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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved to WP:AN § Need merge: 2016 draft pasted into 2017 article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems they switched to using the Drvedjindal account after the IP was anonblocked contributions. Maybe they're also trying their mobile for a different IP diff. I've given warning on their talk page, again, and will revert, again, just to make sure. I'd appreciate if some admin could have another look. Averell (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Snow Rise: and others, I've notified the WikiProject of this—see WT:PW#Procedural note. Can someone review my proposal draft there and let me know any changes that need to be made? I've never created an RfC or policy proposal and want to make sure everything is in orderly fashion before submitting. Thanks. Prefall 20:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prefall: First off, thanks for being proactive and taking this not-inconsiderable task on yourself. For a first outing, I think you've done very well with your proposal. In particular, I feel you really hit the sweet spot in terms of neutrality; you represented the interests/concerns of the different perspectives quite well, without implying undue validity or giving particular emphasis to either "side". My only recommendations are mostly concerned with organization. As a neophyte to WP:PW's recommended guidelines, I am having a hard time conceptualizing some of the nuances of the proposed change. I'd like to recommend three ways that you may be able to make these matters more clear to the RfC respondents who aren't very familiar with pro wrestling articles:

1) Consider adding some diffs to differing versions of an article (before and after the change) and/or mock-ups in the proposal itself; they may help to distinguish the new standard from older approaches, and allow respondents to better visualize what is being discussed.

2) At the same time, be sure to frame the wording of the proposal itself in terms of what standards you want to apply now; be explicit about what content you want to exclude (and/or greenlight) from pro-wrestler articles, as a matter of default. This means you don't need to spend too much time describing the older standard and contrasting the two approaches. So long as you adequately describe what elements are and are not to be avoided under the new approach (and frame that description neutrally such that you are not suggesting one as the preferable choice) then that proposal can be !voted up or down on its own merits, without excessive discussion about what is being "lost" from the old approach. In the proposal that is: it's to be expected that people will discuss the old standard at length as the discussion progresses, of course. I would certainly keep the opening part about the "In wrestling" section having been around for a decade; that's a very civil and appropriate nod to why this change may be controversial to some, and frames the discussion such that people may be just a tiny bit more likely to be patient in how the new standard is resolved. After-all, most editors understand the "longterm stable approach" argument as it applies to Wikipedia, and also the general human psychology of getting comfortable with the traditional way of doing things and this may underscore to them why some people may need to be won over to the new standard.

3) As much as possible, break the proposal into bite-sized statements (or even better, include a bulletted list, or lists) to describe what the new default standard will prohibit or include. This may necessitate further explanation of the two varying perspectives on particulars, but that's fine, if necessary; nobody expects a proposal of this scope to be super, super brief (though of course, keeping it somewhat tight is a benefit). If possible limit the ultimate question being put forth to editors as one inquiry, which can be !supported or !opposed in its entirety. This is not always vital in RfCs but it is very helpful in a VillagePump proposal, because you will probably getting a massive number of responses and if the closer has to figure out how reconcile consensus from 95 responses that read like "Option A for question #1, Option C for question #2, Neutral on question #3..." then there's a chance you end up with no consensus. However, as you work on the proposal you may find that it really is expressed best as multiple inquiries. If that's the case, I advise that you try to make the questions asked as distinct as possible and structure the layout of the response fields such that each inquiry has its own "Survey" and "Extended comments" subsection, so the answers to the questions do not get conflated.

I hope some of that is useful, and that it doesn't just muddy the waters further on what is expected. It can't hurt to sandbox multiple drafts and solicit further advice from those with experience with RfC. I know there is a bit of a rush to get this matter settled so everyone is clear about what is an is not required and therefore forestall further disruption in this area, but your consensus will be much more clear (and the mandate for the clean-up crews that much stronger) if you take the time to polish the proposal over multiple drafts. Please feel free to ping me to any space if you feel I can be of further assistance, and best of luck! Snow ^{let's rap} 22:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: Steel Dogg started editing since the incident file. Hhkohh (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Nyttend: The reason why I went to ANI wasn't intended to be about the content dispute, it was simply the fact that Emir moved the talkpage post from his userspace to the article userspace. I was totally against that and believe that shouldn't of been done and on top of that felt he violated his mover rights. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it as it was a content dispute with BLP implications, in such a case we should not hide things on one editors talkpage but it on the talkpage of the article where the issue is present. Sorry that you felt that was inappropriate, it was not my intent to hurt you. Can you also explain this violation of my "mover rights" though please? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm confident you would have read this section of MoS, and I have said I don't disagree with your removal of the tool. I'm indebted to you; I had no idea of the existence of the {{bcc}} template. --John (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of points – and Alex, I hope you'll at least consider what I am trying to say here... But, firstly, MOS-type edits should not be made en masse unless they have not just "consensus", but OVERWHELMING consensus – this seems to be lost over and over again in these MOS discussions: a "majority" does not demonstrate that a decision is not going to be "controversial" (frankly, only a lack of controversy does). As the editor who initially objected to your proposal over at WP:TV, it is unfortunate that my points, esp. in regards to WP:ENGVAR, were ignored in that discussion in favor of some giant rush for "consistency" – and, let's be clear here: if "consistency" is a virtue on Wikipedia, it is, at best, a very minor virtue, and should be ranked well-below other considerations (the avoidance of unnecessary widespread editor conflict certainly being one of those). Secondly, Iridescent has explained his rationale on his decision, twice, and while it's not what I would have done, he has the backing of both policy and the opinions of other administrators on this, so the idea that he would be "sanctioned" for this is... well, it's simply not going to happen, nor should it, and it's an effort that wouldn't be worth your time. Finally, you may want to ask yourself why you have developed a cadre of editors who are so vociferously opposed to you, and turn up every time you get into hot water – plenty of editors have disagreements with other editors, but few seem to have developed such antagonism from such a large number of other editors as you have. Generally, this is a sign that the problem isn't with the "other editors"... (I.E. When an editor like AussieLegend says you have an "attitude problem", it's probably time to pay attention.) Again, I am not posting this to "pile on" – I'm posting this in the hopes that it will finally lead to some self-reflection. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, you would do well to listen to Iridescent and IJBall. As far as it goes, your privilege has been quite properly removed, and if you wanted it back, you would have to convince us that you will not misuse it again. As frustrating as it is, edits like these do need a super-strong consensus to implement, and if someone complains, the edits are de facto controversial and need to be reconsidered. --John (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, you forgot to mention the ordeal I had to go through with you for the last 5 months on Wikipedia. Your smarky attitude towards editors such as myself and @Drmargi: is downright unacceptable for a person who has been editing Wikipedia as long as you have. Your condescending comments towards myself and Drmargi, not to mention the fact that your treating Drmargi differently because of her gender, is completely out of order. I even considered quitting Wikipedia at one stage because of your selfish autocracy, and i'm sure i'm not the only one either. When several editors have a problem with you, there's something really wrong. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're forgetting that Alex reached out to me to help you source ratings for the Better Call Saul draft pages, which at the time were in varying states of condition and not suited for publication to the mainspace. I did notice over the course of a few months you were persistent in your efforts to get the pages moved from draft, especially the season four page which was denied by many people. I don't think you have much in the way of an argument to make here as Alex was clearly adhering to policy on the pages and any such ordeal was one of your own creation. I did suggest to you that you take a step back on your talk page a while back, but nevertheless you persisted. Not to mention you shouldn't accuse people of sexism without proof first, that's quite a serious accusation there and one you're unlikely to be able to support. Esuka323 (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Snow Rise: Thank you for the explanation. There is the CFD on one aspect of the improvements I've been trying to make. I will use a discussion process to try and sort out the issues with the two articles. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Rise, i would like to note that my move was done by a mistake. Had the move been intentional i would have left an explanation when performing it. Concerning edits made "out of process", please note that Izzat Kutebar has been emptying Anatolian peoples, the category he wants deleted, before any decision has been made on it's deletion. Regarding the comment i left at the talk page of User:Florian Blaschke, this was simply done because he has a M. A. in Indo-European studies, which is the topic of this dispure. I have no idea what his position, if he has any, will be. That is not canvassing. Krakkos (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that Izzat is now committed to resolving this via a consensus discussion, so I'm confident you can both resolve the matter amicably from here. It seems likely you may need RfC to do so, given the larger context and apparently strong disagreement on multiple underlying issues, but, afterall, that's what it's there for! Snow ^{let's rap} 14:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually Izzat, I want to correct part of what I said; it seems that RM/TR does request that challenges to moves facilitated there be raised on that page, so it's possible that you could require (or at least strongly urge) that Krakkos approach the matter through that space. It's a grey area though, and in any event I would urge you not to re-revert the move (which we must AGF that Krakkos made without intent to thwart normal process) and instead try to generate a consensus on the talk page of whatever titlespace the article currently resides at. In any event, that manner of discussion is almost certainly the resolution you will be asked to attempt here when the challenge is reviewed. Again, best of luck! Snow ^{let's rap} 14:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that no admin intervention is needed here. Thanks, ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Snow, I saw you modify your comment after it had been replied to. I know it was a small change, one word, but that's still not kosher. Please don't modify already replied to comments. --Tarage (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (removal of sourced information with false accusations) at Kartik Aaryan’s page with grotesque personal attack directed towards me. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to remove your biased views on justifying why someone did misogynist films. Also, there was nothing personal attack there. I just said are you taking money or is he your friend since you live in Mumbai and have film making aspirations. It was based on your biased edits on this article. Also you can't deal with constructive criticism and as a result see those as personal attack.Krish | Talk 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced information? Seriously Krimuk? Your edit saying an actor started doing sexist/misogynist films because his moral based/support to women/feminist films failed at the Box office, is very biased and justification for something you have no right to do. This "Aaryan went on to play the romantic interest of the lead female characters in Akaash Vani (2013) and Kaanchi: The Unbreakable (2014), but the films failed commercially. He subsequently collaborated with Ranjan and Bharucha in two more buddy films, Pyaar Ka Punchnama 2 (2015) and Sonu Ke Titu Ki Sweety (2018). Critics accused these films of misogyny but they were both financial successes." makes it clear you want to notify the reader that this poor guy did sexist films because his feminist films bombed? Isn't this some manipulation? How about writing nothing about it? Also the Administrators should note that he added about his misogunist films in the lead when I told him to do. Earlier, it was all his whitewashing to make this actor look good. What is this? Please explain.Krish | Talk 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Krish! a random sampling of your edit summaries are personal attacks and BLP violations. 1, 2, 3 — Maile (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to attack him. He kept reverting my edits which were valid. Also, he asked me to stay away from that article as if he OWNS it Please, for the love of God, stay out of my hair. So I cannot edit an article just because he does not agree with me?Krish | Talk 22:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to stay way because of your repeated personal attacks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Do not play VICTIM here. You wanted me to stay our because you think I was interfaring in your work. You always take criticism personally and then start acting like victim.Krish | Talk 22:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That user was also trolling me with comments like "Being compared to Hirani is the biggest honour" and DID NOT reply to me when I opened a disucssion on the talk page.Krish | Talk 22:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3RR by User: Krimuk2.0

This user Krimuk2.0 has been edit warring on an article when I opposed his biased views. Later he reverted my edits on another article three times to shame me. This editor needs to get BLOCKED. I had added some criticism in the Sanju article which was supported by strong sources yet this editor reverted me three times saying "neutral wording, Please don’t edit war to push manipulate agendas and when I told him that he will soon break 3RR rule Please don’t edit war to push manipulate agendas. Please look at the matter.Krish | Talk 21:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Errrmmm WP:AGF? WP:ASPERSIONS? Your behavior in this matter isn't exactly beyond reproach. Kleuske (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for that BUT this editor does manipulative edits all the time. You can see his biasness in the history of that article when he wrote an edit summary as "what a nice man but he needs good film" or something like that. Its obvious he is biased towards the actor. But how can you justify his 3RR on that other article?Krish | Talk 21:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. you are supposed to notify the editor in question as per the big red message at the top of this page. Kleuske (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him BUT he reverted my message. Also, he reported me here and didn't post any message on my talk page.Krish | Talk 21:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I missed that. Kleuske (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Krish: Comment on content, not on contributors. Accusations that do not have evidence are personal attacks. Both of y'all are edit warring.

@Krimuk2.0: I would have liked to see actual discussion on the article's talk page (with explanations, reasons, stuff like that), instead of responding to a phrasing issue with "source?"

Frankly, I don't think either of y'all are acting right here. I could say that one or the other is acting worse, but I'm inclined to sit back and wait until one or both of y'all does something block worthy because both of y'all don't seem willing to cooperate with each other (and I better not see "I'm willing, they're not!" as a response, because that would just confirm you aren't assuming good faith from each other). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to the false accusations of propaganda with “source”. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could have been a lot clearer. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion on that article's talk page BUT this editor did not want to participate.Krish | Talk 21:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about the homophobic attack and accusations of taking money? Frankly, if he was neutrally discussing a content issue, I would have responded well, but how do you want me to react to such grotesque attacks and accusations? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it HOMOPHOBIC? Please explain? If a man is living with another man, it does not make those two homosexuals. Also don't behave as if you don't have Bollywood relations. You yourself have said that you are looking at a career in Bollywood as a writer-director.Krish | Talk 22:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk2.0 and Krish!: Both of you need to stop talking about or to the other user, right now. I'm right inclined to block the next person who mentions the other user.

@Krish!: Your personal attacks on Krimuk2.0 were unacceptable, and nothing he's done excuses your behavior. If his approach had been just slightly more professional, I would have blocked you right away (and I'm not going to unblock you if another admin sees things differently).

@Krimuk2.0: If you had gone to the talk page to explain why and how the phrasing you chose was the best possible way to represent sources, if you had avoided trolling Krish! with comments like "Being compared to Hirani is the biggest honour", or if you had at least given complete responses so that anyone besides you could tell what you were saying, I probably would have blocked Krish! when you first filed this. As it is, you exacerbated the situation.

There is a content dispute and a behavioral dispute. The content dispute should be addressed at Talk:Kartik Aaryan, discussing sources and phrasing and using reason and policy. Both of you contributed to the behavioral dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should not even be editing articles here because you have Bollywood connections. You go to Abhijeet's Durga Puja celebrations with your family, have met the actress you want to cast in your film etc etc. Please say I am wrong.Krish | Talk 22:09, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]