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

Knights of Columbus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:OWN - proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Alexbrn, you're welcome to try but current experience indicates that Slugger will revert. Guy (help!) 23:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: SPA and OWN, here's another bizarre thread: [4]. Is all this OK with the community, or can some resolution be found? SPECIFICO talk 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Editor incommunicado (for 7 years)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess if you say it is sourced, but Joloimpat himself did not actually add a source, which is something I have never seen him to do. Elizium23 (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Three more objectionable edits: 1, 2, 3. How much longer do I put up with this before just going back to WP:AIV where he was blocked in the first place? Elizium23 (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:ThosLop

ThosLop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to add external links to local fire departments on several US city articles, for example [5]. I have left four warning on their talk page, referring this editor to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:LINKFARM, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#External links, "Providing links to every commercial, educational, or other entity within the city is not appropriate for this section". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Magnolia, I concur with your assessment. ThosLop is editing outside of our MOS standards and US city guidelines. I've left a message on their talk page to this effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Despite comments on his talk page asking him to stop and despite this thread here on AN/I, @ThosLop: is continuing this behavior [6]. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard jumped the gun by moving page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I believe, as I said above, the move should be reverted, you don't seem to be helping much. In fact, you seem to be successfully reminding us all why we never want to touch UFC articles with a 100 metre barge pole. First with the silly accusations of admin abuse without evidence. Then with silly comments like "It would rather be deleted from Wikipedia because it does not exist" when there is a poster in the article which shows that name as well as it being trivial to find stuff which mentions that name e.g. [7]. Or simply the fact that one is the subject's given name and one is their family name. And you also keep bringing up stuff which is clearly against policy like suggesting the UFC website is the be and end all site for title disputes (when it's a primary source!), or implying that one editor is the one who should manage UFC pages. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Article clean up requests

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

Extended content

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

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

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

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

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

A threatened flounce is a fairly common reaction but as before JISF is back after a short while. Since my last interaction with him regarding the existence of a village and on this issue there has been discussion at his talk page which he seems to have taken to heart so at the moment I don't think any action is required. Nthep (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Andy Dingley

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

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

- After I politely ask Dingley to remove the comment and focus on content, not contributors, he accuses me of disruptive editing and again mentions ANI. Within minutes, two more comments appear at AfD [9][10] that focus entirely on my actions and fail to assume good faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Just before the AFD you removed the entire article other than one sentence. [11] then nominated it for deletion, even taking off the categories. You previously removed a chunk of it after everyone else said KEEP the first time you sent it to AFD. Anyway, deleting an article is done by AFD not you just erasing 99% of it. Dream Focus 10:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

This isn't just one AfD - look at [12] Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There was nothing wrong with this edit, of course: the content was trash, and it was rightly removed. That the next step was AfD is also correct. I do not agree that Andy Dingley's following comments were personal attacks--"sheer bad-faith attempt to stack an AfD" isn't much of a personal attack. It's a complete exaggeration, of course, and a meager attempt to save...a carcass? but bringing that here, meh. No one is going to block over it, and that AfD should just languish on the shore line until someone closes it. We could close it per SNOW, of course, but who wants to be yelled at? Drmies (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sphilbrick

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd like to add a couple small points:

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

Siddharth Shukla

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert of page move needed by an admin

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

---

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

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

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

Quick revdel needed

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

---

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

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

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

Disruptive edits by Ylevental probably NOTHERE

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

---

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

I have raised this issue before inTalk:Media bias against Bernie Sanders. This editor is definitely not here to build an encyclopedia. Instead, he thinks this is some sort of social network site for trolling. The editor is not interested in working with other editors at all. 1- Minutes after the AfD was closed of Media bias against Bernie Sanders, he went and nominated again[13]. It was then speedy kept. He wasted a second nomination because he wanted to troll (and I will present more evidences for this). 2-After I started a RM discussion he went and made a new RM discussion which I deleted because we cant have two RM discussions and I also added his RM term in the options so he can be happy. 3-Despite the ongoing RM, today he created an article[14] which he copied the content of Media bias against Bernie Sanders to Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders (without even attribution) and went to the talk page said this Special:Diff/930027343: "Media bias in favor of Bernie Sanders Enjoy."--SharabSalam (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IamMattDavies

I'm having difficulty getting a conversation going with IamMattDavies (talk · contribs) [15] and it seems I'm not the only one ([16], [17], [18]). Can anyone else have a word? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editor being abusive for those who question neutrality of Vivek Agnihotri

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

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

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

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

Why do you think that nobody has even bothered to entertain your multiple threads at BLPN or the two on the article t/p or the one on the project t/p or the one unfurling over here? See WP:1AM.∯WBG^converse 08:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive and bad-faith WP:POINT edits

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

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

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

Hahaha did TenPoundHammer really add this content[19] to a GA you had worked on and then nominate it to be delisted as a GA? Diabolical, if true. Cjhard (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

All he did was add maintenance tags.[20] Cjhard (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Also looking more carefully at some of the removals, and the edit summary, I can understand why there were concerns. For example with this edit [21], you said "remove unsourced bullshit". Yet "A main street in Erick, Oklahoma, was named Roger Miller Boulevard in his memory" and "He was posthumously inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 1995" are the sort of stuff which would likely belong in a comprehensive article. The fact it's unsourced is not good, still just reading these and it sounds like the sort of thing which should be easy to source so removing it is probably not the best solution. You may next point out the info is already in the article, in a better location and sourced and you'll be right. But why then didn't you say this when removing the content? I don't see how anyone reading your edit summary is supposed to know this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• @Nil Einne: See here where LF has the audacity to call me "mentally impaired". If that's not an WP:NPA I don't know what is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@TenPoundHammer: Well at a minimum it's uncivil language and I would suggest Lost Fugitive stop if they don't want to get themselves block. OTOH, you twice reinstated a change based on the mistaken believe you were actually undoing what you were re-doing, and then came to ANI to complain about it and when the editor pointed out that they were the one who removed trivia you still insisted you were the one who did so. So some annoyance from the editor is understandable. And User:Lost Fugitive, before you get so high and mighty about TenPoundHammer's mistake, remember what I said above. You came to ANI and falsely accused them of adding the trivia in the first place and before that withdrew a 2011 barnstar and got into a dumb argument about fraud. So I'd again suggest you both just drop this and work on improving the article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Rangeblock for spam IP

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

Extended content

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

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

Thanks, will do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Hounding

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

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

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

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

It doesn't matter. That's not what the article's talk page is for, at all. If an editor bothers you to this extent, don't engage with them, or report them if they warrant it. Also, have you ever tried to engage with Saff without attacking them? I note that, in the lede discussion, where Saff attempts to talk about a content matter with you[22] and you immediately respond with personal attacks[23], it's actually resolved by the first person who properly engaged with Saff's arguments[24]. Saff doesn't wholly agree, but drops the matter.[25]. There are many difficult editors on Wikipedia. You can either deal with them, or don't, but never this. Cjhard (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, that I can agree with. Sure there is much more to it than just that, but you're right regardless. (Also, he never dropped the matter, instead he tried to discredit the other user who disagreed with him [26]). HistoryofIran (talk)

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

Are you alright pal? [27] You're trying so hard to get me penalized (out of nothing) and yet you've just pinged me in the very article you've talked about here? (Just noticed this is not the first time you've pinged me in specifically that article) Thought I was hounding you there? Which one is it? HistoryofIran (talk)

H-Town

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusations of hounding and bad faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Havsjö

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Khirurg edits on Turkey and Demography of Turkey

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

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

@Kansas Bear: You should really check out #Talkpage bullying. I guess this came up there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User 130.85.247.90's edits on Kobo, Ethiopia

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

---

130.85.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly removing sourced content from Kobo, Ethiopia [28], [29], [30], with his only defence being his own point of view. Such behaviour breaks Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and must be dealt with. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Fully support this report. And i reported him/her here [31]. Dimitris N.anagnostou (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

User:77.239.73.14 and Rhea Butcher

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

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

24.73.235.150

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

---

• ‎24.73.235.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Can an administrator please consider blocking this IP for personal attacks? See [32] and [33]. See also the IP's block log. The IP was blocked for similar reasons last year and judging by the edits since then, it appears to be the same person; the address seems to be pretty static. Thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Dilidor Disruptive / Uncivil conduct towards other editors

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

The example of their behavior towards me are:

1. Start of discussion [34]
2. Continuation of discussion: [35], [36], [37]

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

The times when Dilidor does engage in discussion with others, it is often confrontational or hostile and contains insults. I believe this is intentional for the purpose of driving others away from the discussion. Even if it is not intentional it has had that impact. In addition to my current situation, Oldperson is a recent example [38], [39].

I have made a good faith through my talk page to involve others in the discussion to resolve the issue before coming here. [40]

I think the above discussion on my talk page has valuable information from other editors and admins regarding this matter. In the course of this discussion, it has become apparent to me that other editors and administrators have had the same problems with Dilidor and they seems unwilling to stop/change even when warned by admins (such as Cúchullain [41], [42], Favonian [43], and RexxS [44], [45]). I think the content on User talk:Dilidor page such as [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], and their history in WP:ANI such as [56] and [57],demonstrate this pattern of unacceptable conduct and disruptive editing.

I've chosen to disengage from Dilidor and not discuss the other reverts he made without discussion to my edits (reverts to [58] [59] which I think are examples of his being intentionally disruptive or reverting recklessly). Because our interests overlap and Dilidor’s history I believe this will repeat if not addressed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've interacted with Dilidor and he certainly has a recurring problem with incivility and edit warring, as well as ignoring consensus, eg here and here. He's been warned about this various times by various editors and admins, but he falls back on the same behaviors time and again. He certainly deserves admonishment as it's high time he shaped up - or else found another hobby.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor persistently, and sometimes disingenuously, removed parenthetical commas per MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA at Plymouth Rock; see discussion here [60]. A few weeks later, the same thing over at American Revolution and American Revolutionary War; discussed here [61]. I expect to find myself having the same argument with Dilidor again, at some other page. I have not been very friendly with Dilidor, I suppose, but I think it's fair to say I have been patient. Regulov (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being late here. Dealing with a broken leg yesterday p.m. and today. Been away from the Internet.

I have found Dilidor to be immediately abusive, arrogant, disingenuous, and even outright dishonest. I have provided links to corroboration for all of this here, and made previous appeals for administrator intervention to put a stop to it both there and at TimothyBlue’s talk page.

Being peremptorily aggressive and reflexively dismissive is his standard MO, as other users have given multiple examples of here and at TimothyBlue’s talk page. An example of his being disingenuous is his repeatedly accusing me of, for example calling him a “jerk“ at the TimothyBlue talk page discussion, when that was clearly a paraphrase used in context to characterize the consensus held by the group.

Here is the passage at issue:

What is the point of these good faith efforts by User:TimothyBlue if he is going to be ignored by administrators and just told by other editors, “Sure, Dilidor’s a jerk, and absolutely knows better. Just put up with it and everyone will get along.“ This is going to keep good editors at the encyclopedia? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

An example of his outright dishonesty is at the above cited link at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, where he attempted to pretend he had not twice been previously been cited for edit warring at that page on his own talk page (here and here) by me regarding his peremptory, uncivil, and disruptive behavior there. Then tried to play the victim at the Pilgrims (Plymouth Colony) talk page, and act as though I had all along refused his entreaties to meet in there on neutral ground. All of which is transparent nonsense, and easily exposed as such.

Enough is enough. User Dilidor has behaved this way chronically towards both new and clearly conscientious users, and veteran users with hundreds of thousands of total edits over decades of work here in aggregate at this encyclopedia. He needs to be sorted out. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ip user 180.149.241.192 appears to be doing unexplained blanking

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

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

IP-hopping block evasion

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

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

Interesting essay, and thanks for the quick response. Meters (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage bullying

Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) has been engaging in some disturbing behavior at Talk:Aegean dispute of late. Specifically, he made the demand that SilentResident (talk · contribs) not edit her own posts to the talkpage I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row. SilentResident has a disability (OCD, which she reveals on her userpage, and is furthermore not a native speaker of English, so she has to edit talkpage posts to fix grammatical and spelling mistakes that make her look incompetent. Future Perfect has been interacting with SilentResident for quite some time now and surely knows this (he uses the word "obsessive" repeatedly). Incredibly, Future Perfect carries out his threat and actually reverts one of SilentResident's talkpage posts, in the process reinstating grammatical errors, spelling mistakes, and typos, with a condescending edit-summary on top of that [62]. This alone constitutes bullying. When SilentResident seeks advice from another administrator [63], Future Perfect escalates further by throwing the standard Balkan topics DS warning template at her [64]. In 12 years of editing wikipedia, I have seen bullying and absurd demands, but I have never seen something like this, from an administrator no less. The demand that SilentResident not correct her own posts to a talkpage is simply ludicrous. There is nothing in WP:TALK that limits users to how many talkpage edits they can make. None of SilentResidents copyedits to her talkpage posts (the so-called "obsessive fiddling" so contemptuously described by Future Perfect) occur after Future Perfect has responded, thus they are in line with WP:REDACT. Furthermore, Future Perfect's behavior is clearly in breach of WP:TPO. Future Perfect's tone is moreover consistently condescending and derogatory, his posts and edit summaries laced throughout with hostility and derision. This user has a history of incivil, abrasive behavior and has to my knowledge been desysopped at least once, and warned several times, for precisely such behavior. This is textbook bullying and needs to stop. And then, we beat ourselves over the head and deplore the fact that we don't have enough female wikipedians. Khirurg (talk) 06:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

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

BTW, Khirug, you forgot to notify SR of this thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tough. If you are unable to deal with it, go edit another article. The Wiki software is not the most accessible in the first place. If you continue to bully a disabled person like this I will just go straight to the WMF with a complaint you are engaging in disability discrimination. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with OID, dealing with harmless habits that you find annoying is part of working in Wikipedia's editing environment. Your watchlist has an option to hide all but the latest revision if you really can't handle seeing multiple entries for the same talk page (which in this case is nothing compared to some of the heated debates I've seen). –dlthewave ☎ 17:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have in the past advised @SilentResident: to write her comments in a Word document, correct any mistake and make any other modification she thinks necessary, and when sure nothing else should be modified, post it on Wikipedia. While discussing with SilentResident in the past, it happened in some cases that I could not post my responses because of edit conflicts caused by her continuous modification of comments. It is, frankly, annoying and makes the discussion difficult. If SilentResident uses Word or Notepad or another similar software, and the editors around are patient, all of the problem can easily be solved. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment People, I am very sorry my disorder is causing all this :( It is not my intention to annoy others. I am really really sorry. Yes, it is two editors who were kind enough to advice me through my issue: Tu-Nor and Ktrimi, for which I am grateful. As you probably noticed, my constant editing is limited (almost successfully overcomen) on main Articles thanks to their advices (what I do is first edit in Microsoft Word, then put it to Google Translator (english), then re-edit it back in Word, and then copy-paste it to Web Browser for use on the main Article), while I am more direct in Talk Pages due to them being a place for discussions. Again very sorry :(

Edit: I am abit confused, my Wikipedia's Notification Bell icon tells me there is someone with the IP address 86.146.197.61 who participated in this discussion and they mentioned my name repeatedly [65] Apparently they got reverted as I don't see their messages anymore, but I can't access their diffs in the History Log either. Why are their diffs unaccessible in History? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

SilentResident, the edits in question have been revision deleted by an admin. This means they were considered offensive or abusive, most likely. I saw the edits before they were reverted, and it was largely a personal attack on Future Perfect At Sunrise Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it was WP:LTA/VXFC, who takes every available to do so. ——SN54129 13:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the problem is. Is Future Perfect at Sunrise getting frustrated by repeated edit conflicts on talk pages after SilentResident has done some copyediting? That's about the best explanation I can think of. Would they have also complained about the large number of edits I make when adding content gradually to an article (to avoid losing it accidentally in one hit) and then fixing mistakes / typos in it (example here)? In any case, "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row." is not policy; indeed, we have a policy explicitly contradicting it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Nothing wrong with making a single edit...[66], [67], [68]...particularly [69] while up for deletion at the time...  :) ——SN54129 14:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While I understand the issue with someone refactoring comments frequently and creating edit conflicts to people trying to response, it’s important to remember that Wikipedia is not urgent. You don’t need to respond the very second that someone says something on a talk page — if you take a few minutes or even an hour or so to respond, that cuts down on the potential for edit conflicts. Talk pages don’t have to be treated like phone calls or instant messaging apps where you have to respond in real time. The user’s desire to update and refactor her messages should not be a problem if people would just be more patient and less amped up in discussions per WP:COOL. That’s something I myself struggle with so I’m sympathetic but the bullying behavior on the talk page is completely inappropriate and should stop. Michepman (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I understand what the problem is. The problem is the nightmare of every editor on Wikipedia. Imagine someone who reverts your talkpage post removing added thoughts and restoring typos and grammatical mistakes which you tried to remove so that you could communicate more effectively on Wikipedia and, at the same time, look more professional and organised. Also imagine that someone also told you: I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row. while also obliquely referring to your OCD: I warned you before: stop your obsessive fiddling with your own postings.. Also imagine the bullying remarks were added at the edit-summary, so that the bullying gets permanently etched at the talkpage history of the article and cannot be removed. For any other normal editor that I can imagine, such blatant bullying of a disadvantaged female editor would constitute a blockable offence. Now imagine that the bully is also an admin, who, despite being involved with you in the discussion, immediately after the bullying, comes and templates you on ARBMAC at your talkpage. Also imagine that, in addition to every injury and insult I enumerated above, you are a timid female with OCD on the receiving end of this bullying. Dr. K. 15:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The bullying continues. A few days ago I added a map to Turkey [70]. Today Future Perfect reverted it [71] on the grounds that the caption is WP:SYNTH. He could have edited the caption, but chose to remove the map wholesale. Speaks for itself. Khirurg (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note the difference between bullying and a content dispute and be careful not to conflate the one with the other; one of them is far more serious than the other. ——SN54129 15:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not bullying. Fish+Karate 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is clearly retaliatory [72]. I added the map days ago but he reverted it only after I reported him. Khirurg (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I happened to look at your contribs history after I saw your posting here. I do look at contribs histories from time to time. There's a reason they exist, you know? I wasn't too suprised I found you editing disruptively once again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit. You have the article watchlisted. Khirurg (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do I? You must know more about my watchlist than I do. No, I happened to see your lastest article edit in your history while I was looking it up to check whether you notified SR, which you hadn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah whatever. It's a high visibility article you've edited before. Clearly retaliatory. Khirurg (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I cant give the sufficient time to this discussion rn. But one question. @Khirurg, some days ago, minutes after an editor filed a report on you, you rv one of his edits made somewhere else [73].Was your action too "retaliatory"? Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider Anadolu News Agency to be a reliable source? I wasn't aware he had added btw, the article has had hundred of edits in the last few days. Khirurg (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [74], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts. The other user opposed the caption, which has since been amended, not the addition of the map. And I did not rv "several times". Now stop disrupting this thread with irrelevant stuff. Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note Khirurg added a map to Turkey some days ago, but that addition has been opposed by more than one editor. Instead of discussing on the talk page, Khirurg is reverting and reverting, and making such edit summaries as you could have just edited the caption; classic case of retaliatory behavior, WP:HOUND) [75]. I would advise editors involved calm down, apply good faith and reflect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Check your facts and stop making false statements. No other users opposed the map, and I opened a talkpage thread. Or are you considering Anadolu News Agency a reliable source. Khirurg (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I do not know what dispute are you talking about, but everyone should be aware that Anadolu sources need to be removed. They used to meet some WP:RS criteria in the past, but not anymore due to the media situation in Turkey. In case someone has doubts, they better take the matter to WP:RSN. Now lets stick to the subject pls. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg, your addition to Turkey was opposed by another editor too who rv you twice. Their concern was [76], but you kept rv. You made a comment on the talk page just minutes ago, after rv several times to push your addition that till now has no consensus. If you want to respect Wiki's rules, why do not you self-revert and wait for discussion on the talk page? Re Anadolu, I have never used it, and its topics are not part of my interests. My whole point was that you cant accuse other editors of "retaliatory" edits with no good basis in the middle of a dispute. This discussion was on another issue, do not redirect it to claims on "retaliatory" edits etc. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Why are you posting this here twice? Khirurg (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. I remember this clearly, and I would like to remind them to do the same here. I thought this discussion was about editing talk page comments? No? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As for SR editing comments, oddly enough I totally agree with Khirurg -- she has the absolute right to as long as semantics aren't changed after someone has replied (if so, strike deletion and underline insertions or say "EDIT"). I often have to fix my own posts, maybe I should be using nano or vim or Microsoft Office if it would ever load on my laptoposaurus, but ain't nobody got time for that shite, it's post and go before "oops, I made a typo". But to resolve that issue, this conversation should have stayed between the two parties involved. What is Khirurg doing then? Can I really believe he is that passionate about ensuring civility? Witness Exhibit B, one of the diplomatic masterpieces by Khirurg where he uses WP:CIR as a mace to bludgeon perfectly competent colleagues (the linked case is an unrelated Cyprus with Cinadon, another Greek editor). Khirurg as the defender of civility, I can't even fit that pill in my throat. Future Perfect at Sunrise, yeah, in my personal experience, patience with SR is worth it in the long run, but really, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to this headache.--Calthinus (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You are comparing apples to oranges. A CIR reference from another conversation is not equivalent in any way with the bullying Silent Resident endured. As far as calling Fut. Perf's brazen admin bullying of a disadvantaged female editor a "headache", I think you need sensitivity training. Dr. K. 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Or, maybe it's because I probably have nothing to be thankful for in life anyways. Yeah, don't buy it. If the issue is SR editing her posts and FPAS not liking that... that is between them; SR is a capable adult, what, do you think she is some frail princess needing rescue? Coming from someone also on the receiving end of Khirurg's behavior, yes, it's a headache.--Calthinus (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Well look who showed up to derail the thread. It's guy who said | Really, if there's one thing that's clear here, it is the Greek ingenuity in inventing concepts whose utility in timeless, in this case exemplified by the Greek invented concept of hypocrisy. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, like the right triangle, another useful and timeless concept, and formal debate, drama, hypothesis testing... Anyone who wants a lesson in Khirurgian diplomacy could perhaps consult [[77]] this treasure trove of a discussion where we do discuss that retort by me which, yes, came after over a year of frustration with Khirurg, the one person on Wikipedia I get along the absolute least with. That is why I am saying this should be between FPAS and SR. I respect both, and think they can better learn to get along as two adults.--Calthinus (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious you have a beef with Khirurg. But this thread is about bullying, not Khirurg. When bullying happens, we have a responsibility, as a community, to address it. Proposing that the bully and the victim talk it out actually validates the bullying because it tries to make it an issue between the perpetrator and the victim. This is not how this works. Vulnerable people, people with disabilities, must be supported by the community if it is to become thriving and healthy. Otherwise others will come and do it for us. Khirurg actually did this community a favour by bringing this sad incident to our attention. Dr. K. 19:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

While SR may (or may not) appreciate him starting this thread, did he even ask her consent? If the motive is to help her, perhaps one should have asked. Actually, if someone is self-conscious about the fact that they often feel they need to edit their posts for typos... he just thrust that issue right into the spotlight on the dramaboards where a huge part of the editing community will see it, and that is their first acquaintance with her. There are a multitude of possible venues; ANI is known to be one for disputes where one side seeks sanctions for the other, and it also gets a lot of views; some other venues have neither characteristic. SR did not choose to take it here, Khirurg did, and he is an editor with his own conflicts with FPAS, so yes, I take issue with his behavior here, even if we ignore my own issues with Khirurg, which yes, exist.--19:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calthinus (talk • contribs)

The report was not nade to help SR. It was made to alert the community about petty bullying behaviour by an admin. Base bullying has to be exposed, especially in relations of very unequal power status and involving people with disabilities. Please do not try to belittle this report further. Dr. K. 20:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• SR notes above that some editors here have been participating actively at various ANI reports over the course of time, where, in their heated comments, they urged each other to "stick to the discussion's subject" and avoid derailing it. This is correct. It is also correct that filers at AN/I must, whether they wish or expect it, to have their own bahviour fully investigated. This what Khirurg is expeiencing, unfortunately. In his particular case, I would recommend withdrawing from the discussion at this point, as they seem to be respnoding a trifle emotionally and this could skew their judgement. Basically: Keep Cool, Cooler Minds Prevail. ——SN54129 17:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Looking through the talk page history, this doesn't appear to be a rapidfire back-and-forth discussion, and SilentResident's edits don't appear to be causing edit conflicts, deceiving changes in meaning, mass confusion or any other bona fide problem. The sole issue here seems to be that Future Perfect finds it annoying (due to multiple watchlist entries, I assume) which is not a reason to compel Silent Resident to change her habits. Even if it were causing genuine problems, the correct solution would be to bring it to a noticeboard; policing another editor's talkpage edits, especially when they're not actually breaking any rule except the one that you've made up, is not okay.

Lately it seems that a lot of ANI discussions immediately devolve into who is right and who was wrong while ignoring the actual bullying or personal attacks presented in the initial complaint. It is imperative that Future Perfect's bullying be addressed, since "I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row" is utterly unacceptable and needs to be nipped in the bud immediately. –dlthewave ☎ 17:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This type of bullying has to stop. We also have to demonstrate that we are capable of handling it on Wikipedia by ourselves. Dr. K. 17:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Comment: OK, I found some courage to speak about my problem, so forgive me if it is a lengthy post, this one. I really hope it is understood by everyone that behaviors affected by disabilities and disorders, aren't made on purpose. Who we are born and what disabilities we have in this life, is not something you can go choose/remove/cure on the fly. But you can live with it and try to constraint it for the sake of improving the quality of life. I envy everyone here for not suffering from the same OCD as I do. However that doesn't mean I am not trying my best. Everyone can check my edit history and see that all of my edits are 1) grammar fixes. 2) typo fixes. 3) code fixes. 4) additional thoughts. Edits which I dont feel it is worth a separate timestamp, since my comment is the most recent/latest one in that discussion anyways. For me it is important that my comments are of good quality as to avoid ridiculing myself to the others. (i.e. fix Lame -> Late). My point is, we can't control how we are born, but we can struggle to restrain ourselves but this isn't an easy task, and requires constant effort. However when such effort is made, it takes a good ammount of energy and time, and this is one of the reasons I am not as a big contributor in Wikipedia as the most of you are. My content contributions are far minor and between, compared to yours, and for a reason. The yesterday's incident only causes discomfort and stress, which isn't helpful for my efforts. Because it is an attack which does not take in account the fact that behind every word I type, there is struggle from my part, a struggle which goes unnoticed to the rest of the community, since they can't imagine what is going on between me and my keyboard and how much time it takes. This is why I broke emotionally and went to another administrator yesterday. I know, I am supposed to be strong and not let emotional meltdowns from happening to me but at this moment, just it was too much for me to bear, especially after all these 8-year-long efforts as Wikipedian to improve myself. I really want to speak to all of you, not simply as an editor, but also as a human to human and I really hope that this was the first and last time such a thing ever happens. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

How about this:

• FP@S backs off the decision to revert edits beyond the second one in a row. The world is messy, not every irritation is fixable, and sometimes the solution causes more problems than the problem. There's a spectrum of disruption, and this really isn't that big a deal. It's maybe disruption, but not disruption. An extra helping of flexibility is called for.
• SR either uses the Word document technique they've been using in articles in talk pages as well, or uses preview, in order to cut down on the number of edits. Especially for long posts. They seem to understand that this causes at least some difficulties for others; we need to understand that our general talk page preferences cause difficulties for them. I think this can be solved by everyone being slightly more accommodating.
• Everyone else stops talking about anything in this thread except this one issue. It is not a "FP@S is evil" thread. It isn't a "Solve the content dispute" thread. It isn't a "this side is morally right and this side is morally wrong" thread about the Aegean dispute, Turkish maps, or anything else.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam. What they said above is what I and some others too have said in previous comments. No need for drama. Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly I'd prefer to be able to take Floq's route. OP didn't seem to try addressing this issue with Fut Perf on their talk page first, which might have helped. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect an editor to take a complaint about an admin saying I've told you before that I find your obsessive habit of tinkering and adding to your own postings extremely enervating. If you can't cut down on that, I will adopt a habit of simply reverting every talk page edit of yours beyond the second in a row to that admin's talk page. --valereee (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The way this transpired was indeed unfortunate -- perhaps it would have been better if it was taken to DA rather than ANI, or somewhere else where uninvolved parties could discuss it and hopefully get FPAS to walk back that statement; I am probably worse than her in my retroactive post fixes, actually. But to SR's credit... it wasn't her who chose to take this to ANI. All's well if it ends well, and of course content disagreements will continue, and Wikipedia can be irritating, but maybe the result of this can still be the two getting along at least marginally better, and Floq's proposal is a good means for that.--Calthinus (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any solution that requires a change on SR's part to appease FP's unreasonable demands. This isn't a situation where "each side gives a little" is appropriate, and we shouldn't impose special requirements on an editor just because somebody threw a temper tantrum. –dlthewave ☎ 19:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that since yesterday, SR has managed to get most of their postings written up in as few as two attempts, which I'd say is a big step forward. So she is able to do that with a bit of effort after all. Good for her. Simply asking her to do it wasn't enough apparently, but yesterday's little shot across the bow did the trick. Thanks, one problem solved. Now comes the next and bigger task, of stopping her from posting copyright violations and POV-pushing opinion pieces in article space. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You can't know how much effort it took, nor whether the "cure" was worse than the "disease". Paul August ☎ 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This post above by FPAS is concerning. FPAS's comments were not "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". They were bullying, and abusive, which is serious, and particularly so when it's from an admin, and even more so when the admin fails to show any indication of taking this feedback on board. I hope that changes quickly. – Levivich 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Floq. FPAS needs to lighten up. Paul August ☎ 19:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  Future Perfect, you are in effect saying, "Once I, who am in a position of power, threatened the person and their disability issues were widely publicized, they managed to comply with my demands one day. This means compliance isn't impossible; therefore I'm right and compliance should be expected." That's BS. I have arthritis in both knees. I'm supposed to avoid stairs. If I had to, could I climb 200? Yep. I'd need to ice them both and stay on anti-inflammatories for 24 hours, and I would have a hard time even walking for two days afterward. You are behaving in a way that is counterproductive to collaborative work, and you're doing it from a position of unequal power. Please stop doing that. --valereee (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• Let's look at this revert by Fut. Perf. of SR's edits a bit closer: They reverted the correction "covers" back to the grammatically wrong "cover". The edit changed "due" to "duue", and "developments" to "develeopments", while removing the comment "I do not want to initiate a Move Request before consulting with the editors first and make sure there wont be any problems with that." Restoring the mistakes and removing the clarification of a person with a disability, while gloating that it was a little shot across the bow did the trick, is not simple bullying. It is petty bullying that is fundamentally incompatible with civilised behaviour in a collaborative project. Dr. K. 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• What Floq said. I find that the way forward here is for BOTH sides to desist from accusing the other side of bad acting: FPAS could be a little less forceful about the editing-ones-responses issue; being mildly annoyed by something someone else does does NOT mean the other person is disruptive. SR could also tone down the "I'm being bullied" angle; people expressing annoyance with an annoying thing is not bullying, and it is annoying to have to edit conflict with someone 4-5 times in a row. If FPAS gives some allowance for SR to compose their thoughts, if SR can work on composing their thoughts using a method more forgiving (as in the "offline-copy-and-paste method") and if both sides can stop accusing the other of being evil, I think we can find a way forward that causes less problems for anyone. --Jayron32 20:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• The problem is not that FPaS is expressing annoyance. The problem is that FPaS is threatening to summarily revert SL's talk page edits. Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is a distinctly concerning, if not horrible, statement by FPAS, one that makes me vastly less sympathetic for his viewpoint and my previous comment's AGF. @Leviv: is right that that only one user seems to be taking their feedback on board. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• Does FPaS actually have the policy-based authority to impose such a restriction unilaterally? Lepricavark (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Excellent question. I can't think of a policy basis for his "rule" as a unilateral action, not even if DS authority were available (FP@S has given SR a DS notice recently). It could be imposed as an editing restriction by community consensus, I suppose. I believe that FP@S's rule should be declared void as unsupported by policy and unjustified, and that FP@S should be considered WP:INVOLVED and ineligible to act administratively against SR. I have asked FP@S to comment on this below but he has not posted on WP since and so I await his return. EdChem (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I don't agree with FPAS' way of maneuvering 'bout this part. dispute but the grotesquely poor quality of edits by SL ought be considered as a mitigating factor. ∯WBG^converse 06:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreement with Floquenbeam: I was asked by User:SilentResident to advise on the conflict with FPAS, before this thread was posted. In my opinion, they are both at fault. SilentResident is not being punished for a disability, and that claim is absurd. I advised SR, both on my talk page and on her talk page, to compose her replies in Word or Notepad. I was about to write that I don't know why the copy-editing of posts is annoying FPAS. I can guess that it is, first, because the edit-conflicts make it difficult to reply, and, second, sometimes the copy-editing makes a slight change to the meaning, which interferes further with replying. So either compose in Word or Notepad, or use Preview. Also, SilentResident said that FPAS had a pro-Turkish point of view. I don't know whether that is accurate, but it is insulting to imply that another editor is non-neutral. I don't consider it a personal attack, but I can see that FPAS thinks that it rises to the status of a personal attack. So SilentResident was wrong in alleging a non-neutral POV, and is making replying difficult. and is wrong in arguing that their disability is being used against them. On the other hand, as other editors have said, FPAS is seriously over-reacting to the copy-editing on talk pages. Both editors are out of line.

So I agree with User:Floquenbeam. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have strong reservations about the advice given to SR by Robert McClenon.

- First, on McClenon's talk page: "I don't normally want to get drawn into a dispute between an administrator and a non-administrator." Per WP:INVOLVED: "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." It is absolutely appropriate for other editors to get involved in a situation like this, and reluctance to be "drawn in" essentially allows an admin to abuse their power.

- Second, on SilentResident's talk page: "It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability . . ." Nobody is requesting special treatment here; there's no rule against copyediting one's comments as many times as is necessary, and many editors do it regularly. In fact it appears that attempts are being made to impose special requirements on SR, which no other editors are expected to follow, because of their disability. This holds true even if it is presented as "advice". –dlthewave ☎ 20:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I'm concerned about that, too. It's not 'special treatment' to be asked to accommodate a disability in a way that costs us little; if we want to be inclusive, we should be accommodating them when we can. This seems to be a matter of her re-edits being nothing more than an annoyance requiring other editors to deal with edit conflicts if they're replying quickly. Couldn't FP simply wait a few minutes before replying? --valereee (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • First, I will point out that no editor has an obligation to become involved in any dispute between two other editors. Dumping on an editor who chooses not to become involved in a particular dispute may have the unintended consequence of making editors hesitant to get involved in any dispute. Second, I agree with several other editors that FPAS is simply being wrong-headed in saying that they will revert excessive copy-editing by SR. Just because SR is making it difficult to reply to her posts by continuing to copy-edit them doesn't give FPAS an excuse for making it deliberately more difficult to reply. Third, I think that there is a consensus that FPAS should not revert copy-edits by SR, and if FPAS doesn't agree to stop, I would support a topic-ban, and will remind FPAS that an administrator should have the judgment not to make it necessary to have editing restrictions put on them. Fourth, I still think that SR should provide a more reasonable accommodation for their own disability rather than forcing the community to do so, but that is small compared to the absurdity of FPAS reverting grammar-fixes. So will FPAS agree to stop reverting SR's copy-edits, or will they need to be restricted? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears that you may be demanding special treatment because of a disability Absolutley not. I am sorry if I have given you this impression. I came to you for advice because I was emotionally broken and I am fully aware that when emotions get in the way, mistakes can be made. This is why I came to you. Because I wasn't thinking clearly on what to do but I knew one thing for sure: I wanted to avoid mistakes that could escalate the incident beyond control. And a good way to prevent mistakes is to listen to a third party voice of patience and calm. You are a well-known administrator for being patient, fair and who doesn't hesitate to give an advice to editors in need. Am I wrong? If yes, then all right. My apologies for even coming to you at all. Next time something happens, I will simply leave Wikipedia. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert is not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I had Robert in my list of Admins to seek for help with various matters concerning Wikipedia. In that case, my apologies and thanks for the info. Still Robert has done great work in responding to me in the past, you would hardly notice that he isn't admin if you don't pay attention.

OK listen. I think it is pointless to ask from Future Perfect to lift the 1-edit limit imposed on my comments. He won't do it. But for the sake of Wikipedia's stability, if I have to be the "sheep for sacrifice", then so be it. I believe there are two ways out of this problem: 1) either I fully submit to his grievous demands and never make more than one edits to my comments and use third-party programs for every single one of my posts/replies/comments, or 2) try to avoid using Talk Pages at all, if possible. I know, this sure will seriously hamper my work as Wikipedian and jeopardize my work, but I don't know what else to do. I know however what I don't want to do: I am not here to fight with Future Perfect. Nor my intention is to turn the admins against each other because of my disorder. I hate to see all this happening because of my disorder! My only role in Wikipedia is to contribute to the project without letting my disorder get in the way. (I can't believe I am actually saying this, but looks like there is no other option. Or is there?) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident: There are many other options. First, I want to say that my talk page is always open to you. I consider you a wikifriend, and the thought of you leaving Wikipedia is heartbreaking! Second, you're not alone in struggling with disorders. I suffer from clinical depression and constantly feel worthless even on-wiki.
There are various tactics I personally use to lower my talk page edit count. For example, I'll fix an earlier typo in a response to someone else. If a userscript would be of assistance to you, then we can always work on developing one for you.
Either way, don't get too worked up about this. If my sister ​(a native English speaker) can type comments like this and still be understood, I don't think people are going to judge you too hard for some semi-frequent typos. That goes the other way, too. If you're on an article's talk page and need to make 5 corrections in a row, then will people really care about long term? Ceoil has been known to do it, and he's a highly respected user.
Also, I don't think Fut. Perf. intended to make you feel upset. He seems to have just gotten frustrated in several moments in his interactions with you. Regardless, no one has "turned on" Fut. Perf.; they're just trying to make sure he lightens up more.
Tl;dr: We're all fine, and we all still love each other. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Thank you dear! I appreciate it. Thanks to everyone too! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break - Dec 12

SilentResident, I am upset about the way you have been treated and felt obligated to post to this ANI. I am not an admin and have no more authority than you here on WP, but I want you to know that I believe that there are plenty of Wikipedians (beyond those who have posted here) who look at what FP@S is doing and can see it is both unacceptable / wrong and inconsistent with WP policy. Please be aware that:

• Many editors make edits in series, sometimes to correct typos and grammatical issues, sometimes making incremental changes, sometimes to add new ideas. On both talk pages and articles, these are entirely acceptable. This can lead to inconvenience for others but that is not on its own a reason to issue an ultimatum or try to impose a restriction.
• I recognise that you have tried to reduce series of edits in article space through drafting in word or notepad, etc, which is an inconvenience for you and I would like to register my appreciation for making that effort. Doing so for article space but not talk space is both a concession and a gesture of compromise on your part, one you were under no obligation to make. To me, that shows both your good faith and desire to contribute to WP positively. Others may ask that you extend that practice, but no one can reasonably demand it nor can you be obligated to do so. Floquenbeam, do you agree?
• There are many editors that leave their typos etc in place on talk pages, viewing that they are unimportant and don't reflect on our competence. There are others who feel the reverse and want to make fixes to their talk page posts. Both approaches are entirely reasonable and if you feel the need to make corrections, go for it, in full awareness that you are following policy and that you are not alone in taking your chosen path. I don't think leaving such minor mistakes in talk page posts reflects poorly on you at all, but equally choosing to correct them is perfectly justifiable and reasonable.
• Their are exceptions described at WP:TPG, like making changes that alter the meaning of a post after others have responded – in which case a separate post or a notation of the change is appropriate and a straight modification is not – but I don't see evidence here of edits of yours of that sort. Such edits would justify a warning or ultimately a restriction, however.
• FP@S's edit here that re-adds typos is an unjustified revert under WP:TPO. Describing your posts as "obsessive fiddling" is a clearly inappropriate comment given your disability. His declaration that "I will make it a rule from now on to revert everything you add in more than two edits in a row" is both unjustified by policy and beyond his authority as an administrator. In fact, it is so outrageous that I consider it an attempted misuse of administrative authority that renders him WP:INVOLVED and prohibits his use of any administrative tools against you in the future. FP@S, are you willing to post accepting that you are involved with respect to SilentResident and that you will not take any administrative action against this editor?
• Many editors have disabilities that place them in an (at times misunderstood) minority. WP:NOTTHERAPY suggests that editors may be restricted when their editing interferes with building the encyclopaedia. However, the edits discussed here are not frustrating that goal. They are constructive, not disruptive, and applying your skills at correcting typos and minor grammatical errors in article space would be making helpful and necessary contributions in the style of WP:WikiGnomes.
• In response to your proposal above, I disagree that those are thew only two options available. A far-superior alternative, in my view, would be:
  • FP@S accepts that referring to your condition in the way that he did (possibly inadvertently, WP:AGFing) is inappropriate and offensive and will not be repeated.
  • FP@S accepts that he is INVOLVED with respect to you, admits that his "rule" with respect to your edits has no validity, and declares that he will not act against you in an administrative capacity.
  • You recognise that serial edits can be an irritant and consider when you are about to make one whether the change you wish to make is one you see as necessary. Preparing edits in Word or Notepad, etc, is appreciated when you feel able to do so for larger edits but is not a requirement.
  • You continue editing WP in good faith and continue to ensure your talk page edits follow WP:TPG. Try not to blame yourself for this escalating from the talk page to ANI, it happens regularly that issues are brought here and that is what should happen when a discussion has not resolved an issue. Khirurg acted appropriately in opening this thread and it is in your interests and FP@S's to reach a resolution.
  • Nothing here restricts either you or FP@S in relation to the usual rights and privileges and policy restrictions of editing WP. Any areas of disagreement about article content are unaffected by the resolution of this ANI thread.
• This is not about your disorder, SilentResident, nor are you required to be a "sheep for sacrifice" – and please don't leave Wikipedia. It is about an inappropriate action by FP@S in response to what he sees as an irritation, and one that also arises in many other circumstances. I suspect and hope that FP@S has over-reacted based on other circumstances in his on- or off-wiki life. He can be a hardliner at times, but he is a bright and generally reasonable admin, and I hope he can see that he's gone too far in your case. If not, this thread can consider imposing a restriction on him by community consensus that will override his threatened "rule" on your edits. I hope that will not be necessary. Just as you become obsessive at times, so too do other editors for reasons other than your condition. Sometimes, a reminder or intervention is needed for us to stop / step back and reflect to recognise that we have made a mistake – hopefully that can happen here. EdChem (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @EdChecm: What?! "Referring to [SR's] condition in the way that [I] did"? What on earth are you on about? I never once referred to any condition of hers (other than her general WP:CIR incompetence, which is a different matter). Why would I? I wasn't aware of any "condition" of hers, since she never mentioned one to me I was criticizing and describing, accurately and appropriately, a pattern of disruptive behaviour she was displaying, nothing more. I never cared a bit, nor do I care now, what "condition" that behaviour might be caused by. She has now shown some willingness to curb that disruptive behaviour, so that's fine with me.
  • About being "involved": dude, seriously. Of course I'm involved; how stupid do you think I am? I've had the misfortune of encountering that editor wrecking articles I'm interested in with her single-minded, naively incompetent tendentious editing for years. If I was free to act as an administrator, I would have indef-blocked her years ago, but of course I'm not. Of course she knows that perfectly well.
  • As I said earlier, I'm satisfied she's got the message about trying to curb that talkpage habit, so I won't be repeating those warning-reverts. So, that's settled. Now, when you'all are done cuddling her, you're quite welcome to join me in trying to do something for the quality of the encyclopedia and prevent SilentResident from continuing to post copyright violations and tendentious opinion pieces in article space. Will you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    "CIR" stands for "competency is required", but we also have a rule that "communication is required", which is a part of competency because you can’t competently edit the encyclopedia if you can't competently communicate. "CIR" could also stand for "civility is required", because you can’t communicate competently if you can’t communicate civilly. So I do view an editor who is persistently uncivil as lacking the competency necessary to collaborate on building an encyclopedia, and thus as having a CIR problem. – Levivich 07:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    Her edits have been of consistently poor quality, in a domain where there (as demonstrated) exists extensive scope for POV pushing. Considering that as a mitigating factor, serial edits can indeed be an irritant. Whilst I don't agree with FPAS' behaviour, we need to get away from considering WP to be a tea-party and realise that competency is the most-desired trait when writing in controversial domains. I have seen some of the stuff, that FPAS has been routinely subject to, in his editorial activities and strongly disagree that he is anywhere near persistently uncivil. ∯WBG^converse 08:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    @Winged Blades of Godric: Even though her edits are argueably 'poor quality', it still does not justify FP@S's actions. Even though it is not persistantly uncivil, its still uncivil. I would advise both FP@A and SR to stay away from eachother if they cannot have contructive debate (even if heated) without resorting to incivility and borderline WP:Bullying. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 12:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

    We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves. Even more so female editors with disabilities. And even more so when a recent case when WMF was involved highlighted how female editors are having a hard time within male-dominated Wikipedia. Dr. K. 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Never bring 'gender' into a discussion, concerning editor identity. It is & always will be a divisive topic. Best to adopt the idea that all editors are gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

My comment had three distinct stages. Casual cruelty and gloating should never be used against any editor of any gender, especially as a teaching tool. But ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women is an ostrich-type approach. Dr. K. 13:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the most unfriendly, unwelcoming, actively repelling thing any of us can do is using another individual's gender as an argument on their behalf – I can't see where SR has said that she have felt unwelcome because of her gender, and unless you know for certain that gender has ever been a factor in anybody's comments to or about her (outside this discussion where it has been waved as a banner), it has zero relevance. If people have been using her gender as a grounds for bullying her, then those people should be blocked, of course, but that's not because of her gender but because that's unacceptable behaviour. And going from one individual's potential experience (which again I would like to see some evidence of) to saying "Wikipedia is not a friendly environment for women" – I don't have words for how inappropriate that is. Unless you claim that your experience as a woman (which I won't pretend to understand) means that you know exactly how every single female-identifying contributor from a hundred different nations feel about contributing here. If so, I admit that I am wrong. --bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my argument. As I said, my response had three stages: The first stage addressed that all editors of any gender should be free from casual cruelty in this environment. So the root of my argument was not based on gender. The second stage referred to gender, because SR is a female editor, and a minority within Wikipedia. I think treating a minority with respect and not with casual cruelty is a worthwhile goal, especially in situations where there is also a power imbalance with their detractors. That was the point I was trying to make. Dr. K. 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to refer to gender here. Doing so creates an unfriendly atmosphere for female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 16:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I can see your point and I agree with it on a theoretical basis. Women can take care of themselves like everyone else and they don't need champions. However, in practice, there are two problems. The first problem is the perception by others that Wikipedia is unfriendly to women, as discussed during Framgate. The second problem is that minorities on Wikipedia, including women, should be encouraged to edit here, not treated badly. It's the old affirmative action dilemma. Dr. K. 16:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It may be that the fact that SilentResident is a woman may not have been a factor in this bullying, but bullying someone because of their disability is just as bad. I held off commenting in this discussion here because I felt pretty sure that after sleeping on this Future Perfect at Sunrise would have realised that such behaviour is unacceptable and offered a full apology, but it seems that I was wrong. Can we take appropriate action within the English Wikipedia or do we demonstrate that the "trust and safety" team at Wikimedia needs to intervene again? As someone with my own, but different, mental health issues the fact that we have an administrator here who acts in such a way frightens me. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Bullying someone because of their disability"? What a f..ing joke. How often do I have to repeat that I didn't even f...ing know about any disability? How was I supposed to guess? When I first asked her to curb her habit of tinkering with her posts, she could easily have told me: "I'm sorry if this annoyed you, but I have a condition that makes this more difficult for me than for most people, so I have to ask for a bit of patience". There wouldn't have been any problem, as far as that talk page habit was concerned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe yesterday such action could be forgiven as a simple mistake resulting from your not reading SilentResident's user page fully, but the fact that today, after this has been pointed out to you, you are still refusing to apologise is completely indefensible. I don't know anything about SilentResident's condition other than that she has it, but friends of mine with OCD have made far more serious errors than hers, such as missing job interviews or flights, because of their condition. Can't you see that your behaviour yeaterday was wrong, and that your behaviour today is totally indefensible? Having OCD is not a fucking joke. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Yesterday, I asked a person to stop a certain annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that. Today, I commended her for having mustered the strength to curb that annoying behaviour. I'm not going to apologize for that either. Everything else I said about her – and yes, a lot of it was not very flattering – wasn't related to that particular habit, but her general pattern of disruptive editing. I haven't seen her argue that her habits of pushing POV, edit-warring, violating copyrights and making talkpages unreadable by flooding them with IDHT drivel are also to be excused for being caused by her OCD, so I'm going to feel free to continue criticizing her for those, as forcefully and as often as the circumstances warrant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Apologise for expecting a disabled person, who declared her disability on her user page, to edit in a way that her disability does not allow her to, because, however many times a person with OCD checks what they have done, another check is still needed. This is about your response to that behaviour, rather than anything else that you have brought up here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Who declared her disability on her user page"? Dude, seriously? That disclosure is somewhere on number 86 in her list of userboxes. A couple screenfuls below the one that says she plays Elder Scrolls games or whatever it was. Are you now blaming me for not having studied that list before interacting with her? You are getting bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And, as I have already said, that initial failure to spot this on her talk page can be forgiven, but you have done nothing since it was pointed out to you apart from defending the indefensible. Do we really have to put up with editors, let alone administrators, who behave like this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

...and for multiple threats to revert talk page edits and purporting to impose a one-edit rule, and for characterizing those threats as "a shot across the bow" that "did the trick". For my part, I don't really care much whether or not FP@S says "sorry", or whether or not they agree this behavior was inappropriate, but I do care that they commit to not repeating it again. WP:CIVIL and WP:ADMINCOND document broad consensus about behavior expectations, and they were not met by FP@S here. – Levivich 22:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, so I'm just another second-class citizen around here too. But I know behaviour that is unacceptable, inconsistent with WP policy and just plain wrong, and I want to say that I agree with EdChem completely. I'm something of a perfectionist myself, and I frequently work and re-work what I have to say. (The spell checker doesn't work on long sections like this one.) If you get an edit conflict, blame the software, not your fellow editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem and Hawkeye7: I concour. Thank you very much. and if you allow me, even though your words on me are very kind, I don't want to rest when it comes to myself: I would like to keep my efforts and try to improve my edit account in talk pages by reducing their ammount. There is a room for improvement, even for a person with Obsessive–compulsive disorder and I can't see why I shouldn't take the opportunity. After all, that's what we live for: to improve and adapt in life (and Wikipedia). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 01:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Hi SilentResident, I've seen editors write their talk-page posts, especially anything lengthy, in their sandbox before copying them to the talk page once they're satisfied with them. When they're done, they remove the comment from the sandbox and periodically request that the sandbox be deleted. That would keep your talk-page edit count down without your having to compose things off-wiki, and it would reduce or eradicate edit conflicts. Just a suggestion. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

After (edit conflict): SilentResident, you don't need permission from me or Hawkeye7 or anyone else to try to improve your editing... and I agree that striving to improve is a worthy WP and life goal. My point was that requiring you to change to adapt to FP@S's (or anyone else's) preference is unreasonable, just as would requiring FP@S to adopt your approach and preferences. Taking the argument to its extreme, I might like it if all talk posts agreed with me all the time, that all article space edits were flawless in content and referencing, and that no one with harmful intent contribute to WP – but trying to require that would be absurd. Compromise to accommodate each other's needs is desirable and I welcome your willingness to try to adapt and develop. Seeing this discussion as an opportunity for self-discovery and personal growth is both helpful and wise, and I hope that others reading this can adopt a similarly forward-looking approach. EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's proven that SilentResident's mental condition OCD & lack of some english skills is effecting his/her performance on Wikipedia? Then WP:CIR should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an unfair comment about SR. She has no "mental condition" other than OCD. If you use this criterion on her, you would eliminate a large percentage of wiki editors. Also her English skills are excellent. Please rescind this crappy comment. Dr. K. 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Was going by the opening comments of the report. GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, there has been no evidence offered that I've noticed to support the proposition that there are any WP:CIR issues. OCD may have consequences for editing style but do you have any evidence of this affecting the quality of encyclopaedic content? EdChem (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

As I have ADD, I can appreciate how one might have trouble on article or talkpages, due to a real-life condition. If it's not a CIR issue, then perhaps some of you can help SR? GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt that conditions can lead to problems with editing article or talk pages, but I have seen no evidence that it is happening here. I think several people are helping SR and her posts above suggest that she is trying to help herself. Further, I believe that this ANI thread making clear that the "rule" that FP@S devised is unsupported by policy, void, and that FP@S is involved with respect to SR, is also helping SR. What I do not see as helpful is you (or anyone else) suggesting that there is a CIR issue without evidence. Jumping from someone having a medical condition to being unable to constructively edit WP while skipping over the quality of the editor's contributions is unfair and arguably uncivil. SR does not deserve to have aspersions about her competence made without evidence. I am happy to WP:AGF and believe you intended no slight against SR, but I encourage you to look for evidence and present it or note where you have seen it in cases like this where the thread does not already contain diffs pointing to a CIR issue. SR is clearly distressed by events and feeling responsible for or in some way having invited the bullying she perceives from FP@S. I believe it is desirable for us to avoid adding to her distress, and I fear that your CIR comments could do just that. EdChem (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you & others, to decide what's best. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• +1 to EdChem. Here's what the closing statement should be here: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• In support of the comments made by Only in death, Michepman, Dr.K., EdChem. SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us. As long as an editor's contributions have a net position value to the project, the community should, and should be able to accommodate them. As no diffs have been presented to the contrary, this should be treated as a case of harassment and abuse of administerial powers. François Robere (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Which "administerial powers" have been (ab)used? ——SN54129 13:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: and @François Robere:, Admin powers have not been abused, however I would not expect this from an admin. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Unlike "regular" users, when an admin repeatedly warns a editor against a certain behavior, their ability to sanction that editor is implicit in the warning. If the warning is not policy-based, and constitutes harassment in the "regular" case, than for an admin it would also constitute an abuse of administerial powers, because of the implied threat. In others words, an admin doesn't need to eg. block a user to abuse their power; it's enough that they harass them from their position of power. François Robere (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: Thank you for expaining in more detail. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@François Robere: You said: "SilentResident has done right and brave to reveal her condition to us." Well, to be honest: My condition was well-known since November 2015: [78] Today we have almost reached the new year 2020. FP@S has been interacting with me for ages. His claim that "he didn't knew" my condition, is not exactly very convincing. I never have heard before of admins who do not check on Users before putting restrictions on them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; To be honest, I did have to look quite hard to find the OCD userbox. But the wording of his 'warnings' was an attempt at making you feel bad about something your can't control. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@NonsensicalSystem:; This is true, He indeed wanted to make me feel bad. But it is my fault that I felt bad too. I mean, I am a grown woman now, not a little child that would go crying around just because of an insult. I was supposed to contain myself and prevent the emotional meltdown. I believe I am at a fault too, for showing weakness to his actions. Wikipedia is not a friendly club, is a project, and I wasn't supposed to let my feelings surface. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@SilentResident:; Even though I agree with , it should not allow this. People should not attack eachother when we are supposed to be collaborating together. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?) 14:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Future Perfect at Sunrise: Sigh... I have to say, although I've long respected your good work here, I find your remarks above repulsive. Whatever problems SilentResident may have as an editor (I have no opinion on that), your treatment of her, and your responses here, as many of your fellow editors have indicated, has been very inappropriate. It would be good if you could take that on board. Paul August ☎ 14:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I haven't read all posts, but the very first post of Khirurg strikes me. It was because recently, it was Khrirg who said to me "competence is required" after some spelling mistakes.[79]. He also was aggressive at my Talk Page [80] (I can find much more in the same line) This is not an "appeal to hypocrisy" by Khirurg. We should all realize that civility is a requirement and should refrain for using inappropriate language. I also had a look at Future Perfect at Sunrise, and I find them mostly constrictive- his remarks towards SilentResident should have been better worded. Your comments were borderline. But I also agree with Ktrimi991 words: No drama needed. Cinadon36 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. wrote: "We don't need casual cruelty and gloating after the fact to teach editors how to improve themselves." Exactly. The comments of User:Future Perfect at Sunrise resemble a victory dance, which is disapproved of even in American football, which is a rough game, and are not any better in Wikipedia, in which civility is the fourth pillar. I haven't looked into whether the edits by User:SilentResident are of poor quality. It doesn't matter. After a cleanly scored touchdown, a touchdown celebration can still incur a 15-yard penalty on the kickoff. If there is an issue about the quality of SR's edits, raise it on an article talk page, or raise it on her talk page, or if it rises to the level of a competency issue, raise it here, but don't rub it in or gloat. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jesus, is this still going on? Aren't we all repeating ourselves or others by now? Could someone who hasn't commented yet please close it exactly (well, OK, I made a tiny 2 word editorial tweak) as User:Rhododendrites suggests above: "Everyone just follow WP:TPO and try to have some empathy when communicating with the diverse folks who work on this project. Reverting other people's talk page posts just because they annoy you or didn't follow a non-existent rule is unacceptable. No additional action is required unless this continues. Given the frustrating limitations of our software (which should be the main takeaway of this discussion btw), other editors appreciate it when you use as few edits as possible to write a comment on a talk page. As long as you are acting in good faith, however, there is no particular limit or restriction in this regard." That pretty much hits the nail on the head. I'd do it myself, except it's very close to what I suggested a day ago. I really don't see this closing any other way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Not certain if this is the case. But, what if one's making changes to one's own posts & it thus confuses the responding posts, that were already made? GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think this should close with either FP@S voluntarily agreeing to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior, or with FP@S being warned to observe CIVIL and not repeat this behavior. – Levivich 22:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

+ Consider EdChem's recommendations above in closing this properly.

Also, I would appreciate if someone is kind enough to update me about the current status of the restrictions/sanctions FP@S had imposed on me? Are these restrictions lifted? if not, will they be?

These restrictions are counterproductive. While I am struggling to limit my edit count, having these unfair and inhumane restrictions hovering above my head like a threat, is a form of discrimination and is bound to stress me and stress complicates my OCD situation. Special administrative restrictions on OCD people go against the ideals of dignity and equality in our community. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no restriction. There never was. It was a personal thing I said. I'm not in any position to "impose" formal restrictions on you, as I'm sure you know. As I said above, I appreciate your willingness to make an effort about your edit pattern, and I've already said I won't be making reverts again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Levivich. While it is understandable that FPaS might not have been aware of SilentResident's OCD (although he did use "obsessively" in two edit summaries...), the little shot across the bows did the trick needs to be addressed. Btw SilentResident, there are absolutely no restrictions on you whatsoever. Khirurg (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User 67.70.58.234 persistently making factual inaccuracies

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

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

Can I please get a response from someone? Yowashi (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Article move on the basis of unreliable references

Neutrale Person has made a name move three times in less than 24 hours on the basis of three unreliable references at Kalhor Kurds[81]. I have explained why I disagree with the name change(nor a rugexpert or one reference from 1925 should be used to ascertain whether the Kalhor tribe are Kurds or Lurs. I've encouraged them to use the talkpage to explain why these references are not enough but the editor ignores and keeps renaming the article. I've also requested protection for the page because of this . --Semsurî (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've moved it back with a note to discuss on the talkpage. If they continue to edit-war over it they can simply be blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Timard Gordon

• Timard Gordon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• File:OS X Mountain Lion Screenshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Mac OSX Lion screen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:OS X Mavericks Desktop.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• File:Osx-yosemite-logo.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User edit warring with bots/users to revert images to oversized, non WP:NFC compliant versions, despite repeated requests to start a discussion in the proper place if they wish to attempt to justify an exception to NFC for the images, and clear explanations on their talk page of how to do that, and warnings to stop reverting to oversized versions. No response to any of the requests or warnings except to continue reverting.

I sympathise to a degree, and there could be a case for slightly larger versions of some of the images if procedure was followed, but just stubbornly edit-warring without any communication is disruptive. Given edits like [82] and [83] they may be a younger user, or there may be WP:CIR issues. Some assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Begoon 13:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, an admin, has a left note, that mentions the possibility of a block, on their talk page. Perhaps that will help. Paul August ☎ 18:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hopefully. I'd really not like to see them blocked, but when a user won't communicate at all and just keeps blindly reverting against policy and guidelines the options do tend to become pretty limited. -- Begoon 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kenneth Saclote

Kenneth Saclote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from their first block and continued the same exact vandalism and disruptive editing practices that got them blocked the first time. Many of these acts have occurred on the Miss Universe 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Miss World 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles. Kenneth Saclote has added numerous unsourced content or has added fake sources that do not actually support the information they're adding to appear as if the information is actually sourced: Ex., Ex., Ex., Ex., amongst many other instances. Kenneth Saclote has been given many warnings, including a final warning, but has continued their editing passed each warning and seems to have no interest in following policies or talking to more experienced editors about the problems with their edits. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. Whether WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR, this is a drag. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns and activism at Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children

This is a problematic article: there is way too much content in here, and some of it is clearly not neutral--here I removed some non-neutral phrasing, done in Wikipedia's voice, but there is more. In addition, editor Activist (talk · contribs) keeps insisting on inserting a gallery of culprits, which they argue is necessary and warranted because a. (they claim) it attracts readers to the article and b. these people are criminals and so is Trump etc. Maybe I'm not doing their argument justice: please see Talk:Homestead Temporary Shelter for Unaccompanied Children, where you'll find that they've been doing this for a while, as User:GastelEtzwane can attest. I'm about to lose patience with this line of argument, and would appreciate some more eyes. Somehow Hunter Biden has something to do with it as well (seriously), and someone called Uncle Sugar. And there's something about tax payers who shouldn't allow this Wikipedia article to...I don't know.

I had posted this on the neutrality noticeboard, but no one seems to visit that; in addition, recent comments on the talk page and more reverts in the article only confirm what I suspected. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Tae Hyun Song

• Tae Hyun Song (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly new editor, and their talk page is full of warnings for removing others' comments from talk pages and for using talk pages as a forum, including a final warning for the latter yesterday. Despite this, another similar talk page post was made this evening (diff). Other than continuing to post some rather...let's say idiosyncratic views about physics and civil forfeiture, there's been no meaningful response to the concerns raised. (Courtesy ping for Begoon who seems to have dealt with the majority of this, in case they'd like to comment). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Begoon keeps editing out "ruled unconstitutional" and replaced with "described as unconstitutional". He also editted out "by definitition unconstitutional" in the Criticims of Civil Forfeiture paragraph to artifically soften their critism and introducing inaccuracy and only grudgingly allowed the word "unconstitutional" in the paragraph. Cititations were provided. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For the constitutionality, maybe you need to read about "precedence" and how it is set in the US. When one judge rules on a law, that precedent only holds for the geographic area for which that court has jurisdiction. If appealed to that state's supreme court, AND the court accepts it for review, and then rules on it, then it sets precedent ONLY FOR THAT ONE STATE.

As I have tried to explain, in Wikipedia, we use Reliable Sources to describe things, and "by definitition unconstitutional" is YOUR OPINION, clearly not the opinion of the lawmakers who enacted it. This is the point you seem to not be understanding.

Maybe you should also read: WP:Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_Earth_is_not_flat If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification.

Lastly, if you would follow normal Talk page protocol/behavior, as Begoon has tried to get you to do, we'd be having this conversation there. (See Talk:Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States, edits from 2019-12-08T05:58:58 forward. ---Avatar317^(talk) 06:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

On the subject of black holes. I asked for citations proving gravity affects light, warping space, and effecting time. How is that disruptive? All they have is a very blurry photo showing what could be a planet obscuring a star, an eclipse. There were some objections, to using the photo before, but squashed by black hole enthusists. Black holes start out as theorical and never proven. All I was asking for is cititatons which the article needs for validity. Tae Hyun Song (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I'm afraid Tae Hyun Song has proven extremely disruptive. They don't seem interested in the slightest in collaboration with others, merely arguing for their own unsupported opinions. The problems with this editor so far include:

• Edit warring over having their impenetrable wall of text with no clear article improvement purpose collapsed.
• Continually fiddling with a huge talk page diatribe that nobody will struggle through, and that, even if one did try to, seemingly contains no article improvement suggestions - or at least none have been clarified despite many requests.
• Personal attacks with accusations of "bias" - I don't particularly care if someone wants to attack me, but it doesn't make for a good environment.
• Refusal, after thousands of words to make any clear, succinct, supported, actionable suggestion for article improvement, despite many requests that they do so.
• Removing other editors' comments from talk page.
• Editing their own comments after they have been replied to, and edit-warring over it.
• Editing the article and talk page logged out and with their account.
• The post at black hole, which DV points to, while mercifully brief compared to their usual impenetrable diatribes, sums up their approach to editing here quite well: "Prove Gravity Warps Space, Prove Gravity Affects Time, Prove Gravity Affects Light." they stridently demand. This kind of ill-informed, nonsensical ranting is not how an encyclopedia is built, and extremely irritating to those of us who are here to do that when belligerently repeated (with a stomp and a pout you can almost see) in different ways and places, ad nauseam.

I've basically said that I don't wish to engage with the editor until they can follow our collaborative norms and stop causing such disruption, but, of course, that doesn't solve the root of the disruption. They ignore all warnings and requests to behave collegially.

What to do? I don't know - but I'd suggest that the sheer amount of wasted time and disruption needs to stop one way or another - either by the editor finally acknowledging concerns and adapting their behaviour (of which we've seen no sign), or by them being prevented from continuing. -- Begoon 07:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I suggest escalating blocks, starting with the 31h I just implemented due to an edit adding yet more unsourced content at Criminal-justice financial obligations in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) after the above comments were made. Guy (help!) 10:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

UnknownAssassin1819

• UnknownAssassin1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

---

This user was blocked for one week on 10 March 2019 for trolling and personal attacks at Talk:White genocide conspiracy theory. They received the DS alert for AP2 on 11 Dec ([84]) after this reverted edit which was repeated the following day. The DS notice was blanked and the same edit made again today. They were previously warned by Ymblanter here for inserting contentious material here. Other highlights include "far-right Democratic" at Jim Crow laws [85]. I'd suggest a TBAN based on productive editing in other areas, but a look through the talk page history finds examples like this. You have to go through history because the user routinely blanks their talkpage when warnings pile up. The productivity to drama ratio looks poor for this user. What do people think? Guy (help!) 10:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I obviously think that Wikipedia would be better without this editor.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given that they've previously been blocked for edit warring in the area of video games, I'm not seeing much of a point in just a TBAN.

Between this, this, and this, we're better off just blocking them. Anyone who thinks that black supremacists are super common and that white people are actively being exterminated falls under WP:CIR, if not WP:NONAZIS. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure why my opinions mean anything here when I rarely make edits on political articles. Not that it matters, but i'm Mexican, how can I be a Nazi? I blank my pages because I don't like stuff piling up, that doesn't mean i'm hiding anything, I do it to anything that appears there. "Wikipedia would be better without this editor", yeah, i'm sure removing me will make a significant difference for this website, this will definitely end all "wrong opinions" people may have and cleanse all bad people. I don't understand that talking point, why am I being treated like some kind of menace to society? I barely even make edits here anymore. Wikipedia should have a "No Wrong Opinions" rule if i'm to be censored and have my opinions cleansed from the world. By the way, I don't "think" Black Supremacists exist, it's just what the media alludes to. I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common. You're going to have extremists from all sides, no favors are being granted by pretending there aren't any. UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There have been, and still are, Mexican Nazis, e.g. Acción Revolucionaria Mexicana, Unión Nacional Sinarquista, etc. --Jayron32 12:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also relevant. We do let users have a variety of opinions but we're under no obligation to waste our time with people who hold racist opinions that are contrary to our goals and methodologies.

As for I hate that I even have to admit that they're super common, either you have no fucking clue what "super common" means or you're so scared of black people asking for basic rights that you're lumping them in with the fraction of a percentage that say anything remotely comparable to inverse Nazism. Nazis just love Tu quoques these days.

That's not even touching this. @UnknownAssassin1819: would you say that the idea that white people, in general, are being actively targeted with oppression, extermination, or genocide is A) a racist conspiracy theory, B) unproven, C) debatable, D) plausible, or E) reality? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Other than the slow-moving edit war at Glenn Beck, which would be blockable unless UnknownAssassin1819 agrees to not revert anymore, I don't see anything in their recent editing history to indicate disruption. The last edits of anything political date to July, which you note above. I find them disturbing, but not sanctionable at this point. --Jayron32 12:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think the 20+ warnings that they've received on their user page in the course of fewer than 900 mainspace edits probably gives us a good idea of their general utility to the project. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I think if there are other good reasons for blocking them, we should hear them; however the OP seems to focus on AP2 violations, which I don't find much of. If there's a different reason to block which is evident in recent editing history, please put it forward. --Jayron32 12:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I mean, I only reverted because I found it to be disruptive to the page itself and would move readers away. I obviously wouldn't do it again because I don't want to be blocked for one minor thing. Like Jayron32 stated, I rarely ever "disrupt", it's clearly not something I do often, but i'm wanted to be banned just for having certain opinions, not because it defines my edit history (which it clearly doesn't). UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• You may have a valid argument to make on the Glenn Beck article (saying that doesn't mean you do, I'm just conceding it as a possibility. Maybe you don't...) but if you do, reverting back-and-forth is unlikely to get your point heard. Instead, you should make your case on the article talk page and try to build consensus, seeking help from the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if necessary. Just reverting to keep what you want in the article is not best practice. Start a discussion on the talk page, and lay out your case. --Jayron32 17:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Thinking that white people are being actively exterminated and that black supremacists are very common are not opinions, they're falsifiable claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that is unmitigated bullshit. It's also unmitigated bullshit from February, and the user in question seems to have taken on board prior sanctions and warnings and is not currently putting such unmitigated bullshit into Wikipedia. --Jayron32 18:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• I got a TBAN for discussing the White Genocide conspiracy theory on the talk page. There's no point in doing that anymore. I said White farmers in South Africa are being exterminated, not overall White people in the entirety of the world, and there's a difference between the terms "Supremacist" and "Supremacy", we must not mistaken the two. Racial Identity = Supremacist; Racial Authority = Supremacy. In any case, I haven't made these claims in months, why do they matter now? Perhaps because it's being used against me instead of defining my overall edit history? UnknownAssassin1819 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• Look, I'm not going to defend you. I find the philosophy you espouse horrifying and evil, and the previous abject lies you've attempted to spread on Wikipedia to be equally as horrifying. I was trying to give you the opportunity to reform, and I am in no way going to defend you on your prior bad acts, and I've tried to give you an out here, but if you're going to continue to spout such nonsense as you just did right now, I'm going to withdraw my objections to banning you from Wikipedia permanently. I'm disengaging now, because I find my bloodpressure rising to unhealthy levels. Please go away before you make things worse for yourself. --Jayron32 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

• CBAN enough already.-- Deepfriedokra 19:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
• I have indefinitely blocked the user. We have and continue to waste too much time on an editor who has nothing positive to contribute to the project and who interjects odious unsupported views into articles and onto Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits

Kaur.ishmeet. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In this edit to a DYK article while on the main page, this editor removed every citation in the body along with some other mostly unnecessary changes. The edit summary was (Grammatical Errrors, Punctuation marks, Rearranged some words for better readability.)

Looking at their edit history, they have made only 7 similar edits (to 7 different articles) which aren't really improvements. Almost all have been reverted. Not sure where else to bring this. I doesn't look like actual vandalism. The edit summaries may be borderline misleading. The intent may be good (or not?) But there definitely is a low-level disruptive pattern here across several articles. MB 16:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Account now blocked as a sock. MB 17:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

User indiscriminately adding a category to musical artist articles

MrRobot168 (talk · contribs · count)

New user is adding Category:Singers with a three-octave vocal range to mass articles. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous IP engaged in automated editing

I was editing using STIKI. An anonymous IP appears to be making automated edits (see anonymous IP contributions here and scroll down on the first page). On December 11, 2019 UTC, they have made about 300 single edits on approximately 300 Wikipedia pages that describe operas. It may be more than 300 - this was the best number I came up with.

Most of these are stubs. They have placed the italic title template {{italic title}} on each page. Although, these edits appear to be correct according to WP:Italictitle and MOS:Italictitle, this seems to be disruptive if 300 articles did not have this template affixed to them in the first place.

Also, from what I know about bot editing, the editor needs to receive permission to use the bot and permission for the project they intend to engage in. And according to an answer to my query on the STIKI talk page ([86], [87])-an actual registered account is required and the bot also needs to be registered [88]. I have queried the anonymous IP on their talk page [89]. They have also been notified about this ANI [90]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes you say it's a bot? The edit rate is only about 5 per minute on average, and there are some pauses (such as around 19:12) and other irregularities in the edit rate that make it seem manual. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you think the rate is, the editing is rapid on a per minute basis - very much like a bot. I don't think I do STIKI editing that fast. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, pauses in this instance, would not seem to detract from the possibility that this is bot editing. I'd like to hear some other opinions. And if this is bot editing - the editor may be using other IP addresses. They seem to be an experienced editor. I would also like them to respond here. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What I "think" the rate is? Are you suggesting that it's something other than what I've stated? And what reason do you have to think the editor is using other IP addresses? Have you seen any? ST47 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And the quantity of edits - 300 or more - would seem to indicate the use of a bot. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't take much more than ten seconds to press "ctrl C" then "ctrl V" and then click the save button. I see no evidence that indicates this is a bot. --Jayron32 18:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

There are 143 edits from 18:03 to 18:39 (= 36 min) in that IPs edit history with the edit summary of: "per WP:ITALICTITLE". That's just under 4 edits per min, which seems plausibly manual. Paul August ☎ 18:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I misspoke when I wrote "whatever you think the rate is", sorry about that. What I meant was, "whatever the rate is" - the rate appears to be rapid... and so on. Also, I didn't say the IP is using other IP addresses. I said the editor may be using other IP addresses. It's meant to be a kind of heads up. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to detect possible irregularities. It doesn't mean there is an irregularity here - it's just that it seems possible. And I think I am allowed to point them out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you for finding the irregularity. It is important that we feel open and free to share concerns when we see them. Just because myself and others disagreed after your report doesn't mean there was a problem with your report. You did nothing wrong, I just disagreed with you. --Jayron32 19:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK thanks. That is a relief. I thought I walked into a bad situation for me. Phew! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on the feedback so far, it is plausible this is not a bot. To me 4 edits per minute, and 5 edits per minute seemed to be bot-like and rapid. Apparently, this is not the case, and maybe I am not that familiar with bot editing. Just want to acknowledge that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack and application of arbitrary rules

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs) stated that he had read the archives on Talk:Crusades and also witnessed my behaviour during the last few days and he saw "an excessive level of aggression and bullying". He added that I had "edit warred" my "views into this article," I had "ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating [myself] rather than working to consider all sides), and [I had] made numerous aggressive comments." To prevent me from bullying, he introduced new rules, practically aimed at excluding me from editing the article. ([91]) I think I did not bully anybody and I was not aggresive, but if Onceinawhile is right I should be sanctioned. I must admit I am not always kind, because ignorance and PoV pushing can outrage me, but I have never bullied anybody. On the other hand, if Onceinawhile is wrong, he should be sanctioned for personal attack and the introduction of arbitrary rules.

I think the problem was that I dared to question the significance of two of his "pet themes". My understanding of the events can be read below.

Pet issue 1:

1. During the FAC review of the Crusades article, Onceinawhile proposed that the article should be expanded with a text about the pre-Seljuk Turks and their migrations ([92]).

2. Onceinwhile's proposal was accepted and a text about pre-Seljuk Turks was introduced ([93]). It was not verified by a source dedicated to the crusades, but by a source about the history of the Turkic peoples.

3. I realized that specialized scholarly works cited in the article do not mention pre-Seljuk Turks and suggested that those sentences should be deleted from this lengthy article. If specialists can explain the crusades without mentioning early migrations, we should not find our original way of the presentation of the crusades. I deleted the text with the following edit summary: "These facts are verified by a book which is not dedicated to the history of the crusades? We do not write of the Normans' role in European state formations either." ([94])

4. My edit was reverted with the following edit summary "revert unjustified changes". ([95])

5. I again deleted the text ([96]), adding an explanation on the article's Talk page ([97])

6. A lengthy, boring debate followed, because I insisted on a reference to specialized literature (I mean to books dedicated to the crusades). The other editor proposed that a third opinion should be requested ([98]) and I was happy ([99]).

7. Instead of requesting a third opinion, the other editor reverted my edit ([100]) and I requested a third opinion ([101], [102]).

8. Although my request was improperly formatted ([103]) we received a third opinion ([104]), suggesting that pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the lengthy article. Everybody seemed to accept the third opinion ([105], [106]) and the text was deleted in accordance with the third opinion ([107]).

9. Four day later the other editor changed his mind and again realized that the text about pre-Seljuk Turks is important ([108]). He restored the deleted text with the following edit summary "restore explanation of who Mamluks inexplicably edited out" ([109]). On the same day, Onceinawhile again appeared on the scene. He offered to provide a third opinion, claiming that the previous third opinion was misinterpreted ([110]) and provided a third opinion ([111]). Yes, Onceinawhile, who proposed that a non-highly relevant info be inserted, offered to provide a third opinion on the same issue and provided a third opinion on the same issue.

10. I sought dispute resolution ([112]), but Oceinawhile found two crusader-specific books (one about the relationship between the crusaders and their neighbors and the most detailed monography of the crusades) that mention the pre-Seljuk Turks ([113]). Secretly I thought the pre-Seljuk Turks should not be mentioned in the article, because most books cited in the article ignore them, but I did not want an edit war and accepted the restoration of the text ([114]).

11. Onceinwhile not only restored the text, but also introduced huge explanatory footnotes with the edit summary "minor clarification" ([115]). I agreed with an other editor that the lengthy footnotes are obviously excessive and deleted them - I did not delete the restored text, but only the lengthy footnotes! ([116]).

12. Onceinwhile reverted my edit saying "please bring this to the talk page. It was added in order to help clarify per your request, and will help others unfamiliar with it" ([117]). I reverted Onceinwhile's edit because I did not request lengthy quotes and there was an uninvolved editor who also opposed it (see point 11 above) ([118]).

Pet issue 2:

1. Onceinwhile practically cloned a sentence in the article, repeating its core both in the first and in one of the last sections of the article ([119]).

2. I edited the text, because duplication of the same info can be useful in a poem, but not in an encyclopedic article ([120]).

3. Onceinwhile realized that I am a bullying aggressive vandal.

Borsoka (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, I would never say that you were a vandal, as your FA and bunch of GAs ably demonstrate your contributions to the project, but as someone uninvolved in the topic area who took a quick glance at the Crusades talk page (where there's a dispute between you and Norfolkbigfish), I do think your communication style could be improved. You're calling them names in a way that others might consider off-putting and aggressive. At a glance, I see the following comments from you to Norfolk that might be construed as overly personal:

• Going back in time, there's this from November 4: "I understand the continuity of a discussion is intolerable for some personal reason"
• December 4: "Your manipulative communication is boring". You also use the word "manipulative" in reference to Norfolk here, here, here (with an edit summary of wp:nothere), and here
• December 6: This calls the other user manipulative again and accuses them of vandalism.
• December 6 again: This calls the other user manipulative once more and says, "I am more and more convinced you are not here to build an encyclopedia."
• December 6: "Sleep before continuing this conversation, because you are not in the reality of Wikipedia".
• December 6: On Norfolk's talk page, you questioned their ability to edit the Crusades article. Three days later, you gave them a warning for edit warring under the heading "WP:NOTHERE".
• December 9: On your talk page, you say to Norfolk, "you are telling lies again", and call them "manipulative" one more time.
• December 11: "Yes, my English is awful. You do not have knowledge of the crusades. Win-win situation".

You're calling the other user manipulative, a liar, and questioning their competence. Without evidence, these are personal attacks and you should refrain from such statements in the future. Even if there are problems with the editing of other users, insulting them in your critiques does nothing to encourage collaboration. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Giants2008—it has been an unrewarding few months on Wikipedia and it is welcome to have this acknowledged. It is worth noting that Onceinawhile has always acted within the spirit of Wikipedia and has remained consistently polite. In content terms at FAC he raised a perfectly valid point that WP:WORLDVIEW should apply with wider coverage given all the ethnic and religious groups involved in the Crusades. Specifically in content terms that Mamluks, who ultimately destroyed the Crusader States should be explained in terms of who they are, where they come from and why they came significant players in Islamic politics. It is clearly wrong to conflate the Seljuks with all of the other Turkish tribes, and the Turks with the Arabs and all the other Muslims. This was raised as a dispute by the complainant but rather than wait for this to be resolved this case was raised instead. We can only imagine why. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for edit-warring, although they refuse to accept that the block was warranted. Since the unblock, they have edit-warred to reinstate personal attacks on two talk pages: [121], [122], [123], [124]. Prior to the block, they engaged in plenty of other problematic behavior such as twisting another editor's words, moving a page in defiance of an RM from the previous month while falsely claiming that there was no consensus, refusing to indent their comments properly and removing the indentation added by another editor. They have failed to heed prior warnings about their behavior (see [125], [126], and [127]), despite being admonshied for overzealousness in issuing a warning to someone else (advice that they predictably rejected). Sennen goroshi made only a handful of edits from 2010 until this month, and their block log suggests they weren't much of a charmer in their more active days either. In light of their impressive display of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDHT conduct, let's deal with this WP:NOTHERE editor appropriately. Lepricavark (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I accepted the block, removed my unblock request and stated that I considered it to be a poor block. I will stand by that statement, because I consider the block to be heavy-handed.

I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there and to repeatedly remove my comment, is a deliberate attempt to provoke an edit war.

I made a comment implying that an editor was displaying WP:OWN tendencies on an article. Again, this isn't a personal attack.

I used the (admittedly childish) title of "holy shitballs" for a discussion - this most certainly isn't a personal attack and I renamed it to " Holy Shitballs! (There was no consensus for major changes)"

Oh and an editor doesn't like my indentation style. I guess you can crucify me for that, because bad indentation = Hitler.

In summary, I see an editor who saw me getting blocked for 31 hours for edit warring and has decided to go on a personal crusade of harassment against me, in an attempt to provoke me into personal attacks and edit warring.

To be blunt, I'm happy to stay away from those two disputed articles and indent in whatever pretty style people prefer, but I'm not about to waste my time on defending myself on ANI against such petty claims. If that means that my ten year old account is blocked, then so be it. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

From my vantage point, your response to the non-native English speak was dripping with condescension. Maybe I misinterpreted your motives, but your history of unpleasantness supports the interpretation that you were being unpleasant in that case as well. As for the rest of your post, I think it sufficiently demonstrates why you are temperamentally unsuited for this collaborative project. Sure, you could stay away from those two pages, but you'd just end up creating conflict somewhere else. This isn't the YouTube comment section and we don't need to coddle editors who can't tell the difference. Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

A mild suggestion that someone was being possessive over an article, a childish discussion heading and an ugly indentation style. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, see WP:NOTTHEM. Guy (help!) 23:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I also was surprised to see that the first thing Sennen goroshi saw fit to do after their block expired was to re-institute offensive remarks that had been removed. Apparently they are quite keen to own those. Regarding I responded to an non-native English speaking editor saying 'I dunno if I have bad reading comprehension with a statement to the effect of "don't worry about it, English isn't your first language" - I see no personal attack there: actually the full comment was, It's okay, don't feel bad about it - English isn't your native language, so there's nothing to feel ashamed about when you struggle to understand things. That's not Sennen goroshi being accommodating, that's them being a dick, and it is embedded in a variety of other battleground verbiage that makes it quite clear that the intention here was to get a quick one in below the belt.

I suggest they dial down the focus on winning arguments and showing other editors what's what. I didn't enjoy the unnecessary WP:IDHT tantrum at Talk:Askal, and if that's to be the standard modus operandi, nobody is going to be happy about the outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)