Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Security of external link and editor who won't deny COI

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

---

Please see this re-addition of an external link and User talk:Jc3s5h#Trusted_timestamping edits, where User:Paulg222 indicates advanced skills are required to determine if the site is safe for users to use.

One concern is that to provide the free service, the user must go through motions which, to a user who lacks advanced skills, are indistinguishable from uploading a file. (I am not proficient with Javascript coding and am unable to determine if the file is actually uploaded or not.)

Another concern is the user has only made a few edits, all if which are related to this website. The user is unwilling to state his/her relationship to the site. These circumstances suggest a conflict of interest exists. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have informed Paulg222 of this discussion. In future Jc3s5h you must do this yourself when discussing a user at ANI. DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• I notified the user in a discussion which the user was clearly following. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I just think there are too many ELs on that page. Links should have encyclopaedic value to explain the topic not have a oh here’s an implementation in case you wish to use it or here’s a link to s version. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. Canterbury Tail talk 12:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Should the Trusted timestamping article fall under Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies ? Fish+Karate 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Blockchains are only one way to achieve trusted timestamping, and were not the first method used for this purpose. So putting it in the suggested general sanctions category seems like a stretch to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Jc3s5h has made multiple incorrect statements about the website and now about me. I would like to have those addressed. I have never denied involvement in the site. Jc3s5h asked what my relationship was to the site in the context of a discussion about his/her incorrect statements. I wanted to get those incorrect statements resolved first before discussing my relationship with the site to avoid having that discussion derailed (as has now occurred). Also at this time I was not informed or aware of COI rules and felt that the question about relationship to the site was too broad and an attempt to change the topic from Jc3s5h's incorrect statements and editorial reasoning, so I wanted to defer COI discussion till later. There is also a doxxing issue to consider given the form of the questions being asked. Jc3s5h first incorrectly stated there was a security issue and cited this as the reason for their removing of the link. When notified about the incorrect statements, Jc3s5h did not make any attempt to correct that and continues to cite security as an issue (like the title of this admin notice) and has made further incorrect statements about source code on the site. Jc3s5h now however, is citing a different reason for why the external link should be removed. Actually 2 reasons: COI as well as non-encyclopedic value. Which one is it? Why did Jc3s5h not cite COI concerns or External linking rules as their original reason? Why continue to site security as a reason when it has not been established that this is an issue (in fact it has been established there is no security concern)?Paulg222 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

As for COI, yes I have a relationship to the site. Again this has become a distraction though to the conversation. If Jc3s5h has a general objection to external links in articles, then Jc3s5h should site those as reasons for removal when editing. If Jc3s5h has reasons to expect COI, Jc3s5h should cite those as reasons in the original edit rather than make false statements about a site that can have a negative impact on that site.Paulg222 (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

One would think that in a Wikipedia article about a security related technology, and in a discussion about a site that provides a security-related service, all concerned would expect that either the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern, or would have established a reputation for trustworthiness through independent review. Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

expect the site would not work in a way that is obviously not a security concern – Wha??? EEng 14:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This conversation and the arguments are all very well but they’re irrelevant. Wikipedia isn’t a collection of links and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does. As a result per WP:EL it’s not eligible for inclusion. That should be the end of the discussion here, based on policy. We don’t provide links to “here’s a service that does this.” Canterbury Tail talk 21:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Expecting end users to have advanced knowledge of website and Javascript development to figure out for themselves if the website is trustworthy seems quite odd."

Perhaps you are confused here. There is no expectation of advanced knowledge for Users of the site. Users can either choose to trust the site, it's explanations and it's claims or not and those with capabilities to do so are welcome to use their expertise to validate the claims made on the site. This validation will then lead to further established reputation for that site if those few experts choose perhaps to write about it elsewhere. However, for you as an editor of Wikipedia to make false claims about the security of a site without anything to back up that assertion nor even with the expertise yourself to understand security or websites in general means you are not qualified to really edit external links for security reasons and you should refrain from such actions and defer that to people who have such knowledge. Merely not knowing if a site is secure or not is not a reason to exclude it. If you have questions about an edit, asking for further explanation or enlisting someone with appropriate expertise is the proper move.

In the case of Trusted_timestamping it is not a requirement in general to not upload files, it is just something this site in question has implemented as an added privacy feature. In fact submitting files to a trusted 3rd party can be a valuable service. One key aspect of timestamping is being able to maintain a perfect copy of the original files. Some programs like Microsoft Word and others can easily alter a file if it is merely opened on a persons computer, thereby destroying the original copy needed for later verification. So a trusted site could very well be used to upload files for storage, just like people upload to Google Drive and other backup services. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"and the link provides no encyclopaedic knowledge above and beyond what the article does."

As to whether a particular external link is proper or not for Wikipedia is a far different discussion. With my biased view of course I think in this case it is warranted. Trusted_timestamping is not exactly a well understood practice and even less so with a Blockchain being used as the TSA essentially. By including an external site that actually allows for free timestamping users will have the ability to gain greater knowledge of the practice in a way that the article does not allow. In fact the blockchain aspect makes the timestamped data (sha256 hashes) public so that users can even verify on other 3rd party sites the validity of the data. Thus in fact Trusted_timestamping itself has been advanced perhaps where even the TSA is no longer a centralized source and the TPP is merely a pass through of hashed data. The site goes to some lengths to explain some of this process both on the create, verify and faq pages. This content could perhaps be put into an image flow format (similar to other images on the Trusted_timestamping page), however in lieu of that the site itself does provide encyclopedic knowledge that is not clear on the Wikipedia page. Thus the assertion of no value is flawed. Please see the explanations on the site itself. Paulg222 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"It's useful" is not a reason to override our inclusion criteria. Being a tool folks can use to experiment with the concept is not "encyclopedic knowledge." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Zee money's article creations #2

User:Zee money has been editing since 2008. He repeatedly creates articles without sources and machine translates without copy editing, as well as creating micro-stubs with few sentences. Zee money has been reminded dozens of times to add references and add other fixes, to no avail. In June 2017, following an ANI thread, his autopatrolled right was removed. Examples of his most recent articles are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Even when Zee money adds references they are machine translated from the articles of other language wikis and often incompatible templates are copied over as a result (he doesn't fix these). In effect, this is WP:NOTHERE behavior – even though he responds and asks questions on other editors talk pages, he does not follow the suggestions of other editors on how the articles he creates can be improved. As a result, I am posting here for suggestion on how to address this issue. Kges1901 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure that the "bibliography" section here and the "literature" section here aren't the sources list for those two articles? These are the kind of wordings that happen when languages are put through machine translators. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I should note that creating machine translations without identifying the source is a serious copyright problem, even though he is (presumably) copying from other language Wikipedias. Does he ever add content to existing articles in this manner, or is it always new ones? A ban on article creations could be feasible. (I'm jumping the gun here; Zee money at least needs an opportunity to explain himself, although he will find that difficult in light of the long string of notifications and warnings on his talk page.) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Zee money does not add content to existing articles at all; he has only added links. An article creation ban might be a solution to this. Kges1901 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I endorse and support Kges1901's concerns; I've had similar frustrating experiences trying to coach Zee money. I am really not sure whether he should be here at all. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I've had the same experience. He never replies to requests to follow the most basic rules here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agree with above. This has been going on for way too long. I suggest a requirement for him to create all new articles in the Draft namespace for approval. -Zanhe (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please! I don't care whether he is 100% blocked or just stopped from creating new articles, but he has to be stopped from making such a mess. He writes worse than All your base are belong to us.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Cœur de pirate

On Cœur de pirate, someone seeming to represent Béatrice Martin is removing sourced information under Personal life. At first I assumed this was vandalism since instead of blanking they just added "forever alone." However, when I warned them they reverted again. On their talk page, they cited their reason being The change is a demand from Beatrice Martin herself. Her private life is PRIVATE. Unfortunately, I did not add their talk page to my watchlist and I reverted the person without seeing their message. I wanted to bring this to attention before it stumbled into legal threat territory. I have already left them a COI message but it is very early in the morning where I am and am not too equipt to deal with this at this moment. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Sourced, yes, but how trutworthy are they; are any of them reliable? The anglophone sources look like gossip rags to me. I can't say anything solid, since my Internet is spotty and I couldn't load their "about" pages and couldn't load the French one at all (I even had difficulty loading the second diff you provided), but this is another situation where we have to demand sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Can you provide me with third-party evidence that all of these sources indeed have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Are they experts in the field, or are they just journalists who have to put out something to meet a deadline? Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There seemed to be some discussion in 2016 on the talk page about this under Private life and controversy where they discuss possible BLP vios. I don't think that the COI has a problem with the content being false (although of course I understand Wikipedia's verifiability policy and why you are asking about reliable sources) it's more that it's true but they don't want everyone knowing. They keep stating they just want privacy of life. I have no problem removing this however the way the COI was going about it was becoming disruptive and I didn't want it to get out of hand. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The sources themselves are as reliable as any other news org. Almost all relationship-based content is tabloid gossip though. However the nudity photos were widely covered. The 'controversy' is that she was allegedly underage at the time which is why it had more legs than the usual 'celebrity nude photos' gossip. You would be better off asking for more opinions at WP:BLPN Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a language barrier on the editor (Dilleux)'s part; at any rate, it seems like s/he doesn't quite understand what Wikipedia is all about. Is there anyone fluent in French who would like to adopt him/her? (I took French in high school but that was over twenty years ago.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 15:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:HenrikStyle

HS has been contacted by me and other editors about creating unreferenced articles. I have sent them seven messages about this - in between all the messages, HS was editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response. They have been editing for 10 months and do know how to add references accurately, but often don't do so. After trying for a few weeks, I'm opening the discussion here in the hope they engage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet another WP:RADAR user. They don’t appear to have been around since this discussion was started, but if they return without addressing any of this a block is in order. Refusing to communicate is essentaially a rejection of the idea that this is a collaborative project. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Markdossantos11

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

---

This editor has been warned numerous times at User talk:Markdossantos11 about creating problematic articles, but hasn't responded to the messages. They have created more unref blps after being asked to stop - I've been trying to communicate with them for several weeks, five messages, but no response. They were editing, but didn't answer or add sources. I pointed that this it is mandatory to respond when other editors raise concerns epr WP:DISPUTE and WP:CONDUCT, pointed them towards Help:Referencing for beginners and the WP:TEAHOUSE, offered to work together with them etc., but no response.

They have only edited their talk page on one occasion, two and a half years ago. This was to delete a warning from GiantSnowman about - unsurprisingly - not sourcing when adding information to articles. This is a long time for an editor to have been receiving warnings and carried on. They not only deleted GS's message, but replaced it with: 'no mr snowpants your a bad person don't do that again.' I'm not sure what to say about that. After two and a half years of the same issue, we need to resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Indef block - per WP:CIR. Long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs and creating non-notable articles. Clearly doesn't get it. GiantSnowman 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
• Indef block If he starts communicating, we can consider unblock via WP:AN. Hhkohh (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Mark has edited since this started, including this [7], deleting the ANI notice from their talk page. Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

/r/squaredcircle and WikiProject Pro Wrestling decision

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

---

/r/squaredcircle is now aware of decision in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#In wrestling. There's influx of users from /r/squaredcircle and probably other pro wrestling communities; please be aware of invasion/brigades from these communities. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 19:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just a reminder that WP:General_sanctions/Professional_wrestling are now force. To help my esteemed fellow editors grasp the magnitude of what we're up against, here's the beginning of the /r/squaredcircle (whatever the fuck that is) discussion linked above:

Earlier in the month a consensus was reached within the wrestling editors to remove the section that lists a wrestler's finishers, signatures, common moves, managers, theme songs, tag-team partners and nick-names from over the years. I don't know about you all but when I look at a wrestler's wiki this is what I'm looking for 99% of the time. It's the single most useful part of the page. If you, like me, think this is a horrible move then you should make yourself known to the editors. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling

Dude what the FUCK. I look at that all the time. It is literally my reference point when I create wrestlers in the WWE 2k series. How else am I supposed to remember what signature moves Mideon and Juventud Guerrera had? Also when people make stat posts thats a huge point of reference

YES! This is a prime example of why that section is needed, whenever I'm trying to bulk out a CAW's moveset, or make it more unique to them, I'll check that and use the moves they have listed. Now I'll have to use shite "25 best moves of insert wrestler" videos, which have basic shit like "PUNCH" and "KICK" as entries.

Nah, I wouldn't stoop to using those. Just use the archived versions of the pages. You know now that they've removed those sections, so just look up a past version of the page when you need to when it still had that information available.

That last bit makes me want to suggest that, after these articles are all scrubbed into shape, we revdel all the old versions. If we're not careful we'll have another WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People multiyear decade-long dramafest on our hands. EEng 04:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. See also this search of AN, ANI, and related boards for the astonishing 450 threads containing the word wrestling. That's three incidents per month for 15 years. EEng 04:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm out of the loop, what exactly happened there? Revdel is also way too overkill. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 05:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only is RevDel overkill, I'm not sure why EEng is even recommending it here; if a bunch of nerdy superfans want to go crawling through the revision histories to find information that is in some way useful to them (even be it for a purpose so trivial that it bemuses us), I cannot fathom what harm that does to the live version of the article or how it impacts on any editorial interest. So long as they are not trying to resurrect that content, nothing in such utilization of the revision history is remotely disruptive--and if such efforts did occur, there would be more direct and effective ways of responding to it than turning the revision history of the article into swiss cheese; WP:REVDELs are meant to be employed only for explicitly enumerated and very narrow administrative and libel purposes, as described by WP:CRD and none of those criteria apply here. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, I just read through that entire thread, and, although I 100% support and appreciate FMecha making us aware of it, I think it is worth noting that there is zero evidence of impending organized attempts to disrupt. The OP made a call to "make their voices known" here, but not one person responding to the thread has done so in a fashion suggesting they are about to invade Wikipedia and start edit warring. In fact, a great number of the responses show sympathy for our editorial needs in constraining the content, and some even themselves find the sections in question excessive. They mostly seem like reasonable people as far as that discussion suggests; even the ones expressing a "#%&@ those elitist Wikipedians" sentiment are almost all discussing migrating the content we are removing over to Wikia, which is the obvious best solution for both their and our needs. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Is there really no Wikia or other non-Wikipedia wiki that people go to for that kind of info? No wonder all the nuts are here. ansh666 04:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

  Having read the thread, there is, but it's pretty out of date, or so I hear. Anyway, I say we be sporting and not rev-del for a bit, at least so some users can grab all that information. Maybe five days, a week? Now, joking aside: FMecha, thank you for the warning. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 04:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't be expecting any revdeling of the content, not unless you can convince an admin that a violation consistent with WP:CRD has occurred, and I can't see as how any relevant provision applies to the current circumstances. The inspiration for this suggestion seems wholly divorced from any kind of policy rationale and (perhaps I'm wrong here, but...) feels like it is predicated in a sentiment of "we feel like these people have wasted our time, so lets act punitively to make a point." Frankly there was more than a fair bit of talk in the same vein during the AN discussion that implemented the general sanctions, and the ANI thread that gave birth to the proposal. I followed both discussions during their duration and almost !voted for the sanctions, because I felt they were warranted, on the balance of things. But I never found the time to contribute because I knew that I would have to add a caveat to my support saying that I was uncomfortable with the amount of blatant bias and antagonism that some of the supporting editors were bringing to their discussion of the topic. Literally people saying the likes of "I have no problem calling pro wrestling a pastime for morons." If reading those threads helped to inspire a counter-movement amongst afficianados who don't understand our policies, I'm not terribly surprised.

And yes, I understand that this has been an ongoing issue for years, which goes some way to explaining the level of frustration. Believe me, as someone who has joined more than one discussion attempting to scale back D&D articles, or those detailing the imaginary lives of comic book characters, I know how vexing it can be to go up against organized and tenacious groups of WP:NOTHERE editors ignoring process, policy, and consensus at every turn to try to retain geekcruft WP:TRIVIA. That's why I support the new general sanctions here. But it feels like there's an undercurrent amongst some editors responding to this problem that dips into a needless personalizing of the issue. Now, maybe with regard to revdel I've missed some pragmatic benefit underpinning the suggestion. If so, I'll eat crow. But right now, it seems like it is just meant to thwart the disruptive editors in some what that has nothing to do with improving the articles and more to do with putting that group in their place. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• prowrestling.wikia.com exist, but it highly relies on information from here for now. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 05:59, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

If they wish to look at the history I say let them as long as they don’t restore it. It’s not like there’s copyrighted or obscene material there so I don’t believe a revdel should be used. I don’t see any issue as long as nothing is restored against consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 12:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that if they see old versions as a reference repository, they'll continue to add crap to articles even knowing it will be immediately deleted. It was just a suggestion for the future so please just calm down. EEng 18:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, everyone here is perfectly calm. But, respectfully, your proposal suggests that you don't really understand how that tool works and why that suggestion is a complete non-starter here. Revdel is used only for highly offensive, threatening, or libelous commentary, not for workaday content edits--even highly contentious ones. Because the use is so narrow, admins can deploy the tool to meet the needs of addressing libel and harassment promptly, non-controversially, and in combination with other tools that allow them to forestall further disruption, such that the revdel's represent only the rarest of precise redaction from the edit history. The changes you are suggesting (aside from being the kinds of edits which the tool is not meant for) are live across hundreds (maybe even thousands in some cases) of versions, multiplied by hundreds of articles. Finding and editing them all out with the tool (aside from being a perhaps impracticably impossible and certainly needlessly laborious solution to a non-problem) would leave the revision histories of those articles as a garbled mess and would hugely complicate (rather than aid) those trying to do the necessary clean-up for said articles. It would also create an administrative nightmare for the community whenever some innocent editor's contributions which preserved those edits (which would also need to be deleted under your plan for the "benefit" to remain) are removed and leave the suggestion of numerous highly disruptive edits, which the average user cannot see to confirm or negate that conclusion.

And honestly, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of reasons why the proposal is a bad idea because of all of the technical and pragmatic complications that would arise from deploying it over a huge number of edits in that fashion. And all of that suggested as a prospective solution to speculative disruption which may or may not arise in any form. It's just not what the tool is meant for. It's like bringing a demolition hammer to bear on a situation that needs a screwdriver; not just overkill, but indeed, highly counter-productive and likely to leave the thing you were trying to put together a broken mess. The issue you are concerned about can be very easily addressed with the more appropriate tools that are usually brought to bear in such cases; page protection and targeted blocks. I can't imagine that even one in a hundred of the individuals in that thread (who mostly don't seem to be interested in coming here to edit in any event, but are instead considering alternative homes for their collection of pro wrestling apocrypha) has an account with more than 500 edits. So we're realistically talking about the outside possibility of maybe a handful of editors capable of thwarting semi-protection, and those can be handled the usual way we deal with determined disruptive editors. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

For crying out loud, it was a half-serious musing, off the top of my head, for something maybe to think about in the distant future. And with twice your tenure and four times your experience here, I assure you I know exactly what revdel is and what it's (usually) used for. Will you give it a rest now? My real point was to remind admins that DS is available in this topic area, but that's been completely swamped by all this pearl-clutching. EEng 02:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are quantifying "experience" here, but your suggestion indicates that, at the very least, you didn't really stop to think about whether using revdel in the manner you were suggesting would be advisable or even feasible. And I don't see how that could have been an attempt to remind admins about general (not discretionary) sanctions, since you didn't mention that topic at all, even obliquely. Please don't take this matter personally; you made a suggestion and others pointed out why it really wouldn't work and that there are other means for addressing the speculated-on disruption, if it ever even manifests itself. You responded to one of those editors by implying that they were "uncalm" about the subject, despite a complete lack of evidence for that assumption (the single lamest rhetorical strategy in the history of human discourse, and the one least likely to actually inspire calm in a discussion) and then proposing an adjustment to your reasoning. I responded by explaining why, even with that adjustment, your suggestion just is not going to happen and would be a nightmare if we did try to implement it.

Now, if you want to take umbrage because I pointed this out in a manner that didn't show proper deference to your tenure on this project, as measured relative to my own, I honestly don't know what to tell you; my response was to your suggestion itself, which was simply ill-considered as a procedural matter, and did in fact give the impression that you didn't know how it works or had not stopped to consider how it would operate here. I don't, as matter of habit, check the relative contributions of other editors to make sure I have been around for longer than they have before I mention what I perceive to be a flaw in their reasoning--nor does any policy or principle of community consensus encourage me to. And I certainly have no interest in an illogical contribution-measuring contest to establish the validity of the points I raised in showing why the tool is not appropriate here--the argument speaks for itself. My comment also does not come in isolation; I'm a little concerned about some of the forgoing discussion on the noticeboards regarding this topic and the fact the response by some is starting to look needlessly personalized and punative. I think putting the brakes on one proposed rash action could forestall the next one. But again, nothing personal in that. If your suggestion was off-the-cuff and you don't intend to contest the objections, I think it can be left at that. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how that could have been an attempt to remind admins about general (not discretionary) sanctions, since you didn't mention that topic at all, even obliquely – Er, um, that would be in my opening post: "Just a reminder that WP:General sanctions/Professional wrestling are now force."
• If you follow that link you'll see it's indeed couched in terms of DS.
• You mean foregoing, as in that which has gone before. Forgoing means to do without something, as in "Could we please forgo all this tiresome lecturing?"

Having given us 30 lines of explanation for why you invested 20 lines in tamping down the threat posed by one sentence, and then 40 lines to explicate what you meant by the 30 lines, followed by 50 lines unraveling the 40, will you now bestow on us another 100 lines exploring the 50's unraveling of the 40's commentary on the 30's insights into the 20? Or in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, is there an Off switch on you? All I said is, "That last bit makes me want to suggest that, after these articles are all scrubbed into shape, we revdel all the old versions". I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition. EEng 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that post clearly has nothing to do with the comment I replied to, which had (as its sole topic), your suggestion. Again, I do not know why you must take this so personally. I responded quite civilly to your comments and it often takes much more time to explain why an ill-considered idea won't work than it does to just throw that idea out there in the first place. Likewise for your responses. Clearly I insulted your pride when you interpreted my comment to be a needle at your not knowing how revdel works, but I had no such intention when I framed my response to your proposal. You made a suggestion and I and others responded to that suggestion not as "suggestion by editor EEng, who has X number of contributions" nor for that matter as "suggestion by EEng, whom I assume doesn't get this, so let me spell it out for him". We're not in your head, friend--we can't know if you made this suggestion as a "half-serious musing, off the top of my head" or because you honestly don't get why it wouldn't work. All we can do is respond in good faith to the suggestion you made on its own plain meaning. And in order to do that, some discussion of the technicalities is going to be involved.

Anything that has come after that has been a product of how poorly you have responded to perceived criticism. I don't understand why this ever had to be about us as individuals, in any way. I had an objection to your proposal, not a problem with you. I feel you are being very uncivil and ungracious about what was a simple policy call on my part. And no, sir, I most certainly do not have an "off switch" for you. I have no switches to which you will ever have the remotest chance of access, thank you very much. And that's not how discussion works on this project (or how one gains high ground in a discussion generally). If you wish to not engage further, I'm happy to let the matter drop, but you can't assert that I have a mouth in pithy rejoinders and then treat response to your comments as proof of the assertion. Anyway, I do think BMK is correct. There's nothing further to be gained from engaging here. Good day. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

<stares in mute astonishment> EEng 06:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. FWIW, I'm pretty sure the rest of us knew that you weren't serious. ansh666 17:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Less talk, please, more article editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Cunt, fuck, piss, shit, cocksucker, asshole, bloody, goddamn, son-off-a-bitch, bastard. EEng 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

School project for the State of Rhode Island

Probably best straightened out here by uninvolved parties. I am a little concerned that a school project is not being well served by us at the moment, and possibly the school should have followed some protocol on Wikipedia. Rcar01 has been adding external links to websites where the subject matter, at least in part, relates to the State of Rhode Island. At this point, we don't know if this is a teacher, administrator or student. Chrissymad reported this at AIV. A discussion ensued on Chrissymad's talk page, where the user claims to be completing a school project. I followed every one of those external links, and they are the Rhode Island state repository for given subject matters. Therefore, I rejected the AIV request, because it seems no vandalism was intended. diff. Would someone who is more familiar with schools and how they should approach school projects on Wikipedia please comment here and/or offer some concrete advice to Rcar01. — Maile (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't report it as vandalism. I reported it specifically as spam only due to the repeated addition of external links after even asking them to stop. They have also stated they are doing this on behalf of an organization here and refused to disclose it here. I will add that I fail to see how one state's archives to generic topics, like African Americans is any more relevant than another. Should we add all 50 states' archives to such articles? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Classroom assignments in the United States are normally handled by the Wiki Education Foundation. This does not appear to be a typical assignment. I would have already blocked the user for their refusal to disclose on whose behalf they are editing. However, there are admins giving the user advice that the user can edit as long as they disclose a conflict, e.g., There'sNoTime. I'm struggling to see the benefit to the project of having a user like this editing Wikipedia (that's Rcar01, not TNT :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Bbb23 Thank you. Corporate/government America being what it is, there's always the possibility some clerk-level employee (of whoever is driving this) ordered them to do it, and gave no clue as to how to get it done. I mean ... adding links is not what you pay the big salaries for. Or who knows. In any case, I believe no mal-intent was the motivation, so it's always worth it go try and help. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Plenty of benefits in keeping me around! (probably)

I see your point - I attempted to de-escalate the situation, and I believe with some guidance there could be a small benefit from having them edit. Worst case, I'm wrong, and we end up having to do a bit of reverting - TNT ^💖 20:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

A friendly reminder for Bbb23 and others: Wiki Ed Foundation only handles US higher ed assignments. There is no institutional support (that I'm aware of) for ed assignments at the secondary (or lower) level. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• In my opinion this is perfectly clear-cut. The editor is, by his or her own statement, editing on behalf of an organisation. He or she therefore has a conflict of interest, and no exception should be made to our policies and guidelines merely because someone says that what they are doing is for a school assignment. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Just to note, that as a non-COI editor, I have restored some of the ELs as I feel that they are useful to the reader and qualify under EL standards. By this action, I take ownership of those edits I restored. However, this should not be taken by Rcar01 as an indication that they should make further edits of a similar nature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Maperuespino

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

---

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

Maperuespino (talk · contribs) has been blocked twice for disruptive editing. He's continuing to add unsourced genres in music articles (1, 2, 3) and film articles (1, 2). He also adds unsourced budgets (diff) and has edit warred in Sylver to maintain his unsourced genre changes (June 26 and June 29). I've been reverting his unsourced changes off-and-on, so I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to block him. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Blocked again. Doesn't seem to engage on talk either. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 article

There is a leftover "Draft:Branko Mladenović" (of 3 authors, 2016-2018) pasted into 2009-2017 stub "Branko Mladenović" (stub edits in 2017 are Bot-fixes). Can histories be merged and then draft-comments be removed? Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Alfa kanima

Alfa kanima is persistently creating blps with no clear references despite several warnings not to do so. They have been pointed to the guidelines on sourcing, and on communication, but haven't responded (see [[User talk:Alfa kanima#References and User talk:Alfa kanima#Sources and communication. They have been editing for 3 years but have never responded to a message. For the last three years, they have regularly been receiving numerous warnings about disruptive editing, poor sourcing etc. Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I have left a very stern warning, if they do not communicate as their very next edit they will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 23:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

The warning can't hurt, but they have received dozens of warnings over the years and ignored them all. They have continued to edit since the ANI was opened but not commented here (they haven't yet edited since your warning). Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

They have edited since my warning and as a result I've given them an indefinite block to force communication. Either that will wake them up and force the user to begin to address concerns, or we'll not hear from them again. I'd like to hear from them as most of their edits are actually constructive, just lacking in a few policies, they're clearly not a troll or vandalism account. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Range block, please - death threats in summaries

• 83.30.169.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 83.30.170.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I just blocked the two above, but I think we need a range block here. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Maile66: have you seen any other IPs doing this? Those IPs are part of Orange Polska, so there will be a fair amount of collateral unless we can narrow things down a bit - TNT ^💖 14:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime not so far. The ones I blocked came up at WP:AIV. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Maile66: Based on the three IPs they've definitely used, the smallest possible range we can narrow this person down to is 83.30.169.252/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), which contains over 32,000 IPs and produces little to no disruption. Plus, since we only have three known IPs, there's no clear indication that this person is limited to a range that small. So, a range block is not feasible, even if those were credible "death threats" (I would disregard it petty nonsense myself). Swarm ♠ 20:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

There'sNoTime and Swarm - OK. Thanks for the feedback. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from IP

14.192.52.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP User_talk:14.192.52.187 is continues to insert unsourced information into Om Prakash Jindal diff, John King, Baron King of Wartnaby diff and Corporate affairs of Singapore Airlines diff. Did not react to multiple challenges on talk page(s), no even edit summaries, just continues to revert user contributions. Related account might be User talk:Drvedjindal but has only made one edit. Further reverting/warning them seems a bit pointless given the lack of any reaction despite continued activity. Averell (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Protect Chrissy Teigen

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

---

She just tweeted about the article, so it’s about to face a huge wave of vandalism. I thought saying it here would get it protected faster.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

improper reversions and incivility

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

---

Reverting good faith maintenance edits

I made observations on Talk:Arlesdale Railway#Article issues. I later removed Wikipedia links (I initially thought they were uncited books) used as "General sources" (diff) with the edit summary "(Sources: Remove Wikipedia links used as source. The "Source" section is not to be used as an extension of the "See also" section.)" per WP:CIRCULAR, marked a (The Real Lives of Thomas the Tank Engine dead link) also used as a general source, deleted a duplicated "External link", and added comments in a "Sources" sub-section on what I had done.

This was reverted by User:Andy Dingley (notified) with the edit summary "rv clueless edit. Undid revision".

Per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party that states, "Talk page discussion is a prerequisite to almost all of Wikipedia's venues of higher dispute resolution.", as a discussion as well as a friendly notice, I left comments at the editors talk page. For the second time I was referred to as being either clueless or incompetent. As a further show of incivility the editor stated "Also, discuss that article there, and don't waste bytes on my talk: page.". This effectively kills any further correspondence because the issue went beyond the article.

Unless things have changed that I am just not aware of (but I did mention there was no policy based rebuttal) it seems clear that the article has been showing sourcing, when in fact there are none, so this also circumvents proper maintenance categorizing. The editor added an archived link to the External links but deleted the "dead link" maintenance tag in the process.

My problem aside from incivility, hostility, and claims that I am biased against other than US comic book articles (posted DELETEASNOTBATMAN), is that good faith policy based edits should not be reverted with non-policy based uncivil comments like day-to-day edits. This can be deemed as vandalism, certainly when accompanied by rude dismissing comments as well as callous disregard for policies and guidelines, that to me is disruptive editing. This editor does have a history of harrassment, persistent personal attacks and edit warring and I am asking if something can be done so that the editor might understand that this is not acceptable behavior. Otr500 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the underlying content dispute, your edits were unquestionably incorrect and the reversion of them was unquestionably correct. What you removed weren't Wikipedia links used as source, they were the links to the Wikipedia articles about the books in the bibliography, which is correct practice when the book in question is itself the subject of an article. (The notion that The "Source" section is not to be used as an extension of the "See also" section is just bizarre; that an article includes a "Further reading" section is a good thing, not some kind of policy violation. In any case, that doesn't seem to be what's happening here; the books listed are the sources for the article. While inline citation is strongly recommended, it isn't and never has been compulsory.) Frankly, I'm not surprised Andy Dingley lost his temper at your unwillingness to admit that you were in the wrong, let alone your failure to stop digging by coming here. When something is under review at ANI the behavior of all involved, including the filer, is examined; I'd strongly recommend withdrawing this now before the WP:BOOMERANG hits you. ‑ Iridescent 22:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Feud between overbearing editors

I made an request for this an few days ago and got told to handle this on my own. So here's the details, on the page Cartoon Network, on the infobox, I added an past slogan list. Bankster reverts it saying it makes the infobox unclean and etc. I don't agree with him though, he reverts again, so I give up and move the Slogan list to it's own little section of the page. Then, I left an message on his talk page, pointing to the Maunal of Style so we can be more civil when this happens, some other salty kid, YborCityJohn starts rudely comparing his warnings to me, and it escaltes from their, I might be leaving out some details so tell me if I did, so I decide to report him to here, I'm told to handle the situation myself. So after, I leave an message on my talk page, so I could prevent stuff like this from happening again. It may seems salty, but I assure you this was done in good faith. Then, on YborCityJohn's talk page, an user, Nil Einne tells him to take care of his use of the word vandalism, YCJ then replays, jumping to the silly conclusion that I was bullying him. I found out about this and tell him to try being civil, then it stopped, UNTIL today when leaves an message on my talk page saying this:Your message is unnecessary. I wasn't being rude to anyone, however you seem to be kind of "offended" because I warned you about your edits on Cartoon Network. Slogan lists don't go on the TV channel infobox; by practise, we only use the current slogan a network is using at the moment.

I guess you're confused, since I've always explained why I'm removing stuff from articles, believe it or not. Replying to your thread...

1. You're been edit warned. (check)

2. You're about to be blocked due to your explicit, uncivil message on your talk page. If I report this to WP:ANI, this sure would lock you from editing. (lol)

3. I don't care if you dislike my attitude. Fact is, you're being a little hypocrite with the message you have on your own TP.

1, I have no idea what he's trying to prove, 2, he's assuming I'm gonna blocked despite that all of my bad actions were mistakes, 3, That's fine, as I don't even care anymore. This has gone way too far, this needs to come to an final end now. I'm considering leaving Wikipedia because of this, even though editing WP is one of my favorite hobbies. Thank you. Bang 🌑 23:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not saying anyone needs to get blocked, no one needs to get banned in this situation but SOME action needs to be applied. Bang 🌑 23:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Clarkzero, Bankster, and YborCityJohn: I was just looking into this as a result of the message on my talk page. I'm not sure why or how this got so heated. All three of you are viciously attacking each other and issuing warnings to each other, while talk page literally sits empty. Why would administrators waste our time mediating this when you wont even engage in the simple step of civilly talking about your disagreement? I can't even tell who's most at fault here. Clark, if you don't want to come across as rude, don't issue templates, and dial down the cursing. Even if it's normal for you, people usually interpret excessive cursing as incivility. You could have just explained your point on the talk page, and invited Bankster to the talk page. If you can't work out a compromise, request a third opinion, or start an RfC. There's no reason for warnings, or any kind of personal commentary. And it looks like YCJ decided to jump in and throw more fuel on the fire, because he misinterpreted that dispute as being part of one he was involved in, with both users on Adult Swim? I mean he wasn't even involved in that issue on the CN article. Not a single editor's conduct here is even close to being ideal, but I think the solution is for all parties to focus on content on the talk page, or simply drop it and move on. These content disputes themselves are really minor. Swarm ♠ 00:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't paid much attention to what happened after I left my two messages since I felt I'd said all that needed to be said.

(One was a a reminder to take care with the word vandalism to one editor who seemed to accuse another of being a vandal because they were adding back i.e. reverting talk pack messages which another editor was removing from their talk page. As I mentioned while the action was improper, it was unlikely to be vandalism. I also left a message to the editor who had reverted/re-add the removed talk page messages reminding them it was not acceptable because OWNTALK allowed the editor to remove the talk page messages. I noticed belatedly that someone had already told them this at ANI so I wasn't sure it was necessary but I decided it best to do so anyway. My messages were left solely because while I agreed that there was nothing of merit for the ANI complain that I saw, there were these minor behaviourial issues i.e. incorrect accusations of vandalism and incorrect reversal of allowed OWNTALK removals which were against norms and likely to cause problems if they continued.)

While I still haven't looked much at what's going on, I would normally say something like Swarm assuming I saw the same thing. Any editing dispute where there is zero discussion on the article talk page is rarely ready for ANI. Someone needs to take the initiative and start discussion on the talk page. If someone does that and people still refuse to engage after a reasonable time frame then only may it be time to come to ANI although it may still be worth trying some form of dispute resolution that doesn't require the other party on the talk page, e.g. a third opinion. If people do engage but there is no consensus, some form of WP:Dispute resolution may be helpful. If there is poor language and personal attacks this isn't a good thing, but it's not something easily dealt with at ANI especially when the obvious path forward is for everyone to discuss on the article talk page with everyone doing their best to avoid such things. While it's understandable editors are offended if they feel they have been dealt with poorly or unfairly, ultimately sometimes it's best to put it aside as far as possible and focus on resolving the content dispute.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Those in glass houses... --Tarage (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Should pull the blinds when removing their trousers? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

ZurgyStardust

ZurgyStardust (talk · contribs) is in violation of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. They were warned here and have since made several reverts against consensus.[8][9][10][11] They blanked all warnings and told Prefall to Stop removing important information from wiki pages. and then blanked an additional warning. Now there are more reverts with antagonizing edit summaries: "You self-aggrandizing man-children had a discussion nobody really knew about and agreed with yourselves. That's not a consensus. I'll continue to revert your pointless removal of information on the basis that it's just that: pointless."LM2000 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You're offended that I'm calling you out on your BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZurgyStardust (talk • contribs) 06:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops. I reported him to WP:AIV at the same time you were posting this. Not sure what protocol to follow. Prefall 06:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• It has has begun, my children! EEng 06:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking forward to blocks being handed down for these fanboys. --Tarage (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note

I don't oppose the block here--it's warranted on the basis of the incivil edit summary, this being a GS topic area now. But there's a real problem emerging here that needs to be addressed before it expands further and takes on a life of its own. Several editors who filed enforcement requests on this matter were edit warring with Zurgy, and assert as justification for these edits that Zurgy was editing "against consensus"; well I've looked at the talk page of every one of the articles where the edit wars took place, and not one of them has had a consensus discussion regarding the edits in question or the categories of content that Zurgy's opposition wish to exclude. It's pretty clear that the "consensus" these parties are talking about is the discussion that just took place at WikiProject Professional Wrestling.

It may be that these editors are not aware about community consensus regarding discussions that take place at WikiProjects, as codified at WP:Advice pages: any generalized content standards which are adopted at Wikiprojects cannot be utilized as pre-existing "consensus" when those issues arise on individual articles. This is a longstanding principle of community consensus, and we've even had ArbCom cases on the matter, which have made it clear that it is per se disruptive for a group of editors working out of a WikiProject to try to enforce their preferred approach across a span of articles; editors should instead seek to form a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on individual articles with disputed content, rather than edit warring before this consensus is established--again, any agreed upon default formulated between themselves at a WikiProject does not satisfy consensus for this purpose. And the requirement for discussion is only made more vital by the new application of GS to this topic area, not less.

Lest anyone mistake my comments as support for the "fanboys" against the "regulars", let me make clear that I am raising these points specifically for the benefit of the regular editors engaged here, because they are clearly working in good-faith to improve these excessively fancrufty articles. As a fellow editor who has worked on cleaning up similar areas, I understand their motivations, but they are going about it in a way where some of them may end up getting blindsided by the very same sanctions some of them just put into effect. Pinging NeilN as the blocking admin; I doubt he will want to unblock (he let the party off light as it is) but he may wish to be aware of this discussion if he is not already. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise. I blocked when processing an WP:AIV report, and was unaware of this discussion. A note about WikiProject consensus: If a well-publicized RFC is held on a WikiProject talk page (a Village Pump may be better) and comes to a consensus about article content, we can make that part of the editing restrictions existing for this area. This has not happened yet in this case. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

With no respect to the pearl clutches, this is the same bullshit and arguments that we had back in the great MMA wars (see WP:GS/MMA). The community comes to a consensus about what we're willing to tolerate in coverage, external "communities" refuse to accept the consensus and work within the framework established, a General Sanctions (or Discretionary Sanctions) regieme is authorized, and once the club starts swinging and "fans" start getting clubbed on the head after being warned. Same bullshit, just a different topic area. Want to know how the MMA wars ended? By the "communities" advocating unsustainable positions going off and building their own wiki that included all the things they wanted. MMA articles improved because they were upheld to standards. Hasteur (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, this "community" will do the same thing. Blackmane (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have no particular wish to shield WP:NOTHERE contributors, but the "pearls" here are our vital processes, our general rules concerning consensus and conduct. We don't get to set them aside when they slow our roll to go on a fanboy clubbing spree. NeilN has already detailed above how one goes about codifying a new default content exclusion standard (a broadly promoted RfC, ideally at VPP, to which I will add that a WP:PROPOSAL discussion would be even more ironclad and give even fuller support to the clean-up brigades going to work in this area); alternatively editors can seek a simple WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on affected articles. But general sanctions ≠ we just side with the person who is better known to us, and against the "outsider". General sanctions means that anybody who is editing in a disruptive manner in the covered topic area can be summarily sanctioned, and it is therefore important that the editors working on clean-up of the pro wrestling articles have a very keen understanding of what constitutes legitimate consensus and what does not, because they could otherwise find themselves unintentionally in the path of the backswing of that club you mentioned, because they are technically edit warring, however good faith their intentions.

And our standards for consensus in this area are more than some sort of arbitrary, bureaucratic rulecruft. Well before we had the "MMA wars" we had the "Infobox wars" and other similar episodes of massive disruption resulting from groups aggregating at wikiprojects and developing their own idiosyncratic sets of "guidelines" outside of the normal community consensus process, which guidelines they then tried to enforce upon any article that they felt was within their self-defined purview. The ADVICEPAGES standard was developed by the community (and further strengthened by ArbCom) to combat this kind of walled garden mentality and the anti-collaborative, disruptive behaviours it tends to engender. Disruption by groups of editors on this project is not always a consequence of "outside communities"; we've routinely proven that we can homebrew situations that threaten the stability of our content and community. So you can bet that the admin corps (and the community broadly) are going to enforce those rules too. So before the Great Pro Wrestling FanCruft Purge of 2018 gets under way, the editors looking to make massive overhauls to the articles in question need to hold some centralized community discussions in order to establish something that works like legitimate community consensus for those purposes. Otherwise the club is likely to land on quite a few unsuspecting editors, most of whom were just trying to improve some articles. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Snow: is Wikipedia:Walled garden the page you were seeking? DMacks (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You beat me to it. EEng 03:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

That'll do quite perfectly, thanks DMacks! (And EEng, even if you got beat to the punch). I'm kind of surprised that we don't have an article on the social phenomena though; we do have Walled garden (technology), which describes platforms which were designed for or enable insular communities, but we don't have an article about the topic as a concept of social and psychological import--which surprised me, given how much cultural currency the term has right now. Perhaps something to put on my own work list. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

personal threats

Hello, I received personal threats by user @Sofianichols by message on my user page (21:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)) after a Wikipedia page of Eric Arnoux was protected by moderators at my request, to his diplease. @Sofianichols wrote to me “Be careful internet is not the place to revenge and laws exists.” and made false and unsourced accusations. Could you please check the situation and possibly block this person? I am concerned now. Many thanks SarahMitchels82 (talk) 08:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the comments there rise to the level of a legal threat, but I have warned the other user. SarahMitchels82, you do need to notify the other user of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have given the needed notification. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG is malfunctioning

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

---

It has been botting millions of pages! Threatening massive arcticle deletions and much more! This bot must be shut down to prevent further arcticle deletion warnings spread! This bot is being nominated to be deleted due to botting arcitcle deletions and editing pages by an accident! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian0205 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• No it isn't. The OP is a vandalism-only account, though (check their contribs...), and deserves an indef... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor who is also engaging in personal attacks

Anne Heero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits to the article Bully (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). They have been repeatedly adding a reference to becoming "an hero," a slang term for committing suicide that is also referenced in their username. The slang term is often used in a derogatory way in reference to people who have committed suicide. After I reverted them, they told me to "go get some more lotion and paper towels and keep yourself busy that way" in an edit summary. Aspening (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

User blocked temporarily and warned. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If Anne Heero returns to suicide trolling or any other disruptive behavior, the next block should be indefinite. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have blocked indef for the combination of user name, vandalism, and personal attacks. --John (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I started a report at SPI because I've seen some accounts that look like socks, and a couple of accounts made impersonating me right after Anne Heero was blocked. Aspening (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

They're CU-blocked now. Got some sock IPs popping up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I found a potential sleeper that was just created today, after the checkuser run, with a username implying association with this case but that doesn't have any edits. Worth reporting? Aspening (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, both that I was monitoring are active now. Aspening (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Steel Dogg

Steel Dogg has been editing WP for 5 years. During the last year, I have sent 10 messages about creating unreferenced articles, including blps with no clear refs. They have edited in between all 10 messages but haven't responded. They do know how to edit their talk page and have done so several times, but not in the last couple of years and most of the edits seem to be just blanking the page, not responding to editors' concerns. I have directed them to relevant policies on communication and sourcing, but they have continued creating unref blps, and after so many months, there seems to be no chance they will communicate. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Less than 50 of their ≈14000 edits are to talk pages, but of the comments they have posted, they've shown they know how to use talk pages and communicate in fluent English, so there is no reason they can't engage in discussion now. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 22:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is a list of page creations for the editor in question, for those interested. Notably none of these articles seem to have been deleted, though some of player BLPs possibly could be (even given WP:NFOOTY's notoriously low hurdle that allows just about anyone who has so much as stared sideways at a football once to be entitled to their own article). I have to admit, I honestly don't know if it is considered per se disruptive for an editor to create articles without sources, where sourcing does exist but simply was not added (which describes at least some of the articles here). Arguably it should be prohibited (reviewing editors should not have to choose between a deletion proposal and going through the effort of researching notability themselves), but I'm not sure that it is as a matter of firm policy and/or community consensus. But given they are engaging in an activity that they have been called on, I do think the onus is on them to engage and discuss (or else to desist in the behaviour if they don't wish to engage). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

See [12], [13] and [14] for 3 namespace editing Hhkohh (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Seem he communicated with Boleyn in 2017 but no longer communicating in recent 6 months. Hhkohh (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

User:‎Emir of Wikipedia

Has been extremely unprofessional, this is regarding over article Emilia Clarke‎, firstly he removed content which was referenced by multiple sources, he failed to correct an error, when I restored the content which was sourced, he reverted me again, I went and corrected the error, I told the guy in private that he needs to do his homework, i.e by reading the citations and stop being deconstructive on his talkpage, he unprofessionally moved a private conversation back to Emilia Clarke talk page having a go at me for messing it up when I never did it in the first place, I would like an admin to remove the talkpage comments and strike it off the system, I have found Emir actions of responding on Clarke's talk page highly offensive and extremely actionable. Govvy (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is "private". Just sayin'... - wolf 22:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Erm. Can we please keep this accurate please. I did not remove content referenced by multiple sources, what I removed was content referenced by sources Chrissymad removed. The "error" which you accuse me of failing to correct even though you introduced it is a discrepancy between sources as mentioned on the article talkpage. You restored the content with error not me. I am sorry if you found my actions offensive, I apologise that was not my intention. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I removed the thread from the article Talk page. Emir shouldn't have moved Govvy's comments. The rest sounds like a content dispute to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I am sorry about moving the comments, just thought it would be helpful for other users to be able to discuss on the issues. Now that the thread has been removed where should we resolve this "content dispute"? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

On the article Talk page. You can start a thread but only with your own comments and focus on the content, not other editors, regardless of what they might say on your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Her year of birth is in the citation, I don't understand Emir why didn't correct it. All I did was restore what I saw was sourced and had read before, I don't remember her DOB being changed, I really didn't notice that it didn't match the citation. I don't understand hr can't fix a simple problem, or why you use page mover rights to public pages to square off with people. That is kind of an abuse of page mover rights. Govvy (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Her day of birth varies in citations. I didn't "correct" it as others sources varied. What you did was restored content that was sourced to a citation removed by another editor. You should have noticed that it didn't match the citation, we have to be careful with BLPs. I was fixing the problem that you made. What do page move rights have to do with anything here? How did I abuse them? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: - just out of curiosity, if "Emir of WP" wants to discuss issues about an article on the article talk page instead of their user talk page, can't they do that, and quote comments posted to their user talk page as reference? (Like I said, just curious...) Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 22:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• In this instance the comments Govvy left on Emir's Talk page were not conducive to a constructive discussion about content. I should have been clearer in my comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: And even if they had been, it is generally not permissible to move an individual's comments to a TP or forum where they did not themselves choose to express those thoughts. Context is important to comments and there are some things an editor might care to express in one space which they would not like to raise in another, for any number of legitimate reasons. Also, the entire process of collaborative discourse on the project would unravel if any editor who was party to a discussion had a greenlight to move the entire thing to another forum that they thought may be more favourable to their views. Of course, there are some exceptions to the general prohibition against moves; complaints and inquiries can be moved from one forum to another for administrative purposes (ideally by admins), but for most discussions its better to just engage in the space where the discussion starts, or not at all. If one really feels the need for the discussion to continue elsewhere, they can always create a new thread in the target space and link to the previous discussion, as Bbb23 advised in this instance. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Govvy, if someone removes content derived from unreliable sources, we praise them: we don't haul them to WP:ANI. Would you please explain why you believe these sources to be reliable secondary sources? For example, this article: does Celebs Now have a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Where did author Sarah Tetteh get her information? Is she a media studies scholar who studies current TV? If not, is this article reviewed by other scholars, or is it merely reviewed by a journalist whose only responsibilities are quickly creating content that will sell without getting the publication sued? Without sterling credentials in a specific field, we cannot trust a source that cites no sources at all. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of AWB Access request

Moved from The AWB PERM page. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Requesting revocation of access for AlexTheWhovian due to a recent AWB run in which he changed instances of "U.S." to "US" in a couple thousand articles based on a lightly-attended discussion at WT:TV#MOS:US in which he determined consensus to his own question and didn't provide adequate notification of his plans. MOS:US states retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it yet despite clear levels of objection in that discussion section, he proceeded en masse using the AWB tool. Per WP:AWBRULES #3 this was clearly going to be a controversial change, and per #2 he failed to apply the guideline which says to retain usage. By my rough count he made about 2760 edits over 4.5 hours (about 10 edits per minute). Certainly, a much higher level of consensus and notification should have been required prior to such a massive undertaking. -- Netoholic @ 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Netoholic @ 22:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done (automated response): This user already has AutoWikiBrowser access. — MusikBot ^talk 22:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Striking bot auto-response as this is a removal request. If this is the wrong forum, let me know. -- Netoholic @ 22:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: Please request at WP:AN/I per Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission removed, as using a script to bulk-replace to a preferred style is an absolutely clear-cut breach of WP:AWBRULES. This is a removal without prejudice; AlexTheWhovian can reapply at WP:PERM in the usual way provided they can convince an admin that they'll abide from the rules from now on, and any admin accepting a request for the re-granting of permissions doesn't need to notify or consult with me. ‑ Iridescent 23:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even I don't support removing Alex's AWB rights based on this. Yes – I don't agree with his (or some in WP:TV's) interpretation of MOS:US. And, yes, I don't think he should have mass changed to "US" over "U.S." at all of these articles. But this was a "good faith" action in this case. Let's just agree that those of us editors who don't agree with this can revert "at will" at articles where "U.S." have been used for a long time, as per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:US, and leave it at that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Except that his attitude regarding this matter, to put it mildly, is "too bad, so sad" about those who weren't made aware of the discussion. A small circle of editors who spend a lot to time at a project page does not equal community consensus. Do an RfC ... notify as many editors who edit TV articles as possible ... and then reach a decision. He shouldn't have taken it upon himself to change every instance of U.S. to US with an AWB. (We may all have dreams of power and influence, but that's not the fuel that runs Wikipedia's engine.) Pyxis Solitary 00:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I, too, support the removal of this permission. Alex's attitude is "I'm right, I'm the boss" and everyone else is expected to accept that. His WP:OWN issues and his failures to collaborate (and corresponding seeing himself without blame) are getting worse and worse all the time. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 01:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I support the removal. Alex's edits on Wikipedia lately has been very self-centered and his ownership of Television-related articles is very apparent. MOS:US should not be used in American English articles. Alex didn't gain consensus prior to making them changes and because of that, he should be stripped of his privileges regarding AWB Access. I agree with @Drmargi: that Alex's self-absorbed behavior is getting worse and worse all the time. Alex's autocratic style of editing has to stop. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: There was a discussion here, though it's one of those things that needed more editors than that for such a controversial change. I participated in it myself, though my vote was meant to be more of a neutral one. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just throwing in my opinion on this, it's entirely true that Alex does have an attitude problem; I've commented on it many times and Alex has even accused me in the past of opposing everything he does which isn't true but I could see how he thinks that way. He often has conflicts with one editor and I've threatened to come here seeking an IBAN because of it. However, Alex's edits here were good faith. He opened a discussion at WT:TV#MOS:US 25 days ago. It's not as if he just dived straight in and started modifying articles willy nilly. Over the next 6 days 8 editors commented, which is actually pretty good at WT:TV. After that the discussion slowed. So, was it poorly attended? I'd say no based on other WT:TV discussions. It's interesting to note that a couple of people who've posted here, including the person who opened this discussion, have participated in discussions at WT:TV and are pretty vocal themselves, yet didn't bother to participate in the WT:TV discussion until changes had been made. Alex was merely attempting consistency suggested by MOS:US across the TV project - that consistency was supported by other editors so it seems unfair to remove his AWB access simply because he made some good faith edits based on a nearly 4-week-old discussion that seemed to favour his edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no doubt he was acting in good faith, but, as has been established by numerous precedents (some of which have gone all the way to Arbcom), good faith isn't enough when it comes to running scripts to make bulk changes. The wording "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. is in the AWB terms of use for a reason. Even using a script to make bulk changes to bring articles into compliance with the MOS is controversial and strongly advised against; using a script to make bulk changes that aren't recommended by the MOS was never going to be uncontroversial. Per my initial comment I have absolutely no issue with anyone restoring the permission if they feel this was a one-off blip that isn't going to be repeated, or that the removal was enough of a wake-up call that this is unlikely to happen again. ‑ Iridescent 07:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely appropriate. This is the only way to handle people who semi-automatically impose their will on everyone: you've demonstrated that you will not follow the AWB rules, and you should only be able to use it in the future if your assurance of complying with those rules is accepted by other(s) through established processes. Nyttend (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I accept that this AWB rights removal is inevitable. I'm a bit concerned though by people reacting here who don't seem familiar with MOS:US. Could you please, please just take a few minutes to actually read the guideline that is the focus of this dispute before commenting on it? --John (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• ​Astonishing as it may be, I'm familiar with both the wording of the MOS, the discussions that led to that wording, and the wiki-wide meta-discussions about when the MOS should be enforced and when it should be treated as a set of suggestions. Whether or not ATW was acting in compliance with the MOS (he wasn't) is almost irrelevant; we strip AWB access for people who use it to enforce the MOS just as readily if those edits could be considered controversial (and that's a principle that was upheld twice by Arbcom, most recently just a couple of months ago). Where editors have made a number of similar edits in a short time space and other editors have raised concerns about those edits, the editor is to stop making the edits and engage in discussion is currently an Arbitration Enforcement-able arbcom ruling. ‑ Iridescent 13:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems you ignored my reply about objections and finishing/ceasing the edits. -- Alex^TW 13:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Kangaroo Court. No one has allowed Alexthewhovian the chance to defend himself or justify his actions on this topic before taking action. Does Wikipedia not have due process? I'd imagine a lot of these editors quick to jump in have had personal issues with him and aren't exactly speaking from a fair and rational place. Just my 2 cents. Esuka323 (talk) 12:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
  • A) Tools removed can be reinstated if there was a mistake, so it's not a big deal. B) No, there is no "due process" as Wikipedia is not a court of law. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

But it acts like one with its own rules and policies when it needs too right? Alex should have been given the opportunity to explain himself here before any action was taken. What happened to impartiality? No one has proven that he has acted in bad faith and abused the rights given to him, so why was action taken so quickly? He should have his rights restored and a note left on his page to say if he makes the same mistake again he'll lose them. Esuka323 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a privately-owned website, not a court of law; we don't do 'impartiality', we don't do 'due process', and editors have no 'rights' other than the right to vanish and the right to fork. We do what's best for the project; if someone is causing problems, we do what's necessary to stop those problems. Incidentally, if you're going to throw around allegations that I'm acting out of some personal animosity, you probably want to provide some evidence for that rather than just fling mud to see if it sticks; since the editor in question have never interacted in any way and as far as I can tell have no interests in common, I suspect you'll find locating such evidence somewhat difficult. ‑ Iridescent 13:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Finally, a chance to defend myself, apologies for the absence. Thank you, Esuka. I've had all day to think about this; great way to start my holidays. I know very well I'm not the easiest editor to get along with, but this has blown well and truly out of hand, what was a good-faith contribution that I did not believe would be controversial.

There was most certainly consensus, as the majority of editors participating in the discussion agreed, and there was no further disagreement. CONSENSUS has no member minimum, CONSENSUS has no time minimum. Would an RFC be preferred? Possibly. Required? No. No further objections were raised in the discussion, no further objections were raised in the revival of the discussion, no further objections were raised in my post about using AWB, no further objections were raised while I was executing the changes. I could have kept posting "Any objections?" multiple times, and it would have made no change. There is no minimum member limit required to make a change and determine a consensus. Clearly the most active members of the Television WikiProject would contribute - that is the basis of basically every WikiProject, the most active are the ones to comment most. I definitely did not hide the discussion; I linked it in every change.

Around the time of this report, I had only had one revert in ~2700 edits. One. The editors who had an issue with the discussion (bar Drmargi and The Optimistic One, reasons explained below) did not participate in the discussion, despite contributing to WT:TV before and during, so I am lead to believe that they deliberately waited to report me, disagreeing with my proposal but deliberately not responding. As Aussie stated, several of them were active on the page - why not contribute to the discussion? Any particular reason?

If this report does not go any further, I will most certainly be filing a report against Iridescent for the harsh and unexplained removal of the permission, and their inability to administrate, without even offering me a chance to revert the edits, which could have easily been done. (As for Drmargi, she appears to oppose me at Wayward Pines, she appears to oppose me at Doctor Who, she appears to oppose me here, so I really think our little lady here is my truest bloodhound, and for The Optimistic One, he is mad that I caught him out for copying my user page content and layout. But this is neither the time or place for that; I just know why they are here.) Back to the topic at hand. -- Alex^TW 13:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleted HW page

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

---

Can someone help me and get a page that was deleted. It was a homework assignment that is due in 2 hours — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsulce (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock for North Carolina LTA

For four years someone from North Carolina has been genre-warring in music articles, and adding lots of unreferenced, unsupportable "influences".[15] I have been documenting the history of this long-term disruption at User:Binksternet/Goldsboro. The person was using the range 2606:A000:8C06:AA00:0:0:0:0/64 for the past 20 months, but now they have shifted to the range 2600:1004:B039:E861:0:0:0:0/64. Can we get a rangeblock on the latter?

Examples of past disruption include adding unreferenced influences[16][17][18] and genre warring.[19][20][21] The genre warring was the earliest stuff, the unsupported "influences" is the more recent stuff. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by 101.178.163.208

101.178.163.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) While this IP usually makes good edits, the anon is often unwilling to discuss and reverts first without starting a discussion. A number of edit warring notices have been posted on their talk page. IP has been blocked four times in the last 13 months.

• Edit warring notices
  • 1 2018-05-29, 11:40 (UTC) TU-nor Revert war
  • 2 2018-06-18, 07:15 (UTC) TU-nor Again: Self destruction?
  • 3 2018-06-21, 08:28 (UTC) Jim1138 Edit warring notice: Red Sea
  • 4 2018-05-28, 05:32 (UTC) Meters Warning: Edit warring on Megan.
  • 5 2018-05-03, 02:16 (UTC) Zchrykng Warning: Edit warring on Louvre Abu Dhabi
  • 6 2018-05-03T02:32 (UTC) Zchrykng Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion

• Bordello of Blood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • 3 2018-07-02, 01:30 (UTC) rv of Abelmoschus Esculentus Discussion not necessary on this one. Anyway reduces the number of words in Plot.
  • 2 2018-07-01, 03:29 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 what is so disruptive??? If any thing it reduces the number of words!!
  • 1 2018-07-01, 03:27 (UTC) original edit, no ES

• Red Sea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - IP has added content regarding Moses "parting the Red Sea" with poor sources
  • 5 2018-07-01, 02:53 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 New source
    • Talk:Red Sea 2018-06-28, 08:19 (UTC) Talk:Red Sea discussion started
  • 4 2018-06-28, 07:40 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 That is why i said 'apparently'.. means its not certain.
  • 3 2018-06-26, 07:53 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 New reference and change wording.
  • 2 2018-06-18, 06:16 (UTC) rv of Jim1138 No ES
  • 1 2018-06-18, 06:12 (UTC) original edits, no ES

• Unsourced content
  • Sarawak Malay 2018-06-28, 09:17 (UTC)
  • Prince Alfred College 2018-07-02, 03:10 (UTC) added Lyell McEwin as alumni, but only scholarship mentioned in article.
    

Jim1138 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Also, please note the relatively large number of the anon's edits flagged with (tag: undo) Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I was curious about the Bordello of Blood edits because that's something I recently edited. There's obvious edit warring going on there, but it seems to be over something really trivial. You could report to WP:ANEW if there's a 3RR violation, but I'd personally just let it go. Didn't look at the other stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor is reverting my edits and attacking me on multiple articles

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

---

The user Oleotusks has been reverting my edits on multiple articles and implying that I am incompetent and disruptive. The biggest problem is that some of the edit summaries appear to be outright personal attacks against me. It is worrying me a little bit. What do I do? I'm a bit new here and I understand that I may make mistakes, but the way the edit summaries are worded seems quite offensive to me. Here's a link to the user contributions of this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oleotusks I am providing this link because it is the easiest way to show all of the problematic edit summaries. Diamond Blizzard (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Blocked under WP:NOTHERE. They were also obviously socking as LWharpoon. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Diamond Blizzard (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

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

RevDel and block requested

User offering illegal goods here. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Review by another admin requested; something I haven't done before. - Donald Albury 12:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed your actions and endorse the actions taken. --John (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Same. Fish+Karate 13:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Somebody please block Favonian

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

---

He's just added the following to our article 1664:

• April 14–15 – Sinking of the SS 1664: SS 1664 strikes an iceberg in the North Atlantic Ocean and sinks with a loss of 10 lives. The wreck will not be discovered until 2017.

References

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

If it's not vandalism what is it? 2A00:23C4:5D1F:9500:903B:C7D0:1366:E608 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It is non-existent, you are making it up. No such edit took place. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC

Good grief yes. Look at the penultimate edit in the revision history made by ... "Favonian". 2A00:23C4:5D1F:9500:903B:C7D0:1366:E608 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Page moves out of process

Good afternoon. Earlier today, I placed this request at WP:RM/TR. User:Anthony Appleyard kindly approved it and completed the move. Later, the move was disputed by User:Krakkos who also disgrees with this CFD proposal, which is relevant to the article move. Krakkos wrote to Anthony Appleyard here, objecting to his decision, and also wrote to User:Florian Blaschke, from whom he seems to be canvassing for support as well as implying that I (the certain user) am incompetent.

Without going through any formal procedure such as WP:RM/TR or seeking any approval, Krakkos has now reverted the page move from Ancient peoples of Anatolia back to Anatolian peoples. Please see this re talk page and this re article.

As this is ongoing, could someone please investigate? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I have informed User:Krakkos of this WP:ANI topic and asked him to contribute. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

This would seem to be a content dispute at present, not a behavioural one. The request was listed under "noncontroversial move requests" and since another editor disagrees with the move, it is by definition "controversial" as that nomenclature is used on this project. RM/TR serves as facilitation of moves--someone answering your request does not constitute consensus or a rubber stamp of your perspective that the move is warranted and the correct editorial decision, particularly if it is listed as uncontroversial when you make the request. Under these circumstances, Karkkos is within the remit of WP:BRD to challenge and revert the move (though if I had been in his shoes I would have started a discussion first instead of leading with a revert). Your next step should the talk page to discuss the matter and see if you can arrive at an agreement (with any other involved editors) as to how to proceed. If you cannot, you might consider using WP:Third opinion or WP:RfC to resolve the matter. Best of luck. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)