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

I'm less concerned about what might constitute COI than I am about his repeated insertion of UNDUE, promotional, and weakly sourced content in the article. The article is written in a tone and with a level of detail, jargon, and admiring excess that comes off downright bizarre to an uninterested arm's-length reader. This issue has been patiently explained to him, and I am not optimistic that he will be able to collaborate constructively on this article. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the COI is less important than the article content and how editor Slugger O'Toole does his best to own the article. Every time any other editor changes/removes content, he quickly reinserts it, and with his promotional spin. See this example of his whitewashing. [1]

He seems to believe that the only acceptable behavior of any other editor is to expand the article, (note his comments above) and he seems to be repeatedly either failing to comprehend or INTENTIONALLY IGNORING the repeated comments by other editors to point out that unless some piece of trivia or other material is sourced in an INDEPENDENT source, than it doesn't deserve to be in the article (it is not important enough to be in Wikipedia).---Avatar317^(talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• O'Toole has made a baffling 60% of the edits to that page (75% by text), which is unacceptable for an editor who has both clear WP:DUCK WP:COI issues they've refused to clarify and who and has, more importantly, constantly refused to listen to people saying that the article has clear problems. Wikipedia has around six million articles, and this one as a reasonably high amount of attention now, so I think O'Toole ought to spend some time editing on a different subject and leave the Knights in the care of other editors for a few years. (I also think the fixation on "this is how it has always been", in the face of so many people pointing out so many problems, smacks of WP:OWN given that much of the current text was written by O'Toole with relatively minimal input from others.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have stated on multiple occasions that I think the article can use work and that I am willing to work with anyone who wants to try and improve it. My main complaint is that, instead of editing text to improve the prose, some think the best course of action is to simply delete huge sections of text. My requests to work on this collaboratively with others have largely been ignored. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Much of the content does not belong in an encyclopedia article, for reasons many several editors have explained. Much of the article is paraphrased from a few closely affiliated sources. That kind of content simply needs to be removed. It can't be "improved" by compromise or collaboration. It just doesn't belong in the article. Your talk page statements, and now this one here, just ignore that the content can't be "improved". New content from more neutral sources, some critical and others contextualizing the KofC, could be added from independent RS references. But you've shown no inclination to work on that kind of improvement. SPECIFICO talk 01:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I dispute this characterization, both of the content and my efforts. I added plenty of new sources. I could also point to a few places where you deleted content that is critical of the Knights. I haven't removed any critical content. I also haven't seen you add any neutral, critical, or contextualizing sources. Neither has anyone else, for that matter. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Q.E.D. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The reason I have not added any--yet--is that I have been focused on finding better sources for what is already there. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:OWN - proposal

This situation is becoming impossible. There's a strong consensus on the article's Talk page and in other venues where this has been discussed that the article relies too heavily on affiliated sources and contains excessive trivia, much of it serving to promote the organisation. Every time anyone tries to fix this with an edit, Slugger O'Toole piecewise reverts pretty much all of the change, restoring the text with the same or only marginally better sources. The page stats speak for themselves. Slugger O'Toole has made 795 edits, which is 62% of all the edits ever made to the article and 3/4 of all the text added.

Slugger O'Toole has stated in the past that he is a member of the organisation. He has made numerous idiosyncratic arguments in favour of his excessive self-sourcing, he does not accept that there is any problem with the content (obviously, he wrote it) and it's virtually impossible to make any progress because, as I say, virtually every removal ends up being fully or partially reverted. The current focus seems to be to replace the KofC website as source with references to a book by Kaufmann which was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, and now represents fully 30% of the inline citations.

I think this is well into WP:OWN territory now. 154 of the last 200 edits are by Slugger O'Toole, often a dozen or more edits in succession. I would like to ask that, at least for a short while, he is required to gain consensus prior to any edit tot he article itself, that would make it a great deal easier for the handful of us who are trying to tone the article down. Guy (help!) 16:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@JzG: Any reason no-one's proposed a Tban...? ——SN54129 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Direct response: I think nobody proposed a TBAN simply because this thread hasn't gotten much participation. Of course, if it's proposed the thread might get more editors to participate and reach the right conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I don't want to be overly harsh on him. I'd be happy with a talk page restriction, I don't want him removed altogether because he is genuinely trying to help and has many other edits to other articles that are not a problem. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Quite a lot of his other editing is in sub-articles or other related topics. A TBAN on pages related to KofC would not unduly limit his work on unrelated topics. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

What a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation this is. Others have identified issues with the article. Some I agreed with, some I didn't. I then made efforts to correct those areas identified as needing improvement. Now I am being criticized for doing so. While I have attributed a few statements to Kauffman, there have been far more pointing to new, independent, reliable citations. With one small exception, I don't see anyone else trying to find new sources. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, no, it's a damned if you do, damned if you keep on doing despite numerous editors having obvious issues with it. Turns out most of the replaced citations are still to publications affiliated with the KofC. Guy (help!) 17:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, Again, I dispute this. As the article stands right now, there are probably 30-40 new sources in there, all, or almost all, of which are independent of the Knights. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, except that I keep looking into them and finding they aren't, and nearly a third of all cites are to one author whose writing absolutely is affiliated. But that misses the point. The issue with your editing is your attempts to WP:OWN the article. Guy (help!) 18:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, As I mentioned in another thread, there are fewer citations to Kauffman today than there were a month ago. The reason the percentage is going up is because other content and their sources are being deleted. I am not trying to own anything. If someone would like to help find independent sources I would be not only welcome it, I would be grateful. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Strikes me as odd that our article seems completely silent on the Knights' paedophile problems.[2] Probably the article needs a tap with a NPOV hammer. Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also the allegations of insurance fraud and other matters. There actually is a lot of RS coverage of KofC but much of it doesn't fit the current structure of the article's admiring narrative, and it will take a lot of work over time to write a richer account of the organizations history. SPECIFICO talk 19:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You will please note that there was a paragraph arising from the insurance fraud lawsuit previously, but JzG removed it. I've been hesitant to add anything new since you are so fond of cutting "undue detail." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

But you were happy to reword someone else's addition critical of the Knights to something praising them: (which could also be called whitewashing) [3] ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User: Mortal Aphrodite

Mortal Aphrodite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long-standing history of repeated disruptive editing on Wikipedia. Their continued removal of reliable sources, and either not replacing them for other reliable sources or simply implementing unreliable sources, not to mention, their continued inability to not stick to the source or follow manual of style policies have been on-going across multiple articles — or even remove maintenance templates without rectifying the issue. User has received multiple warnings, from myself and other editors, and their refusal to discuss with other editors or use an edit summary for their edits. Not to mention, as evident of their user page, they are using Wikipedia as some kind of forum for themselves, which is not what Wikipedia is about, and despite a warning about this, they continue to make such edits. livelikemusic talk! 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

No one is going to take this seriously without diffs. —AdamF in MO (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If you check their talkpage and contributions, most of the edits are to their own userspace, apparently detailing imaginary tours [4], [5] etc etc. Most of the links in them direct to disambiguation pages and some to real articles, although others direct to further user space articles creating a weird walled garden.

They appear to have had a 48 hour block on 14 October for disruptive editing, and were then warned about hoax pages (and had one of the userspace pages deleted) on the 15 November by another admin, and notices about disruptive editing, and adding unsourced information from several other editors all during their time here. A lot of their recent edits are to setlists, which are changed with either bad sourcing [6] (its clearly a wiki) or none at all [7] (although they did remove the citation needed tag). They have never left edit summaries; they edited both a users and page talkpage soon after they first started editing, but not apparently since 28 June. Curdle (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor incommunicado (for 7 years)

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

Hi, I am a little reluctant to take this to ANI right now, feeling like a pre-emptive strike, or is it? The above editor has hundreds of edits over 7 years, pretty constructive and positive contributor. But he has never once communicated in any language. He has zero talk page postings. He has zero edit summaries. His user page was a bio for a dead man, so I guess not an autobio? He edits on zero other langauge Wikis, although he appears to be Filipino from his chosen topic areas. So today I am raising a minor dispute with him and it's the umpteenth time I've revered him on List of people beatified by Pope Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but revert and protest is all I can do, because he won't speak and won't act on our notices. He was blocked about five years ago by ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs), and I raise the question here whether a second short block may be in order, with an "or-else". It's a shame to throw away a positive contributor, but editors who won't communicate are flirting with WP:CIR. Elizium23 (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t see the required ANI notice on his page (my apologies if you posted one and I missed it) so I have posted one on his talk page as a courtesy just in case he does opt to participate here. Michepman (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I posted it to the bottom two minutes after yours was posted... to the top for some reason. Fat lot of good it'll do, anyway? Elizium23 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC

Hey, he may eventually break his vow of silence. Some monastic orders allow that under certain circumstances. Michepman (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

He would need to petition Abbot Jimmy for permission. Elizium23 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The edits are tagged "Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, iOS app edit". How do notifications appear in that case? What if they are using an old version of the app? It might not be easy for such a user to find their talk. Even if my speculation is correct, a non-collaborative editor is a net drain on the community and a block might be required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If the 2015 block didn't have any effect, why would we think that doing it again would have a different result?

Let's try having an administrator email them. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn’t rush to a block. We don’t want to bite an otherwise constructive user unless that’s the only alternative to halt ongoing disruption. Michepman (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, email away. The mobile edit tags began consistently in February 2017. When was the edit filter established? Is it possible he was using the mobile app in 2015 during the first block? What about 2013 when he began editing oblivious to such things as ClueBot? Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Very little is more frustrating, then an editor who refuses to communicate with other editors. It smacks of arrogance. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(I think it's more WP:CIR, per Hanlon's Razor.) I've opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joloimpat, sock's IP address is blocked for disruptive editing, so he's committing block evasion. Let's rush to a block. Elizium23 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

My 14 years on 'pedia, tells me this isn't an CIR issue. It's a "I'll do whatever I want" issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

See my comment on that SPI. Any block here should come from ANI, not an SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that a currently-blocked editor is allowed to continue. What happened to WP:Block evasion?? Elizium23 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor likely just forgot to log into their account because the mobile interface sucks and it's extremely easy to edit logged out. Editing in mainspace as an IP isn't socking unless there is intentional deception.

I get the block evasion concern, but I don't think you'll find many admins who are active in the SPI space who want to block an account with 4,000 edits based on a disruptive editing block from an IP that may be them. Most admins are block happy on IPs, and are significantly less likely to block accounts at all for stuff they would give lengthy blocks to IPs for. If there are issues, deal with it on the account that has a 4,000 edit record. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

To put his 4,000 edit record in perspective, he has thirty-eight unresponded warnings or errors listed on his page (I counted BracketBot). That's a rate of approximately 1% disruptive edits. Also his edit count is inflated due to his neglect of any "Preview" function that may or may not be available and multiple minor trivial edits each time he puts something in. Elizium23 (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So you want to block an account with 99% good edits is what you're saying? I like the email idea better. – Levivich 03:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, seems ridiculous on its face. For perspective, if I had the same disruption rate, I'd have 400 warnings on my page (that's 100x what it takes for a block; Joloimpat already has been warned plenty of times over before a block would normally be imposed). Some years ago Shawn Nelson (American rampager) stole a tank and drove it through the streets of San Diego. I am not sure that the police would have stopped to consider if he only destroyed 1 in 100 cars he passed. The point was that a man in a tank is nigh unstoppable by civilian forces, and he's making his way through the city... Elizium23 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from with the analogy, but I think it is also crucial to look at what the warnings are for. Some of the early warnings (in 2013) are indeed serious such as copyright violation but many of the later ones are not really that big of a deal and could easily be honest mistakes (formatting issues, typos, mistakes with markup). It may end up being a competence issue, but I wouldn’t look at the sheer number of warnings (incl. minor automated notices) and compare that to the wiki-equivalent a maniac plowing through Main Street in a tank. Michepman (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As a member of the maniacs who plow through Main Street in a tank community (one of the most misunderstood groups in existence) I take offense to your analogy. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Well then, you can fully appreciate an unstoppable force that can't be signaled and doesn't talk back, and does what it wants to do while plowing through/over/around obstacles. Elizium23 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

So, who emailed him? How is that going? Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

He just made another pointless edit. How's that email going?

I have a feeling that many of the edits he's made are being ignored because they're pointless and/or completely minor. It seems all he does all day is changing numbers of the SEA games page or some political chart. Like has he ever made an edit of consequence? Elizium23 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit seemed constructive. At least, it is actually improving the article and it appears to be sourced adequately. Michepman (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ThosLop

ThosLop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to add external links to local fire departments on several US city articles, for example [8]. I have left four warning on their talk page, referring this editor to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:LINKFARM, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#External links, "Providing links to every commercial, educational, or other entity within the city is not appropriate for this section". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Magnolia, I concur with your assessment. ThosLop is editing outside of our MOS standards and US city guidelines. I've left a message on their talk page to this effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Despite comments on his talk page asking him to stop and despite this thread here on AN/I, @ThosLop: is continuing this behavior [9]. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard jumped the gun by moving page

Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am no Wikipedia expert but this is not right. This was supposed be a non issue and supposedly doing normal changes. Anthony Appleyard jumped the gun by moving page over article event name without proper review which resulted this issue to become disruptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_Fight_Night%3A_Zabit_vs._Kattar&type=revision&diff=925928257&oldid=925622970 The user who requested a technical move review was very disruptive which was allowed through. The event name was officially named as UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar ( Requested move 25 October 2019 ) after reviewing a source that been used for a decade in these UFC event wiki pages. https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-november-9-2019

The source that been used from same website for decade to determinate the event name no questions asked.

• https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-october-26-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_Maia_vs._Askren)
• https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-boston-2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_McGregor_vs._Siver)
• https://www.ufc.com/event/FOX7#/fight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC#UFC_on_FX:_Belfort_vs._Bisping)

Anthony Appleyard should not be handling any move related requested for a long while. Regice2020 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And why bring an issue that has been discussed elsewhere, with no consensus being reached, here? All you are doing by this is making many editors even more exasperated by UFC articles than they already are. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of those editors aren't administrators and aren't involved in ANI discussions, so they have no business being here in the first place. This is the place to discuss disruptive behaviors. 2600:1003:B843:7915:C405:89D6:FBD2:F1C (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea who you mean by "most of those editors", but discussions on Wikipedia are open to anyone, administrators or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I am talking same editors you are talking about becoming exasperated by UFC articles. Why would they be at ANI in the first place? 2600:1003:B843:7915:C405:89D6:FBD2:F1C (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Phil Bridger and Regice2020: The "elsewhere" link points to Talk:UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar#Requested move 13 November 2019. At 14:20, 15 November 2019 (see this diff) I moved page Talk:UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar to Talk:UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar: Requested by User:29cwcst at WP:RM/TR: because UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar is the actual name of the event, as shown on the official poster." And after 10 days of discussion, the page has settled down at UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar anyway. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The move was skipped through. (ufc.com or ufc.com/events( website source that been used for years and years in these type UFC Events articles always to decide correct event name of the event on the wiki article no questions ask). Its not "anyway".The consensus on October 2019 was to double confirm the official event name. Less than 30 days - The chaotic November 13, 2019 consensus would not been requested if page remained official event name which is UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar

@Phil Bridger: This was really no issue if the name remained Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar, and ufc wiki users are making normal minor changes. Now it became issue when it was suddenly changed away from the official event name less than 30 days of the last request move. Regice2020 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If a technical request for an undiscussed move is made and fulfilled but then quickly disputed, the move should be reverted as with all undiscussed moves while discussion goes on as it's clearly not the stable title. It could have been listed in the "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" section and that should have been fulfilled. I'm not sure if this actually happened. Regardless since there was an ongoing discussion which was just recently closed as no consensus, I don't think the new title can be considered the stable title. So it should still be reverted as an undiscussed move. However, it would have been better to approach Anthony Appleyard about this directly explaining the reasoning and without unnecessary accusations. It's rare that an admin who simply fulfills a technical request would be at fault IMO and even if a mistake was made here, I'm not sure this means they shouldn't make moves in the future. If all this has been politely explained to Anthony Appleyard and they refused to revert their move, I would have more concerns but I see no diffs to establish that. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• A question. Why is this even notable? Is every NFL or AFL game notable? Is every Premier League game notable? Obviously, no. Yet they'd all have as much coverage as this "event". Look at it - every reference is to a MMA website (bar one, which is to the "MMA" section of ESPN). Do we need to have an RfC to decide whether we actually need these articles, which, frankly, are mostly advertising? Black Kite (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: the relevant criteria are at WP:SPORTSEVENT; and, no, I don't think this particular match is notable... ——SN54129 15:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually since that Wikipedia UFC Event name changed to UFC Fight Night: Zabit vs. Kattar is not notable since it does not exist in the source that been used to confrim the event name more than 5 years. It would rather be deleted from Wikipedia because it does not exist. Only event that exist is UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar (source)unless the sourced website changed the event name then it will exist. It still not acceptable that the move was soo skipped through. One of the main person that usually the one that manage these UFC pages is this user - CASSIOPEIA.Regice2020 (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the event name was stable when it was named UFC Fight Night: Magomedsharipov vs. Kattar as double confirmed by October 2019 no questions asked. A quote for editor " if the title really has been changed by the UFC, than moving the article should be a no brainier, especially because the Dos Santos vs Volkov fight isn't happening"Regice2020 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

While I believe, as I said above, the move should be reverted, you don't seem to be helping much. In fact, you seem to be successfully reminding us all why we never want to touch UFC articles with a 100 metre barge pole. First with the silly accusations of admin abuse without evidence. Then with silly comments like "It would rather be deleted from Wikipedia because it does not exist" when there is a poster in the article which shows that name as well as it being trivial to find stuff which mentions that name e.g. [10]. Or simply the fact that one is the subject's given name and one is their family name. And you also keep bringing up stuff which is clearly against policy like suggesting the UFC website is the be and end all site for title disputes (when it's a primary source!), or implying that one editor is the one who should manage UFC pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Responding to your assumptions, I am just keeping on topic. There is no silly accusation or else i wont even brother making ANI (The way the technical move request was handled pretty much the evidence of all). No Admin allow on UFC? Wikipedia has that five pillar thingy. Anyways, what you want me to do? You want me to do? dismiss this ANI case and put it on village pump somewhere? or proceed with the ANI?

Putting another consensus on same talk page had the chaotic ending...no thanks...i going look somewhere else for this event name issue. Regice2020 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Over-tagging by PopularMusicEditor

• PopularMusicEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2601:600:8280:58F0:C9D2:97F0:6FDE:C98E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I posted on PopularMusicEditor's talk page about their excessive use of the {{citation needed}} template after adding 39 of them to one article. I then pinged them again after they continued doing it, assuming they just didn't see the first message. After I pinged them they signed out and started editing. I gave them {{uw-login}} because it was pretty obvious it's the same person. They've since blanked their talk page, so at this point they're just ignoring the messages. Might be time for some admin intervention (but I'm not posting on AIV because I'm not sure it's necessarily vandalism). – Frood (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume the article you are referring to is 2000s in music? If so, I'd have to suggest that drawing attention to the ridiculous amount of unsourced opinionating in that article (which has been tagged as an essay since 2010) was a good thing. 86.143.231.214 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree that the article needs to be improved a lot, there are better ways to go about it than adding dozens of templates. Plenty of the tags they added could've actually been citations if they clicked the links in the sentence they were tagging. It takes an extra five seconds, but it actually improves the article rather than just tagbombing. – Frood (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Cardei012597 copying without attribution

Cardei012597 has repeatedly violated WP:CWW, ignoring multiple warnings.[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] These warnings are deleted as "archived" but not actually archived in a visibly linked talk page archive.[19] I request that most of Cardei012597's advanced perms (NPR, PCR, Autopatrol, rollback) be revoked, that they be required to really archive rather than delete warnings and other corrections to editing practice (see much of the rest of talkpage history), and that they be given at minimum a final warning. (ping @Diannaa, Chetsford, Beeblebrox, and Xaosflux:) Thanks, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm assuming I was "pinged" because I added rollback to this account? To revoke this we would need to see examples of rollback being used inappropriately. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And I can only assume I was pinged because I added autopatrolled. What you've provided is evidence that one admin has repeatedly warned them. What you need to present is the actual diffs of this user's problematic edits. From those warnings it is not clear to me if they involve page creations or not, which is all autopatrolled is relevant to. I am also not aware of any precedent for requiring archiving, deleting such warnings is in fact explicitly allowed. You would need to provide very stong evidence that the lack of archiving is causing harm to the project before that could even be considered. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I read your warnings and visited my talk page about this issue. I promise to you, and Wikipedia Administration, that I will not copy edit for any and all reasons ever again. I have every right to remove the warnings on my talk page, according to WP:OWNTALK. I will try never to make these copy edits ever again. I'll most likely just stick only to smaller forms of editing like updating Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, for now on. I am sorry that my copy editing was violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, on the recent warning, I did leave the proper attribution [20], but it was ignored by the Wikipedia editor who issued the warning. The Wikipedia rule also states that "If the copy editor is copying from his own sole work, attribution is not necessary" and some of those examples of copy editing were from my work. This fact was also ignored. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks to me like you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "copyedit"; to copyedit is to amend text to make it clearer, more grammatically correct, fix misspelled words, things like that. What you need to do in edit summaries when copying within Wikipedia is to include attribution using an edit summary such as Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution. Please see WP:Copying within Wikipedia for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok -- thanks and apologies. I've now (re?)read OWNTALK. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright issue

New account Margherita0102 appears to be copy/pasting chunks of content into articles from various web sites. From spot checking:

• This comes from the Mayo Clinic Y cleaned.
• This comes from PMID 26825807 Y Article is released under a compatible license. I've added the required attribution.
• This comes from here.Y Article is released under a compatible license. I've added the required attribution.

Will need some attention. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have cleaned the above three and will get to the rest momentarily if MER-C does not get there first. MER-C has dropped a uw-copyright-new warning on their talk page. Thank you for reporting. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are at least three other users who are using the same IPs as Margherita0102 and editing the same kinds of articles: AsiaRenzi95 (talk · contribs · count), Francescadv96 (talk · contribs · count), and FedericoLoPresti (talk · contribs · count). However, each has a different user agent, making me think that these are separate people who know each other, perhaps students, researchers, not sure. I have not looked to see if the others are also infringing copyright. Nor can I tell if the edits are otherwise constructive as I know nothing about the topics.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

AsiaRenzi95: 4 edits, all clean

Francescadv96: 5 edits, all clean

FedericoLoPresti: 3 edits, all problematic. Cleaned. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Article clean up requests

Hi: It has come to my attention that there are a lot of articles on places in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland which use very informal and offensive language. To elaborate. This type of language includes from previously edited articles the following text which I have had to either clean up or remove as I find it offensive as a white british citizen.

Extended content

The following historical sentences are for use in my evidence: Rugeley ===Demography=== Before: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes, but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town. After: Rugeley is a mixed community in terms of age groups and household incomes. Worcestershire ===Ethnicity=== Before: Though the total number of people in every ethnic group increased between 2001-11, the White British share of Worcestershire's population decreased from 95.5% to 92.4%, as did the share of White ethnic groups as whole, which went from 97.5% to 95.7%. While this change is in line with the nationwide trend of the White British share of the population shrinking, Worcestershire is still much more ethnically homogeneous than the national average. In 2011, 79.8% of the population of England identified as White British; much lower than Worcestershire's figure of 92.4%. After: Removed the entire sentence. It came over as really offensive slang and hatred towards white people. Uttoxeter Before: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with just 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> After: White British makes up by far the largest ethnicity at 96% of the population with around 493 people from an ethnic minority.<ref>{{cite web|title=Ethnic Group|url=http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadTableView.do?a=7&b=11130034&c=uttoxeter&d=16&e=62&g=6463248&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1421165216019&enc=1&dsFamilyId=2477|publisher=ONS|accessdate=13 January 2015}}</ref> County Durham Before: County Durham has very low rates of ethnic and religious diversity. 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. After: County Durham has 96.6% of residents come from a White British ethnic background, with other white groups making up a further 1.6% of the population. These are examples which I have had to change as it sounds like one too many white people. There was also one on Telford too. Before: Telford's population is predominantly White, comprising 93.8% of the population as of the 2001 census. The next largest ethnic group is those of Asian descent, comprising 3.3% of the population, which is again less than the West Midlands at 8.0%, and England at 5.3%.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=276831&c=Telford+and+Wrekin&d=13&e=13&g=396941&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184339923&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – Telford & Wrekin|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> However, the town and borough remains comparatively more ethnically diverse than the ceremonial county, with South Shropshire for example being 97.8% white.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=3&b=277096&c=South+Shropshire&d=13&e=13&g=482771&i=1001x1003x1004&m=0&r=1&s=1205184344829&enc=1|title=Neighbourhood Statistics – South Shropshire|accessdate=10 March 2008}}</ref> After: Removed. As it was a brag for too many white people and not enough ethnicity. My complaint is if Wikipedia is about being formative and connecting. These types of sentences are examples of being White british is a sin and having less ethnicity is wrong. Please could some admin I request look for other pages or keep an eye of the aforementioned pages for further white hatred language. Just because somewhere has low demographic ethnicity doesnt make it a bad thing. Leicester and Slough are prodminently becoming asian but nobody has put anything negative towards the ethnicity makeup. I hope my points are taken seriously. Signed: JoshuaistheFalco, 23:05, 08 December 2019.

This actually does seem relevant for WP:ANI, but not in the way JoshuaIsTheFalco would've intended. The edits he mentions he has done above all seem quite disruptive and something that should he stop making - he seems to consider any sentence on the share of white people in a place to be possibly racist against white people, including perfectly factual clauses like "but in terms of its ethnic make-up it remains an overwhelmingly White British town". I also wonder if his behavior in other areas has improved since the last ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive311#User:JoshuaIsTheFalco - @Redrose64 and Nthep: on that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes - I hadn't noticed that he'd already made some edits like this, so I've re-opened this report to consider his editing. If I have time later I may look at reverting some of it - although ironically in some cases he's removed text which is actually unsourced anyway, if for completely the wrong reason. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

So his edits had already been reverted by others (although at Worcestershire he'd changed it again, leading to a sentence that made little sense). I have reverted that again, and have sourced the sections to census data both there and at Rugeley. Effectively, the answer here is that JoshuaIsTheFalco needs to stop messing about with statements of fact just because he has the bizarre idea that they are somehow offensive, and I will place a notice to that effect on their talk page. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Very strange. Your notice was promptly and angrily removed, with a note to self that they'll "stop contributing to this disease riddle site of falsehood". Well, OK. Bishonen | talk 13:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

Aphex Twin lead dispute

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

---

User Cambial Yellowing has made some helpful changes to the article Aphex Twin, but several of their specific additions to the lead have been disputed by myself and another constructive editor of the page. In particular, we feel the additions include trivial details and overemphasize elements of the artist's career which don't accurately summarize the general material in the body of the article. After several reversions and a talk page discussion in which Cambial Yellowing failed to build any support for their edits, they have continued to replace their additions to the lead. I'd like to avoid any further edit warring. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Behaving like a stroppy child will not help, gentlecollapse6. Do you think your edit history is invisible? For the benefit of admin, I initiated the discussion here. After gentlecollapse decided to resume edit warring despite discussion beginning, I continued discussion here and, after gentlecollapse declined to respond while editing elsewhere here. I waited 3 days for a response (during which time gentlecollapse was on-wiki) before resuming editing, with some input on the relevant passage from another editor. Consensus building is something that everyone has to take part in gentlecollapse, not just editors other than yourself. This is tiresome. Cambial Yellowing❧ 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I imagine Admin will have no problem reviewing our edit histories, as you’ve condescendingly suggested. You’ve once again not addressed any of the points above—two editors disagreed with your addition, no other users supported it, and you’ve built no consensus, but you continued to replace it anyway. Please calm down with the language. Thanks. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than being "condescendingly suggested", the inclusion of diffs is specifically requested by the admin noticeboard - see the top of the page. Given that you've neglected to do so I've taken the liberty of including relevant earlier diffs. Cambial Yellowing❧ 03:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Consensus building is something that everyone has to take part in gentlecollapse, not just editors other than yourself., I'm not sure what this is intended to mean, but a consensus doesn't require either unanimous participation or unanimous agreement. You were correct here in that a consensus is not simply a counting of votes; however, if more than one editor is disagreeing with you on the article's talk page or if your additions are contrary to a previously established consensus, then you are going to be typically expected to to try and establish a new consensus in support of your position. You don't restore you the disputed content to your preferred version because that can be seen as WP:BRRD (Bold, Revert, Revert back, Discuss). It would be better to restore to that last stable version of the article before the content dispute happened per WP:STATUSQUO and try and resolve things per WP:DR. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's unlikely that either of you are going to get an answer you want here, AN/I is not for content disputes. With a 2:1 discussion on the article talk page I would suggest that you start a WP:RFC and get wider input. Opening discussion with This is highly relevant and sufficiently notable that it belongs in the lead. Do not remove it without discussion. and continuing here with Behaving like a stroppy child isn't going to win the day either. — Ched (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! gentlecollapse6 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A WP:RFC is one possibility, but you might also considered moving to the next stage of WP:DR or seeking assistance from relevant Wikiprojects. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Gentlecollapse6 and Cambial Yellowing: When Ched suggested above that an WP:RFC might be one way to possibly resolve this, I'm pretty sure he didn't mean for each of you to go and start your own RFCs. You'd be better off trying to combine the two into one that you can both agree upon because dueling RFCs is almost certainly not going to lead to the result that either of you seem to be hoping to get. Maybe taking a step back and trying to see things from the other person's point of view can help you reach an agreement on a way to neutrally word the RFC to address both of your concerns so that it has a chance of actually accomplishing what it's intended to accomplish. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment because RFCs which are poorly formatted or otherwise confusing often end up receiving very little participation and die on the vine without really resolving anything. It will also help things move along if you both could stick to commenting on the relevant content and stop sniping at each other per WP:TPYES since that is not going to help resolve things and reflect well on either of you, and may actually discourage others from wanting to get involved and try to help sort things out. There's no need to turn the discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by Andy Dingley

I would like to request that several personal comments by Andy Dingley be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass):

- [21] - Dingley accuses me of making a "bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" and mentions a potential ANI post.

- After I politely ask Dingley to remove the comment and focus on content, not contributors, he accuses me of disruptive editing and again mentions ANI. Within minutes, two more comments appear at AfD [22][23] that focus entirely on my actions and fail to assume good faith.

I'm concerned that these remarks are derailing discussion of the actual sources and content at AfD. It seems that Dingley would prefer to discuss the situation at ANI instead of user talk, so here we are. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• You stripped most of the content of an article, and all of its sourcing, then AfDed it as "unsourced". No. We do not abuse AfD like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

See also WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should sources be stripped simply for having been added by their authors? Andy Dingley (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Andy Dingley’s view is opposed to that of Dlthewave, and his comments are directed at Dlthewave’s actions, but I disagree with the suggestion that Dingley’s edits constitute a personal attack. Personal attack is very different. Dolphin (t) 03:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks bad to strip sources and then AFD an article. A better option is to explain the problems with the sources in your AFD. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Guettarda - to be fair, it looks like Dlthewave removed the sources nearly a year before making the AFD nomination (the sources were removed in January 2019 as far as I can tell). The sources themselves appear to be garbage (non reliable sources) so even if they had remained then it would have been an issue. I don’t take any position as to the AFD but I’m not sure that it is fair to accuse Dlthewave of gaming the system. For the sake of putting this argfument to bed, I would encourage Andy Dingley to strike through the accusations and move on from them. They might not count as personal attacks under a legalistic definition but I think they are not really helping the discussion either. Michepman (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Michepman: OK, yeah, I misread the history. The sources were stripped early, but the content was all deleted just before the AFD. Different details, same problem. Guettarda (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• The source stripping was done just hours after their first AfD of this article, a year ago, closed as Keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable sources nearly a year ago and explained my reasoning in the AfD after no usable replacement sources were found. In any case, AfD is not the place for comments about another editor's actions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Just before the AFD you removed the entire article other than one sentence. [24] then nominated it for deletion, even taking off the categories. You previously removed a chunk of it after everyone else said KEEP the first time you sent it to AFD. Anyway, deleting an article is done by AFD not you just erasing 99% of it. Dream Focus 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have sometimes stripped the cruft out of an article and having done so, realised the topic is not notable and the article (what remains of it, anyway) should go to AfD. If this happens, my advice is to explain this in the nomination with a link to the pre-stripped version of the article, precisely to head-off this kind of drama. Alexbrn (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  Alexbrn, that's sound advice. "Having removed a number of sources that fail WP:RS, I was unable to replace them and find that there is in fact a lack of acceptable sources to substantiate notability" or words to that effect. Guy (help!) 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• There's an article at AfD that you'd prefer to see kept and early on the only !votes are to keep. What do you do?
  • Good idea: leave well enough alone.
  • Bad idea: Antagonise the nominator so much that they go to ANI to get you off their back, thereby bringing the AfD to the attention of people other than hyper-inclusionist AfD haunters and cryptozoology enthusiasts.
• But, but, but hurling angry mendacities at AfD nominators is fun. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This isn't just one AfD - look at [25] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I see this editor removing trashy self-promotional sources from bad articles; and in one case has found that this leaves nothing in the article, which they therefore sent to AfD. Although I can appreciate arguments that dlthewave could have waited a week or two before pushing the AfD button, I'm not really seeing that they've done anything wrong. Reyk _YO! 11:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"trashy sources" Which you haven't read. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

AFAICS, all of the sources are cryptozoology sites or books written by cryptozoologists, and all they do is repeat the finder's claims - which, after all, since there was no physical evidence, is all they can do. As the article originally stated, some sources doubt whether it ever existed in the first place. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean – it's not a notable globster after all? Alexbrn (talk) 12:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

cough non-notable partly decayed whale carcasses cough. Reyk _YO! 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's notable or not depending on whether it gets written about. It has. Now there is a broader question here, whether we cover folklore or not at all, because it is fundamentally all fantasy. But the claim being made, "There can be no reliable study made of a non-reliable topic" isn't any part of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is getting off topic for this noticeboard but of course you know it's more complicated than simply whether something "gets written about". I have just reluctantly had to vote delete at WP:Articles for deletion/BEMER therapy because although this fascinating fringe topic is "written about", the sources simply aren't good enough. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

We cover notable folklore. Anyone who looks at those sources and doesn’t recognize they’re fringe has CIR concerns in my book. We should not be protesting the removal of fringe sources or hoax material, which is what this article was. – Levivich 13:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

As a reminder, it is possible for scholarly works and reliable sources to cover mythology, folklore, pseudoscience, and even fiction. The issue here is wherher the sources in question are reliable and whether the nominator violated the rules by removing them. from my standpoint, the nominator did nothing wrong since he explained his action in the discussion. The aspersions cast on him by others should be voluntarily retracted to preserve civility. That does not mean that the article should or should not be deleted, just that the nomination was done properly and in good faith. Michepman (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment it does not pass the smell test for an AfD nominator to delete the majority of the article and then nominate it for deletion. The AfD participants should be the ones to evaluate the article; if a nominator turns the article into a one sentence stub it is bad form. I have been involved in AfDs when a nominator did this and it always looks bad. The fact that numerous ANI participants have now gone from here to there to !vote delete is sad but predictable, but I digress. Can we please not do this? Lightburst (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. It's not that uncommon - often an editor will find an article with few sources, or mostly unusable sources, and start removing stuff in an effort to fix it only to realize afterwards that what's left isn't really viable as an article. If you look at the recent removals, they were almost all unsourced (the one source didn't support the statement it was citing) and reasonably WP:EXCEPTIONAL material. The WP:AFD is tending overwhelmingly towards deletion even now that these objections have been raised, and anyone who wanted to try and salvage the article before it was deleted could restore the deleted material, either with or without sources, especially now that attention has been called to the removals. The fact that no one has been willing to restore the deleted material suggests that its removal was appropriate and, therefore, that it improved the article, ie. it's hard to see how having a wall of unsourced text would be helping it right now. And, I mean, in terms of people going from WP:ANI to weigh in on the WP:AFD... on the whole, heavy WP:ANI readers tend to be both a wider audience and some of the wiki's most experienced editors. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick

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

---

This user [Sphilbrick], who apparently is an admin, is abusing his/her power. From my experience with them, Sphilbrick seems content on making his/her rules which is an example of WP:ADMINABUSE. On Jeanie Tracy, he reverted my edits when I added the singer's birth date. And while my edit was unsourced (simply because I forgot to add one during my major edits in expanding the page), I added the birth date back to the along with the reliable source [Soultracks] I got it from. Sphilbrick reverted my edits and then opened a discussion on Talk:Jeanie Tracy. In his comment on the talk page, he tried to twist the WP:DOB by saying "Current policy permits removal of the month and day of birth, and only permits the year of birth by a reliable source. Restoration of the day and month will result in a block." I don't see anything on the WP:DOB that says that. To own my understanding, if an exact birth date is known and can be sourced, we can add it to the page. So after reverting his revert and adding back the sourced content, he called my revision as "Disruptive editing" and then block me.

I don't understand how you can block a user for adding sourced content or even block someone who hasn't violated the three-revert rule. Mind you, Sphilbrick has also violated the three-revert rule. Aside from that, he stated that allegedly Jeanie Tracy has opened up a ticket to have her birth date removed, but I don't know if that is authentic or not. Because it contradicts why Sphilbrick is challenging the reliablility of Soultracks which is the source I used to reference the singer's date of birth. Apparently, if her birth date came from AllMusic Guide, then this wouldn't be a discussion. The main issue is twisting that Sphilbrick twisting Wikipedia policy, reverting source content, making ludicrous blocks, and on top of that; Sphilbrick doesn't use good grammar when making comments. I also noticed that Sphilbrick has a tendency of blocking users for his/her definition of "disruptive editing". This user needs to have his/her adminship reviewed and possibly removed. Horizonlove (talk) 06:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the subject of the article has asked to have their birthdate removed from Wikipedia, and that the emerging consensus at WP:RS/N#Soultracks is that the source is not adequate anyway. These being the case, this content should stay out of the article and you should expect to get blocked if you try and force it in. Alexbrn (talk) 06:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I haven't tried to "force" anything. You need to familiarize yourself better with the problem before making ludicrous statements like that. Many users have used Soultracks in the past a source and no one has ever disputed it. You may need to take a look at Soultracks before judging something at face value and other users' opinions. Horizonlove (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)(edit conflict) Just because you cannot see ticket:2019120610002527 that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I cannot see the ticket as well but an OTRS volunteer like Sphilbrick can and if he says that it is request the the subject's birth date not be made public, then it's best to assume that's the case. Now, if you don't believe Sphilbrick for some reason, then you can ask another OTRS volunteer at WP:OTRSN to check the ticket. At the same time, if you do believe Sphilbrick, but think that it shouldn't matter, then you should probably seek clarification at WP:BLPN. WP:DOB does contain language which suggest that it's best to err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth when the subject has complained and WP:BLPSELF tells subjects that they can email OVERSIGHT when they have concerns about content in Wikipedia articles written about them. It was OK to be WP:BOLD when you first added the content back in October, but once it was removed by Sphilbrick with an explanation explaining why on the article talk, it would have been better to follow WP:BRD and engage in discussion. You did post something on the talk page, but then went a re-added the content. That wasn't really a wise thing to do which is why Sphilbrick further escalated their warnings.

OTRS tickets are confidential and (I believe) only OTRS volunteers can see them. The best that Sphilbrick of anyone else can do is say that a ticket was received asking that the content be removed. They can't post them, or reveal and discuss their details on Wikipedia or to any one other than another OTRS volunteer. This is probably a case where Wikipedia is just going to have to be satisfied with stating simple where Tracy was born in deference to whomever emailed OTRS. I get that you were only trying to improve the article in good faith, but when an editor, particularly an admin and OTRS volunteer, starts saying there's an OTRS ticket involved, it's probably a good idea to slow down and be WP:CAUTIOUS. Moreover, when the reliability of the source being cited is also being called into question at WP:RSN#Soultracks, that's also probably an indication to take a step back and slow down until the dust settles no matter how right you believe you are. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) After looking at the discussion on your user talk page and on the article's talk page it does appear that Sphilbrick was trying to explain things to you, but you seemed unwilling to even consider that what he was saying might even possibly be right. Moreover, the You do not have the authority to block anyone, especially after only two reverts. you made here is mistaken in that administrators have been tasked by the Wikipedia Community to issue blocks when they feel it is for the benefit of the community, and they can do so without giving any warning at all if they feel immediate action is necessary per WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Of course, all blocks are subject to review, but it seems like a fair amount of warnings were issued to you and you had the opportunity to seek out help from others, but you decided to press on as before and continue to re-add the disputed content until you actually ended up blocked. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly I wouldn't say beneficial to the community if you are removing sourced content and then calling the user who added that sourced content "disruptive". Especially when there is very little reason for removing beyond saying that the singer submitted a ticket that hardly anyone can see and/or verify. Horizonlove (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers can see and verify the ticket; it's not made public for the reasons given in WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia. OTRS volunteers (I believe) actually have to sign something in which they agree to not make any of the things they see public; so, there's only so much that they can reveal. If you want the ticket verified by someone other than Sphilbrick, follow WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution. As for being disruptive, I don't think that Sphilbrick was saying that adding content supported by a source the first time was disruptive, but that continuing to try and do even after reasons were given both on your user talk page and on the article talk page as to why you shouldn't and warnings were issued that you should stop was what was being seen as disruptive. The source was being discussed and RSN in addition to the reasons given by Sphilbrick on the talk pages; so, even if there was no OTRS ticket, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:DOB and WP:BLPREMOVE would've been applicable and you should've waited until the questions about the source had been resolved before trying to re-add it and the associated content. You don't just plow full speed ahead and restore you preferred version of the article while it's appropriateness is being discussed, particularly when it comes to articles about living persons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Pro tip - when making comments like "...can't use good grammar when making comments" it's a really good idea to proofread your own post. HTH. -- Begoon 07:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest the nom read WP:BOOMERANG, and then reflect on Philbrick's generous nature in only blocking them for 31 hours and that that will increase next time. ——SN54129 07:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129 That doesn't have anything to do with what is going on here. I already stated what happened. Horizonlove (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The evidence shows that even after being warned, you tried to re-add without consensus info about a living person when our BLP policy explicitly says the info should generally be excluded when the subject had requested it, which they did. So you are the one at fault, and as others have said are lucky to only get a 31 hours block. You then came here and made a false accusation of admin abuse while continuing to show no understanding of why you were wrong. As others have said, there's really no reason to disbelieve SPhilbrick about the OTRS ticket. Still you could always ask someone else with OTRS access about it rather than making false claims of admin abuse. This is the sort of behaviour which can lead to a boomerang i.e. you being sanctioned. I don't think this is that likely here since you've already been blocked, unless you try to re-add the info yet again. Still if you continue to make groundless complaints, it could happen. Nil Einne (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Horizonlove, you should, by now, be detecting that nobody who has responded here agrees with you. If you are, then good, that will be useful for you to understand. Nobody is going to take any action against SPhilbrick, because SPhilbrick has been doing the job entrusted to them by the community - enforcing our policies. You were clearly told why you should not keep reinserting the material, and clearly warned that you would be blocked if you did. You reinserted it and you were blocked. As SN54129 points out, the block period was quite lenient, given this was a BLP issue, and given your deliberate refusal to abide by policy. So, really, what are you hoping for here? We get that you are upset that you were blocked, but, honestly, the only one to blame for that is you. Take it as a learning experience and move on. -- Begoon 08:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
• {re|Horizonlove}} OTRS access means that the person with access is trusted. OTRS team members are supervised by Administrators approved by the Wikimedia Foundation, and "Team members deal with private information, and the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy specifically prohibits release of that information without explicit permission from the original provider of that information. Therefore, when inquiring about a specific OTRS ticket, they may only be able to provide vague information (or no information) to protect the privacy of the individual submitting the request." You are also absolutely wrong that all we need to prove the full DOB for a living person is a reliable source,. wee WP:DOB which says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." You even referred to WP:DOB in your initial post, how could you not have understood it? Doug Weller talk 08:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Horizonlove, you are lucky it was only 31 hours. You were edit-warring to include personal data, and you should have been well aware that this is controversial. Coming here with this complaint shows a striking lack of self-awareness. Guy (help!) 09:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

I'd like to add a couple small points:

• @Marchjuly: surmised, and is correct that we sign something agreeing not to make the contents public. Not only are we limited to what we can say about the contents, we can't even reveal who sent it. There are times when it might be helpful to say something like "This is coming from the subject themselves", but we can't even do that without obtaining permission. If someone happened to notice the timestamps on the talk page, they would notice a seven hour delay between the removal, and the statement that it was requested by the subject. That's when I was requesting permission to mention that it came from the subject. In most cases, we act on the request in an OTRS ticket based upon whether it's verifiable, not who sent it, but when it comes to a removal of a birthdate, who is asking is relevant.
• I'll also note I am very sympathetic to the desire to include a birthdate in a biography. I see it as one of the core pieces of information that any reader would expect to see in a well-written biography. However, I am also sympathetic to the views of the subject. We, as a community, have to resolve the tension between these two conflicting views. I don't take the position that the subject can simply request removal of this (or anything else), there has to be a good rationale for exclusion of relevant information. The unfortunate problem of identity theft reluctantly convinces me that we have to take care with respect to the month and day—I'm still on the fence whether year alone qualifies for removal.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Siddharth Shukla

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

---

Siddharth Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Would some kind soul please consider applying some protection to this article? It's listed at RFPP but there's a backlog of 48 items there at the moment, and this article is being deluged with derogatory "nicknames" and drivel, presumably because the guy is currently appearing on some reality show. Many thanks. -- Begoon 10:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done and will work through the RFPP backlog now. Fish+Karate 10:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response. -- Begoon 10:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

And backlog cleared with help from Ymblanter Fish+Karate 11:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Revert of page move needed by an admin

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

---

Please can someone move Steve Cooper (footballer, born 1979) back to Steve Cooper (football manager) - I can't move this by myself because it says the page already exists as a redirect. Most likely the redirect has been edited after the move. See User talk:Mattythewhite and the associated talk page of the article on opposing the move in the first place. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 15:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Have a nice day. --Jayron32 15:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Quick revdel needed

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

---

It seem 67.22.6.163 made a serious personal attack to fellow player and developer in they edit on the article Path of Exile. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Just a friendly reminder as per the warning at the top of the page: If the issue concerns a privacy-related matter, or potential libel/defamation, do not post it here. If you need an edit or log entry to be deleted or suppressed (oversighted), or for any privacy-related matter, please e-mail the relevant diffs via this form or to [email protected]. If a suppression action is pending, consider asking an administrator privately to delete the revision in the meantime. Revision deletion may also be requested privately via IRC: #wikipedia-en-revdel. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits by Ylevental probably NOTHERE

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

---

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

I have raised this issue before inTalk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders. This editor is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, he thinks this is some sort of social network site for trolling. The editor is not interested in working with other editors at all. 1- Minutes after the AfD was closed of Media bias against Bernie Sanders, he went and nominated again[26]. It was then speedy kept. He wasted a second nomination because he wanted to troll (and I will present more evidences for this). 2-After I started a RM discussion he went and made a new RM discussion which I deleted because we cant have two RM discussions and I also added his RM term in the options so he can be happy. 3-Despite the ongoing RM, today he created an article[27] which he copied the content of Media bias against Bernie Sanders to Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders (without even attribution) and went to the talk page said this Special:Diff/930027343: "Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders Enjoy."--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

• Also note that we are trying to fix the article title by proposing multiple titles like "Media coverage of Bernie Sanders Presidential Campaigns" which I support. --SharabSalam (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ylevental here. This is just a really strange situation. Why is an standalone article even needed on media coverage that Bernie Sanders faces, unless this media coverage is extraordinarily notable? It should just be merged into the Bernie Sanders article. Criticism of a candidate is not bias. That is all. I hope this blows over quickly. Ylevental (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ylevental, Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate your point WP:POINTy. Ping the Admin who closed the AfD Jo-Jo Eumerus. There is no reason to stay in Wikipedia if you are not going to respect other editors opinion. Most of times I dont get what I want in Wikipedia. I dont go and troll or make disruptive edits in Wikipedia just to proof my point.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

SharabSalam Okay, but those issues can be really polarizing. Ylevental (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree, this user is being disruptive. He doesn't understand the wikipedia policies and is on a crusade of their own making. They aren't trying to improve Wikipedia and is intent on causing issues through trolling and other behaviors. The article they created is a perfect example of WP:POVFORK and their only response is that they believes the issue doesn't exist when that isn't even the discussion anymore. It is based on the high level of reports about whether it exists. There are currently several discussions taking place over the primarily article talk page, the closed deletion discussion, and now on the content fork talk page. The section creation on the primarily article talk page shows this is not an attempt to talk about a subject with reliable sources but in order to cause disruption and further complicate the issue. Any attempts at apologizing I feel are meant to just get away without reprisal. The editor knows better and continued to do it.--WillC 21:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) When an issue is polarizing it is even more important than otherwise to respect consensus. You appear not to be doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

True, it can just be really confusing to follow all the arguments and see what's going on. Anyways, the page I created Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders is now a redirect. Ylevental (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There isn't anything confusing about this. Your attempts to play dumb or confused aren't convincing anyone. You knew what the result of the delete discussion was and were told time and time again what was going on. You went out of your way to cause issues. There isn't any good faith here.--WillC 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I am just waiting for an admin to intervene in this incident. Ylevental is trying to sabotage our attempts to improve the article because he doesn't agree with the outcome of the AfD. IMO, if this continues then I think a topic ban is the appropriate way to stop him. So far I dont think this editor needs to have access to the article because I don't think he wants to improve the article but instead waste the time of those who want to improve the article and troll them. Another note is his tone or way of talking in the article talk page when he keeps saying "Bernie supporters" when referring to those who don't agree with him.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

IamMattDavies

I'm having difficulty getting a conversation going with IamMattDavies (talk · contribs) [28] and it seems I'm not the only one ([29], [30], [31]). Can anyone else have a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, Deletion of a message is acknowledgement of them. Alas, no response it would seem. Is there a specific issue that needs discussion here? I can try to have a word, if I know what needs to be talked about. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on a quick glance at the contribs I see two potential issues: (1) marking non-minor edits as minor and (2) adding some unsourced content. Both of these have been the subject of now-removed talk page posts. – Levivich 23:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Well in my case, it's because I wanted a reliable source for the unsourced claim he added on London Victoria station about a parliamentary train, which I thought "ooh interesting, is there a source?" and not finding one obviously staring out at me thought a discussion about it would be a quick way to resolve this. Then I discovered he doesn't seem to want to reply to anyone, and seems to be promoting a website called www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk, which made me think something's not quite right here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

www.psul4all.free-online.co.uk certainly set off my spam alarms, but it appears that the content has migrated to https://www.branchline.uk/PSULintro.php; while it's debatable if that site qualifies as a WP:RS, it doesn't appear to be commercial (no adverts, etc). The psul4all site is used pretty extensively, for better or worse. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's not music genres it's trains. Always trains. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ain’t that the truth? The number of train-related disputes baffles me. 03:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor being abusive for those who question neutrality of Vivek Agnihotri

See this threat of ban. Abusive message here. Also, I have also requested help on the WP:BLP noticeboard but not received any response. Any help? Thanks Rabbabodrool (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Not helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider pinging @Winged Blades of Godric: since they were the one to give the warning. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Oh, I was mistaken. You are trying to get action against a long term valued editor. Who you didn't notify. Good luck. 2001:4898:80E8:8:D6D5:AFD9:C1C9:8EAA (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC) This user has been abusive in the past and had indicated that s/he is not interested in communicating on the t/p. Rabbabodrool (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have nothing much to say, except in dropping a certain guideline-supplement, that goes by the name of CIR. ∯WBG^converse 13:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

So the personal attacks continue in accordance with your agenda. I don't see how the Vivek Agnihotri article can ever reach a NPOV status while such attacks on neutrality continue. Can anyone tell me how these statements are not WP:WEASEL? Rabbabodrool (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive and bad-faith WP:POINT edits

• So do this, this, and this violate WP:NPA? Insulting me with idle threats, calling my edits "bullshit", and reverting good-faith additions constitute WP:NPA? I find it extremely fishy that Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) stepped out of retirement just to come and attack me for no reason. The user has also in bad faith restored a huge crapton of WP:OR to Love & Gravity (most of which was just citations to lyric databases that have long since been taken down) which seems to be an attempt to "get back" at me for edits made years before. This all smacks of WP:NPA given that the user in question ended a nearly six-year editing hiatus just to snipe me. Call it WP:POINT or what have you, but it's clear that they're just being petty over shit from six years-plus prior. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  A very immature response from LF. Upon seeing their article delisted, they should have helped to improve it, and get it back to GA status. But instead they focused on attacking TPH, for really no good reason. LF: if you're reading this, I ask that you make no further attacks, remain civil, and help to fix the article. If you cannot stay civil, you may find yourself blocked and you'll have no chance to improve the article. But if you take a moment to reflect, I hope you will find it in you to work with the good editors here and bring Roger Miller back to Good article class, or heck, even the coveted Featured article class! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for some time and I come back and find that TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has added useless trivia and unsourced content to Roger Miller and then nominated it to be delisted as a GA article last month without even notifying me on my talk page or by email. I'm not going to speculate about his motives but a reasonable person can see this action as harmful to the Wikipedia. I looked back to see what else he had done concerning articles I previously edited and discovered that in 2016 he removed sourced information we previously discussed and came to a consensus on on the talk page of Love & Gravity from years ago and called it "crap." He also delisted 2 other articles I helped to elevate to GA status: Eddie Rabbitt and Ace in the Hole Band. As a consequence of these actions, I took the reasonable step to recall the Barnstar I awarded him in 2011. I no longer believe he deserves the Barnstar and ask that he remove it from his page. I've only seen the harm TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) has done to the articles I edited previously which makes me wonder how many other articles he has harmed. I do not plan to investigate further. Now that I'm back I am excited to contribute and have started research on expanding the article for the 2008 Rodney Crowell album Sex & Gasoline, which I started in 2009.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hahaha did TenPoundHammer really add this content[32] to a GA you had worked on and then nominate it to be delisted as a GA? Diabolical, if true. Cjhard (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. And he just added it again. Perhaps he just doesn't like other people editing country music articles.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

All he did was add maintenance tags.[33] Cjhard (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I see that now but in his latest edit he added back all the unsourced content and trivia, which to me means he endorses it. If he would have just removed the bad content rather than delisting and/or notified me about the delisting, the article might still be GA. I still believe his actions were harmful to Wikipedia and so I stand by my decision to re-call the 2011 Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer reverted you because they felt you made your changes to make a point, rather than to improve wikipedia. I don't know if I'll really agree but in any case, TenPoundHammer is not the reason the info was there in the first place. The fact that you're incorrectly accusing them of doing do, helps no one. And frankly the only thing withdrawing in 2019 a barnstar you gave in 2011, does is reflect very poorly on you. Except maybe in extremely exception circumstances like Edgar181 perhaps. Definitely arguing over the withdraw barnstar with dumb comments like "fraud" does not reflect well on you. I suggest you both work on improving the article and stop with this nonsense. Nil Einne (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Also looking more carefully at some of the removals, and the edit summary, I can understand why there were concerns. For example with this edit [34], you said "remove unsourced bullshit". Yet "A main street in Erick, Oklahoma, was named Roger Miller Boulevard in his memory" and "He was posthumously inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1995" are the sort of stuff which would likely belong in a comprehensive article. The fact it's unsourced is not good, still just reading these and it sounds like the sort of thing which should be easy to source so removing it is probably not the best solution. You may next point out the info is already in the article, in a better location and sourced and you'll be right. But why then didn't you say this when removing the content? I don't see how anyone reading your edit summary is supposed to know this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Since this post was made, Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) has once again restored unsourced content and WP:TRIVIA, most of which is not reputably sourced or sourced at all. The edit summary of "unsourced BS" is misleading and WP:POINTy, as it's clear that they are the ones adding unsourced content, not removing or fixing it like I was. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ETA: @Lost Fugitive: Really? You think I'm adding trivia? I knocked out the ENTIRE "Trivia" section. You're the one putting it back in. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You just did it again and then called my removal and addition of sources as vandalism. Look at the article as it stands right now. You are adding the trivia "In popular culture." You are removing sources (published Johnny Cash autobiography) and replacing them with unsourced tags. You are adding unsourced information. This is harmful to Wikipedia. You do not deserve a Barnstar.Lost Fugitive (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: I'm very confused what you're talking about since Lost Fugitive seems to be right. They removed a trivia section. You added it back. The only thing their edit seems to have added to the article is the discography section, but I wouldn't call it a trivia section and even if it potentially could be parred down, I'm not sure if it should be removed whole sale. It seems to me you're also as guilty as what I complained about above. Using edit summaries that don't provide a real understanding of why you're doing what you're doing and that are even more perplexing when taken together with your comments above. Anyway, I've opened a discussion on the talk page which hopefully you can join and better explain what you're trying to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll chalk that up to editing way too early in the morning and not properly processing what I was doing. My point still stands: it's blatantly clear that LF just came out of retirement to bitch at me over stuff that happened ages ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock for spam IP

This range has been spamming with inline ELs for two months now. I don't see any non-spam contributions from the /56 block. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses: 2405:201:3204:7f3c:f94a:89bc:a088:1c7b 2405:201:3204:7f4e:fceb:d1f1:36b7:3da2 2405:201:3204:7fc0:129:f0d7:3846:371d 2405:201:3204:7fc0:5ce4:7f76:a869:c70a 2405:201:3204:7fc0:b9d9:c968:989:1c2c Total affected Affected addresses Given addresses Range Contribs 256 /64 256 /64 5 2405:201:3204:7f00::/56 contribs 129 /64 128 /64 2 2405:201:3204:7f00::/57 contribs 1 /64 3 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64 contribs 3 /64 1 /64 1 2405:201:3204:7f3c::/64 contribs 1 /64 1 2405:201:3204:7f4e::/64 contribs 1 /64 3 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64 contribs

I blocked 2405:201:3204:7f3c::/64 for a month to match what another admin has already done with 2405:201:3204:7f4e::/64 and 2405:201:3204:7fc0::/64. Those three blocks cover all the reported edits. Let me know if you see more like that. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Hounding

How long should I be warned by HistoryofIran (1, 2,3 , 4 ) in Women's rights in Iran while I am doing all my best to improve the article? However, it seems I'm being hounded by him! --Saff V. (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How is that hounding? Believe it or not, you're not the only one who watches that article. Look at my name, which topic do you think I primarily work in? Sigh. Also, I'm not the only one in the talk page that has warned you. You have been very fortunate to not have been topic banned. HistoryofIran (talk)

HistoryofIran wasn't hounding you in that Guild of Copy Editors diff, in the sense that they followed you there - they were editing there around the same time as you. However, in the context of the talk page for Women's rights in Iran, where they responded or referred to you about ten times and every single one was a personal attack, it'd be pretty fair to describe this as bordering on harassment. Cjhard (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bordering on harrasment? Lol, not at all. If anything Saff seems to be delibrately attempting to cause me problems. If I wasn't so unbothered I would have filled a huge report against him for IRI pov pushing long ago. Heck, I am considering regardless atm. Not casting asperations, can show some evidence). EDIT: Well i didnt read your last words properly, i still disagree regarding the bordering harassment bit though, gimme a sec ill correct it, on phone atm, will come back when im on pc). HistoryofIran (talk)

It doesn't matter. That's not what the article's talk page is for, at all. If an editor bothers you to this extent, don't engage with them, or report them if they warrant it. Also, have you ever tried to engage with Saff without attacking them? I note that, in the lede discussion, where Saff attempts to talk about a content matter with you[35] and you immediately respond with personal attacks[36], it's actually resolved by the first person who properly engaged with Saff's arguments[37]. Saff doesn't wholly agree, but drops the matter.[38]. There are many difficult editors on Wikipedia. You can either deal with them, or don't, but never this. Cjhard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that I can agree with. Sure there is much more to it than just that, but you're right regardless. (Also, he never dropped the matter, instead he tried to discredit the other user who disagreed with him [39]). HistoryofIran (talk)

@Cjhard:Thanks for the response, but I can't understand leaving massage (warning) following my request in wp:GOCE doesn't mean hounding. It has nothing to do with the subject of "History of Iran".Saff V. (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you alright pal? [40] You're trying so hard to get me penalized (out of nothing) and yet you've just pinged me in the very article you've talked about here? (Just noticed this is not the first time you've pinged me in specifically that article) Thought I was hounding you there? Which one is it? HistoryofIran (talk)

H-Town

• H-Town (band) · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• RealDinoFan92 (talk · contribs)
• Melaninmedianetwork (talk · contribs)
• EmpressDivine04 (talk · contribs)

I would like some administrator eyes on this page, as there seems to be some shenanigans going on here.

On 8 December, Melaninmedianetwork was engaging in an edit war to add allegations of harassment against one of the band members; the edit-warring led to an indefinite block. Shortly after that, RealDinoFan makes some edits to the article, and after that, EmpressDivine04 (who, based on this edit, is a sock of Melanin) proceeds to get into a much lower-grade edit war. I make some edits to the page, removing unsourced stuff and fixing some formatting; EmpressDivine then pings me on my talk page as above.

I came into this situation only in responce to a bot on IRC and legitimately have no dog in the fight, nor do I have the inclination to do an exhaustive study of the behaviour of everyone involved here, but as Melanin/Empress is alleging that there is a harassment campaign being waged here, I'd much rather an administrator deal with things from here on out. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 08:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Information is being deleted because it’s not true. This page will not be used to create and promote lies about the remaining members of H-Town, or the deceased Keven Dino Conner. There were lies on here about Dino based of speculation or what people think was going on when he was alive and surrounding his death. That is why sections are being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDinoFan92 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Melaninmedianetwork and EmpressDivine04 are  Confirmed to each other. The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other and  Unrelated to Melanimedianetwork:
  • RealDinoFan92
  • RealDinoFan93 (talk · contribs · count)
  • LibraD89 (talk · contribs · count)
• --Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Accusations of hounding and bad faith

Krimuk2.0 and I were involved in an edit war on the Timothée Chalamet article, during which we were both warned to take our discussion to the talk page. However, now that I'm optimistic about continuing the discussion, Krimuk2.0 has repeatedly accused me of being a bad faith editor, which you can find here and here. They have also accused me of hounding them, which you can find here.

Prior to this, one of our disputes were rooted in how I've cited multiple guidelines in support of my activities, while they have suggested that I read WP:COMMONSENSE–which is not even a guideline–without even conducting themselves in accordance to the essay. Another example of this pattern would be that in one exchange, I raised a point about how a statement in the article could be in violation of WP:UNDUE, to which they replied: I'll wait for other editors to weigh in because it's impossible to engage with someone who refuses to see merit in anything that's not their own preference.

I have no personal issue with Krimuk2.0 at all, and in all of my messages to them, I have been nothing but respectful in trying to conduct the most effective discussion possible. In fact, I have utilized multiple avenues to attempt to resolve the dispute, including asking them if they had suggestions on the wording of a potential RfC, opening an actual RfC and notifying them of its creation, reaching out to the administrator who gave us the warning for assistance and information, and asking for clarification regarding their reverts. However, how are we supposed to continue the dialogue and try to achieve consensus if they refuse to engage me, especially now that our editing activities have coincided more than once?

P.S. Krimuk2.0 most recently reverted edits on another article that were explicitly supported by precedent as well as reliable sources, justifying it as undoing poor writing, even though their revert restored a factual inaccuracy that states a series has ended when in fact it has not. KyleJoan^talk 08:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which this editor is deliberately stalking my contributions and reverting them to prove a point ("our editing activities have coincided more than once", eh? Not a coincidence). I've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that I do not wish to engage with this editor, and want other editors to weigh in on the matter. I've said all I've had to, and I am not one of those who has to repeat it multiple times for dramatic effect. Move on, KyleJoan. Contribute constructively and please respect my wishes and leave me alone. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S: There has been no season 3 renewal of Big Little Lies, and any "updates" on it are pure conjecture. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING in which this editor is stalking my contributions and reverting them to prove a point. I'd like to see diffs of my alleged hounding, please. I've made it abundantly clear on multiple occasions that I do not wish to engage with this editor. Does reverting and calling my edits poor not count as engaging? Contribute constructively and please respect my wishes and leave me alone. I thought I was doing this by adding reliable sources per WP:RSP to adhere to WP:V, but apparently that was not constructive, so I might need clarification on how to do so.

P.S. You are correct that it has not been renewed. But has it ended? Has it been canceled? If so, was it canceled after the first season and then revived for the second? KyleJoan^talk 08:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I made this edit at Dern's page after our disagreement at Chalamet's page. You then went to target my contribution with this edit. That's clear WP:WIKIHOUNDING, in which an editor "edits [...] where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

BLL has ended until it gets renewed. We can't predict the future and assume that it will go on, per WP:CRYSTAL. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As for Chalamet page, I have told you that I have nothing new to say. Why can't you have patience and wait for other's opinion instead of repeatedly hounding me to explain myself? WP:CONSENSUS is reached by multiple uninvolved editors weighing in, and not by two editors fighting it out. I don't come here to fight with random editors. I come here to make constructive edits, and if there's a disagreement, I have patience and let others weigh in instead of saying the same things again and again and/or creating bad-faith ANI threads. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You then went to target my contribution with this edit. I targeted your contribution by removing an unsourced name, adding citations, removing duplicate citations, removing duplicate links, restoring the lede, adding a "needs additional citations for verification" tag, reorganizing the categories in alphabetical order, and citing WP:UNDUE as a basis for one of these changes?

BLL has ended until it gets renewed. We can't predict the future and assume that it will go on, per WP:CRYSTAL. Oh, so it has ended. Can you provide a source that states so? The one you cited only mentions that there are no plans for a new season, which they also said for almost a year after the first. Saying it has ended when no source states so does not adhere to WP:V, no? And let's be clear: I never disputed that there are no plans for more seasons.

As for Chalamet page, I have told you that I have nothing new to say. Why can't you have patience and wait for other's opinion instead of repeatedly hounding me to explain myself? I messaged you to invite you to chime in on the RfC to make sure your views are heard in that forum. If you weren't interested, all you had to do was decline, instead of making other accusations. KyleJoan^talk 09:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would have taken Bbb23's warning at AN3 as a warning not to edit war anywhere in Wikipedia. But I think it displays especially bad judgment for KyleJoan to show up at the Laura Dern article. Between that and your repeated posts to Krimuk2.0's talk page, I think it's reasonable for Krimuk2.0 to take issue.

My advice to both of your is to disengage. Stop reverting, stay away from one another, and definitely don't look at the other's contributions. Guettarda (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice, Guettarda! I have a question, however. But first, I'd like to state that I began editing the Laura Dern article because she is directly related to a lot of articles to which I have contributed (i.e., Timothée Chalamet, Big Little Lies (TV series), Twin Peaks (season 3), Reese Witherspoon, etc.), so with all due respect, it had nothing to do with Krimuk2.0's activities. I do apologize if my contributions to the article were unconstructive. Aside from that, Krimuk2.0 and I have contributed/are contributors to a lot of the same articles (i.e., Chris Evans (actor), Nicole Kidman, Cynthia Erivo, Taron Egerton, etc.), so I don't believe it's possible that we never cross paths again.

Now, after I took Bbb23's warning and tried to resolve the dispute, I reached out to Krimuk2.0, to which they replied that I had mischaracterized their statement, and when I asked them for clarification, they accused me of bad faith. Hours later, when I addressed them after they labeled my edits on the Laura Dern article as poor writing for clarification, they deleted the message and accused me of bad faith. My question is: Based on the number of articles we both enjoy editing, if we have a disagreement that does not get addressed because we don't engage each other, how do we come to a resolution? Thank you again! KyleJoan^talk 15:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The risk here is that if you guys aren't willing or able to avoid each other's edits or resolve disputes amicably, it could escalate into an WP:Interaction ban or even a topic ban from the same topics depending on how severe the issue is. In the mean time, though, it might be worth looking into WP:Dispute resolution if there are content disputes that are feuling the bad feelings and tension between you two. The IBan or topic ban suggestions are a last resort and something that ideally we could avoid for both KyleJoan and Krimuk2.0's sake. If dispute resolution doesn't work, maybe you guys could each commit to a 1RR rule for all of those related topics to avoid edit warring. 107.77.204.109 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't stress enough the value of stepping away from conflict. I would have burned out long ago if I hadn't learned how to walk away. You can always come back in a year, or five.

There are articles that if you want away, nothing gets done (or the other person turns it into a complete mess), but more often than not, it's a fight between two editors that keeps other people out. No one wants to read a lengthy back and forth - not only is is hard to make sense of, it also puts the third party in the middle of the fight and elevates their stress level. Trust in the community, trust in the process, and remove yourself from the fight. Or fight it out and probably end up with an iBan and enduring bad feelings towards a fellow Wikipedian. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand. In that case, I'll direct my focus toward the existing RfC and the discussion on WT:RS in hopes of generating consensuses on the issues that led to the dispute–whether they be in my favor or the opposite or a middleground between the two. Thank you again, Guettarda, for the advice and the persective. And thank you, 107.77.204.109. KyleJoan^talk 17:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Havsjö

I am currently in the middle of a dispute with Havsjö (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding his persistent addition of unreferneced content to the Vardar Offensive and Battle of Dobro Pole articles which I had previously brought to GA status. I asked him to provide references for any content he adds 1 and that an unreferenced section of another Wikipedia article are not reliable sources 2. Instead he continued to add unreferenced content to the article 3 while blatantly denying that he made any content changes 4. When I called him out on it 5 he reinserted the unreferenced claim that Serbian armies were the size of a corps 6 and accused me of "autistically sperging" on his talkpage 7.--Catlemur (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You came to my talk page with an aggressive tone that a French flag was placed and that a unit had the wrong name. I responded in a friendly tone you can change this to what you think is more suitable. My later "reference" to the other wiki article in regards to the Serb units was not my "reference"/reason for the change, it was just to show how their size is mentioned on other pages as well (another example is the Battle of Florina). I thought your issue was with the name. Since, despite being Corps sized, they are officially named "Armies". Thus I had no problem if you thought it would be better that they be listed as "1st army" instead of "1st Corps" (since this was the official designation, after all) and I said this several times to you when you brought this up on my talk page.

I did not realize (but which seems to be the problem from what I gather from your message here?) the that the fact of them being Corps sized itself is what you have an issue with? I thought you already knew this "common fact" (since you had been involved with articles related to this, as you mentioned) and it was just regarding the official designation. The other note I added (which was also removed) regarding the German 11th Army being mostly composed on Bulgarians is already mentioned (with a source) in the article. I just added an additional note (i.e. "no new content").

I did call you a bad word, because I dont see why you couldn't have just done these minor edits with the explanations/edit-summaries you give to me after I repeatedly told you I had no objections to them if you thought it was better, yet you kept writing new messages about it. But I guess the issue of them being corps-sized or not, rather than the name(?) is an unresolved issue? In that case I can find a source for it--Havsjö (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and my "no content change" comment also refers to me making some visual edits such as making a name no-wrap, and reducing the purely visual size of the casualties sections; things which were also reverted for no reason instead of just the content-details being changed, which is what I was referring to here--Havsjö (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The dispute regarding Serbian formations size now has a source added to the note explaining their size, while the official name is intact :) --Havsjö (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Khirurg edits on Turkey and Demography of Turkey

An user called User:Khirurg is reverting my edits where I ask citations for. first edit, and second. First he says "tendentious cn tagging; the map is clear and sourced". Yes it is sourced, but says nothing about the fertility rate of an ethnic group being more than another. This is clearly against WP:NPOV. I said that the source does not mention anything like that, then he reverted again and said "the provinces with high birthrates have Kurdish majorities, everyone can see that. Or are you denying that?". I doubt everyone can see that, plus it is unsourced. He did similar thing on Demographics of Turkey, by reverting my edit here claiming that I did not like it. However this was placed by an user which had different sockpuppets. Plus it is unsourced and the it had many error as I had mentioned here. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no attempt by Beshogur to discus this on the article talk page, which would be the next step per BRD. Beshogur appears to have "jumped the gun" by bringing this straight to a dramah board. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User 130.85.247.90's edits on Kobo, Ethiopia

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

---

130.85.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly removing sourced content from Kobo, Ethiopia [41], [42], [43], with his only defence being his own point of view. Such behaviour breaks Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and must be dealt with. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Fully support this report. And i reported him/her here [44]. Dimitris N.anagnostou (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:77.239.73.14 and Rhea Butcher

The user's last five edits (out of eight total edits to this site, several others of which also seem like subtle vandalism, like this unsourced change to the ethnicity of someone whose parents are listed as Bosniaks) are vandalism of Rhea Butcher, changing "Butcher is" to "Butcher are" and an instance of "she is" inside a headline/quotation to "they are" (like this), and then, after I warned them on their talk page to stop and even let their change to the quoted text stand by enclosing it in brackets, they simply switched to vandalizing the pronouns in the other direction (like this). -sche (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. It's the kind of thing that initially could have been a good-faith misunderstanding, but the flipping to changing it the other way is just textbook disruptive editing. You've made an attempt to engage them and the IP has not responded, so I've blocked for 48 hours. ~ mazca ^talk 18:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

24.73.235.150

• ‎24.73.235.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can an administrator please consider blocking this IP for personal attacks? See [45] and [46]. See also the IP's block log. The IP was blocked for similar reasons last year and judging by the edits since then, it appears to be the same person; the address seems to be pretty static. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Done. Without talk page access, given the first diff you provided and their behavior after their first block. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @ST47: Thank you for the quick response! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

And I've gone through to revdel a few of the potty-mouthed edits/edit summaries. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thank you for that as well! Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors

Hello, I would like to request Administrators review the conduct of Dilidor toward myself and other editors. I believe Dilidor has a long history of disruptive editing and abusive behavior towards editors (including myself) and is not making an attempt to follow Wikipedia policies despite a number of warnings from other editors and administrators. The policies I believe Dilidor regularly disregards and has demonstrated towards me are WP:CIV / WP:UNCIVIL, WP:PA, WP:EP, WP:CON, WP:LISTEN and WP:DE. He also has a history of WP:EW.

The example of their behavior towards me are:

1. Start of discussion [47]
2. Continuation of discussion: [48], [49], [50]

I believe Dilidor’s statements speak for themselves, so I will not repeat them here. If desired I can expand on this.

The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation, Oldperson is a recent example [51], [52].

I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here. [53]

I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such as Cúchullain [54], [55], Favonian [56], and RexxS [57], [58]). I think the content on User talk:Dilidor page such as [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and their history in WP:ANI such as [69] and [70],demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.

I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to [71] [72] which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.

Please let me know if I can provide any other information. I am relatively new, so if I have made a mistake, again please let me know. Thank you.   // Timothy::talk 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur fully with TimothyBlue's complaint over Dilidor's behaviour. My own unfortunate interaction with them occurred when they made multiple changes to an article on my watchlist, where several of those changes breached our Manual of Style.

I reverted the changes with what I thought was a neutral edit summary, too many mistakes, run on sentences, breaches of MOS:NUMNOTES, which was promptly re-reverted by Dilidor with what I consider an aggressive edit summary you probably should learn what "run-on sentences" are before accusing someone of creating them; and what "mistakes" have I introduced? take this to the talk page---because my edits are a DISTINCT improvement. The "discuss" part of WP:BRD should have happened before any re-reverting by Dilidor.

I explained my revert on the article talk page at Talk:Momsen lung #Problems with recent edits, where I explained that Dilidor had created a run-on sentence (a comma splice to be precise) and had breached MOS:NUMNOTES by starting a sentence with numerals and using a mixture of numerals and words when enumerating the same quantities.

Dilidor's response was to ask me to explain which was the "run-on" sentence, and what errors they had made, completely ignoring my previous explanation, which I believe was already clear enough. I now know that this is simply part of Dilidor's style of debate, to frustrate other editors by repeatedly requesting more explanation.

The debate continued with me attempting to explain to Dilidor what a run-on sentence is, thinking that they were not understanding. Of course, I now know that they simply "know better" and disagree with our Manual of Style, which does not accept a comma as appropriate punctuation to join together multiple independent clauses. That may be usable by James Joyce as a stream-of-consciousness device in Ulysses, but not in an encyclopedia article.

Eventually the exchange climaxed with Dilidor writing "your spelling reveals the core of the entire problem--you're a Brit! That goes a long way in explaining both your condescension and your ignorance." Judging by the stream of complaints voiced at User talk:TimothyBlue #Advice / Guidance needed, that appears to be typical of the way Dilidor treats other editors.

I believe that Wikipedia would be better off without Dilidor's contributions, if they cannot learn how to edit collaboratively and respect the project-wide consensus contained in our Manual of Style. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ip user 180.149.241.192 appears to be doing unexplained blanking

Hey i noticed that Ip user 180.149.241.192 was blanking page Davis Chiramel. Also is this the correct place to bring this up for i am a new user. All hail Armok (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by All hail Armok (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. For future such issues, you can report vandalism, etc., at WP:AIV. Thank you for letting us know about this one. — Maile (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

IP-hopping block evasion

user:2606:6000:63C7:9000:B4CB:F0E7:9A76:4D96 was blocked yesterday by user:Widr for claiming that multiple actors are comedians. While some of them have been in comedies, or have briefly been comedians, it's not what they are known for. Special:Contributions/2606:6000:63C7:9000:9814:128:2871:2385 and Special:Contributions/2606:6000:63C7:9000:AD55:DDB0:A304:19E9 appear to be block evading as they are restoring the same edits previously made by the now-blocked IP. I think 2606:6000:63c7:9000::/64 covers them with no other contributions. Meters (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Plug for WP:/64. ST47 (talk) 05:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage bullying

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has been engaging in some disturbing behavior at Talk:Aegean dispute of late. Specifically, he made the demand that SilentResident (talk · contribs) not edit her own posts to the talkpage I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. SilentResident has a disability (OCD, which she reveals on her userpage, and is furthermore not a native speaker of English, so she has to edit talkpage posts to fix grammatical and spelling mistakes that make her look incompetent. Future Perfect has been interacting with SilentResident for quite some time now and surely knows this (he uses the word "obsessive" repeatedly). Incredibly, Future Perfect carries out his threat and actually reverts one of SilentResident's talkpage posts, in the process reinstating grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and typos, with a condescending edit-summary on top of that [73]. This alone constitutes bullying. When SilentResident seeks advice from another administrator [74], Future Perfect escalates further by throwing the standard Balkan topics DS warning template at her [75]. In 12 years of editing wikipedia, I have seen bullying and absurd demands, but I have never seen something like this, from an administrator no less. The demand that SilentResident not correct her own posts to a talkpage is simply ludicrous. There is nothing in WP:TALK that limits users to how many talkpage edits they can make. None of SilentResidents copyedits to her talkpage posts (the so-called "obsessive fiddling" so contemptuously described by Future Perfect) occur after Future Perfect has responded, thus they are in line with WP:REDACT. Furthermore, Future Perfect's behavior is clearly in breach of WP:TPO. Future Perfect's tone is moreover consistently condescending and derogatory, his posts and edit summaries laced throughout with hostility and derision. This user has a history of incivil, abrasive behavior and has to my knowledge been desysopped at least once, and warned several times, for precisely such behavior. This is textbook bullying and needs to stop. And then, we beat ourselves over the head and deplore the fact that we don't have enough female wikipedians. Khirurg (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about "correcting" errors in their posts, it's about their persistent habit of tinkering, rewriting, expanding and rewording the content of their postings, often in half a dozen edits in a row, every single time they post anything anywhere. This is disruptive, it messes up talkpage histories, makes it difficult to follow what was said, and makes it difficult to respond. I don't care if this behaviour is caused by some disability (they never told me about any such); the disruptive behaviour needs to stop, and if this person is too imbalanced to stop it, they should not be on Wiipedia. WP:NOTTHERAPY. I would be more patient with that user if their behaviour was otherwise okay, but it's part of a more general pattern of disruption, so well, my patience has run thin. The DS warning was for their blatant POV-pushing on Aegean dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User 67.70.58.234 persistently making factual inaccuracies

User 67.70.58.234 has been persistently making factual inaccuracies in regards to statistical information on the 2019–20 Toronto Maple Leafs season article. This all started on Dec. 3 when the IP started making edits to the article. So far, they have made 4 edits, and I have have had to go and correct all of them. After their third edit, I left this message on their talk page, telling them to refrain from adding incorrect information. I even provided them references to help them obtain their information from. I gave the IP editor one more chance on Dec. 10, but they somehow managed to mess up again. I'm pretty lenient when other editors make errors once or twice every so often. However, this is a fourth consecutive time in the last week that this user has made errors. Here are the 4 edits that were concerning to me, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Now, here are my edits that corrected their errors, Dec. 3, Dec. 4, Dec. 7, Dec. 10. Any sort of help would be appreciated. Yowashi (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)