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

Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

Hello. I've had repeated issues with the user Walter Görlitz over a three year period and Id like things to be dealt with. As it's getting extremely tiring and has seriously hindered my ability to edit Wikipedia in peace. The latest examples are WP:Articles for deletion/13th GMA Dove Awards where he called the BEFORE I did to ascertain notability disingenuous. Also, on Bethel Music's talk page I suggested the article be split and he said I shouldn't be able to do the split because I disdain Christian. Which clearly rises to the level of harassment as defined by WP:Harassment. There's plenty of other examples out there of similar things. Like arbitrarily removing banners I've added to articles, reverting even basic edits I've done to articles that he is fine other users making, repeated edit warring, disparaging me for asking questions on official message boards multiple times, etc etc. All of it is clearly a targeted attempt to dissuade me from editing through intimidation and other tactics. Especially his comment in Bethel Music I tried to talk to him about it and asked him multiple times to leave me and my edits alone, but he's been unwilling to be reasonable and stop with the behavior. So, I'd appreciate it if someone stepped in. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can second this opinion by Adamant1. I only recently met Walter Görlitz when he began to edit war over a paragraph break. I found this to be evidence of a very combative editor; apparently, he wrote the lead of the article where I inserted the paragraph break, and he was very much against any deviation from "his" version. It baffled me to the point where I looked over his talk page, and saw a link to this discussion. I don't know anything about Adamant1's problems with Walter, but I thought I should speak up to say that he's not the only one to experience this from Walter. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

One editor is not capable of edit-warring alone, and based on your description, you would have initiated it. You made a bold edit to introduce a paragraph break, and it was reverted. BRD is the generally accepted process, which means at that point you discuss, not revert again. And if you are going to make accusations about misbehaviour (OWNing and EWing in this case), you are required provide evidence supporting them otherwise you are casting aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed (and had them removed on my part) notability templates after AfDs because it has been shown that the subject is notable. I have shown you that the subject is notable by the news with Kirk Franking (essentially WP:BEFORE) but you want me to add the content. I can do that, but I'm busy responding to frivolous ANI discussions and dealing with my family.

As for the paragraph breaks, I was simply comparing other band articles of similar size. We don't need a break there, but I have given up on trying to convince you of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

as for splitting the Bethel Music article, a simple check of your AfDs and related discussions (at EL about references used) and other locations show that you want to minimize their presence on Wikipedia. Time and time again, other editors have told you that you're wrong and yet you continue to attack this and other charismatic Christian groups. Yes, you edit in other areas, but you come back to these groups. I think the solution is to continue to ask questions about them, but not edit the articles until you can do it in a neutral way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The article your mentioning isn't really one I have a problem with. Nor did I mention it here. Although, that it took me re-adding the template multiple times for you to agree to adding the sources instead of just removing the template does speak to the general problem this is about. Re, "I attack charismatic Christian groups." I asked for evidence of that and you haven't given any. I edit Christian articles in an extremely small amount relative to other topics and compared to how much you edit them. None of it rises to trying to minimize their presence and I don't know or care what articles are "charismatic." With the article your adding sources to, I repeatedly told you to improve the sourcing before removing the template and encouraged you to add in the part about Kirk Franking. I'm not sure how that's attempting to minimizing charismatic Christianity or a disdainful action. I'd love to see some evidence that is though.

Most other articles I've edited, christian or otherwise are along the same lines. Mostly I edit company articles. Including doing the same type of edits your claiming show I disdain and minimizing of Charismatic Christians. I guess I disdain companies and am trying to minimize their presence to. Either that or there's just a lot of low quality articles out there that need improving, Christian or otherwise. There's nothing nefarious about my edits or the intent behind them, all of my edits have been "basic house cleaning", and none of them excuse or justify how you've treated me. Also, it's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm trying to minimize the presence of a religious group over a few AfDs. Our problems predate the AfD's by a long time anyway and some of your actions have taken place outside of Christian topics.

A few more examples, on Bethel Church (Redding, California) I tried to re-add a removed (without discussion) criticism section. He repeatedly reverted me, but then was fine with someone else adding it back. It was clearly a personally motivated edit war and had nothing to do with just being a bad edit on my part. On this RFC about Michelin stars, he badgered me for asking the question and claimed I was lecturing/re-litigating things for having a personal opinion about it. Also, somewhere else I asked about using social media links. He went off about how I asked in the wrong board (even though didn't), accused me of waiting until he was on vacation to ask the question so he couldn't reply to it, and treated me like I was lying about there being an admin involved in the discussion (who called him out for having an attitude). Then after the admin and another person said it was better not to use social media links, he discounted them by claiming they just didn't understand my question. Plus, he said their opinions were not valid because I asked in the wrong place (which I didn't). Later, he repeatedly reverted me when I tried to improve links to social media accounts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor will I provide any proof of your hostility. It's evident is someone wants to dig and it's not something I want to use as evidence. I will simply make the claim and the request.

And for the RSN—and I made this clear to you yesterday and you show here that you have no faith in what I wrote—I formulated my opinion of the question before I knew who it was that wrote it and my response did not change because it was someone who has shown disdain toward me and my opinions in the past. The majority of editors were similarly incredulous that anyone would question whether Michelin stars were a source for notability. I see you hold long grudges and you'll dig into those. I just build general opinions about individuals and I won't throw specifics back at them. If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act and stand back to see how they approach the situation, but I simply advised you that I do not think you should touch that article because I so not think that you will approach it fairly. Prove me wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And as for criticism sections, would you like to reiterate my reasons for excluding them or do you want to make it seem as though I wanted it removed? No, you want to make it appear as though it was nefarious. In fact I repeatedly reminded you that Wikipedia:Criticism should be blended into existing sections of an article, and not be in a stand-alone section. I have never objected to adding criticism alone, but it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism if it is in a stand-alone section. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course you won't, because none exists. You can't even support a simple thing like that I used AfD's to target charismatic Christians. That's the problem. You've repeatedly made unfounded claims, used them to justify your actions, and ignored WP:Harassment and other guidelines about proper behavior in the process. Then you just deny your abusive behavior when people call you out for it. That's why this exists. Whatever beef we had was like 2 years ago and I could really give a crap about you or your opinions at this point. I haven't edited any Christian articles since then, except for the few last week because I knew you'd start in again with your bias crap if I did and I didn't want to deal with it. Your the one holding the grudge by screwing with my edits and insulting me two years later. Just get over it, and leave me alone. I'm sick of saying it. It's exactly why an admin should step in and deal with you.

As far as the criticism section of Bethel Church goes, no where in your reverts did you say anything alone the lines of "weave it into the article." You just said if I had a problem with your revert to take it up on the talk page. You didn't say so on the talk page anywhere either. So, that's simply a lie. I didn't see the talk page discussion until recently anyway. It should have been your thing to discuss it on the talk page though since it was already there for years before it was removed and your the one that had the problem with it. It's on other people to do things how you want them and reverting isn't to he used to push a certain way of doing things. On the Michelin Stars thing, there where plenty of comments and the opinions where mostly split. Only one other comment that I saw, out of like twenty besides yours, had a problem with me asking. So your statement that it was the majority of editors is simply false. A lot of them thought they shouldn't Michelin Stars shouldn't automatically count for notability. Your attitude about it and everything else is the issue here, including with splitting the Bethel Music article. I have every right to ask questions or suggest things without being badgered, insulted, or slandered. All I did on the Bethel Music article was make a suggestion, that I said I didn't even want to do it myself, but you couldn't even handle that without turning into a big issues and slandering me. That's why it's WP:Harassment, and again why I posted this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Adamant1: Please provide diffs for the claimed misconduct. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @MarkH21: There's the Bethel Music comment that I disdain Christians. Also this comment. Where he said "you're not at all neutral on them and Christians in general. You have a disdain for them. That has been evident in the way you attack them, their sources and their claims. If you were truly neutral, you wouldn't concern yourself with the articles." There is also this AfD where he called my BEFORE disingenuous. The comment on the RFC for Michelin Stars doesn't seem to have a diff because it's archived or something. I'll quote it though, hopefully that works. "You came here of your own free will. You asked a question. You received a unanimous opinion from the first three editors who responded. Now you're going to lecture us on how we're wrong?" This is the link to it. You can just search for his name to find the comment if need be. He's also repeated the same thing multiple times in this discussion. Including in his last comment "If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act." Hopefully those work. There's more comments out there, but I'd have to find them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I also found this. I can't do the diff thing there either because it's also archived or something. If you look for "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes - while I was on vacation" He says negative things about me there. Including threatening me and claiming I asked in the wrong place. "this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue." Also, a quote from him claiming my question about social media links was "bait" that other users took (insinuating I was trolling for asking), which also discounted other people's opinions "Second, Ian.thomson fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO." He later used that as justification to continue edit warring me. I'm sure there's more out there. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• So you're claiming I created a "bait" that others "took"? Don't you mean that pointed something out that others agreed with? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• No, what happened there was that I asked a question about using references to social media accounts, an admin (and another user) told me it was fine to get rid of them if I wanted. So better references could be added instead. So, I did (and said in my changeset that an admin told me it was OK because I knew you might flip out about it). Then you reverted me multiple times, accused me of lying that an admin had said it was OK to delete the refs, and went off in that discussion about it to the admin. Which is where you said the only reason the admin that you thought wasn't one told me it was OK to delete the references was because they took my bait (whatever that meant). Then you discounted their opinions as not valid because I asked the question in the wrong place, an internal versus external linking message board or whatever when it didn't matter, and also discounted them because supposedly I wasn't clear about what I meant in my original question. When I was and you weren't involved in the original discussion to determine that anyway. Which was also why your accusation that I was lying about talking to an admin was crap. Hopefully that clarifies it. It's yet another good example of where your bias negative opinions of my actions led you to treat me in a bad way, for something where I really didn't do anything wrong. I was just doing what the admin and other user said to. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just looked at the discussion, and ELNO still does not apply to references and Amazon and iTunes are not social media. @WhatamIdoing: might be able to recount the discussion. That discussion goes on to show what transpired. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was about commercial sites. There was like 3 different places I asked similar questions at the time that you got the same massive attitude about. I'm pretty sure the details other then that are the same. I'll look through and try to find the first discussion when I have time. IMO whatever you want to say about something applying or not to that particular message board, the people who were actually involved in the discussion didn't say that was the case and they still answered my question. Otherwise, I would have been fine taking it somewhere else. They would have had the same answer where they would have responded to it in though, because policy is policy. Especially with the admin. The problem is you treating the whole thing like they just didn't know what they were doing, or like I intentionally went to the wrong place to fool people so I could get the answer I wanted. That wasn't the case. I would have done whatever they said. Even if they had of said to keep the links. I just didn't understand the policy and you where badgering me about it. So I asked for clarification. It's not on me, the medium where I asked, or them being fooled into saying to delete the links. Btw, your ping didn't seem to work. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another thing is that it matters how they are used to, my issue was always more with them being used in articles where they were the only or main sources, used as ref bombing or redundantly along with other better sources, and in a way to advertise. I could ultimately care less if there's a few links to in an article to cite basic facts, but that's not how they where used. In the articles that lead to me asking the question about them, like 50 of the citations in both where to Amazon and iTunes and that's pretty much all there was. In no way is that an OK way to cite things in an article. Whatever guideline there might be about it being OK cite Amazon once in a while to support a fact. Again, I have zero problem with that and it was never my issue. Although, if the article already has a better citation to a more reliable source for the same information, there's no reason not to just go with that instead. Unless your just trying to make the article seem notable through ref bombing. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment, I found the discussion. It's here under "Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes" (Again, it was the excessive use of them that I had a problem with). To quote Ian.thomson (who was the admin) " WP:ELNO #5 says those links should not be included. Feel free to remove them again, linking to that point and leave a uw-spam warning on the usertalk of restores it. If I'm on and active, feel free to ping me when you warn them." Also the other user said "Most of these are indeed hardly ever suitable as external links, but used in the right context they can serve as primary references for certain information. It does seem a bit overdone, though." Again, it was about the amount they where being used. Ian.thomson also said "Many of the commercial citations don't verify the information they're cited for" and they also called out Kuda88 for doing it "So we have a number of articles, many of which limp by on WP:NM while otherwise failing WP:GNG, all created by a single purpose account that drastically switched topics, that all contain weak references to sites that sell products for two connected organizations. Now, I can imagine that there's a perfectly innocent explanation, especially if the user in question promises to do better with referencing in the future (maybe stop citing sources that sell the music entirely)." Which was also partly what motivated me to the whole thing with him having a COI that you brow beat me repeatedly over. You went off and edited warred me over a lot of links that didn't even contain the information they where suppose to verify. Even with the ones that did, I was still told I could removed because of how they where being cited. Btw, I brought up the over linking to sites that sell music to Kuda88 like was recommended. He didn't respond, you needlessly involved yourself with your combative confrontational crap (which just made it look like he wasn't doing anything and I was), and he's still doing it (or at least he was the last time I checked). So, thanks for that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's because you misconstrued references as external links. You didn't understand the difference then and you don't seem to understand it now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no horse in this particular dispute, but this name rang some bells. I had an encounter with Walter Görlitz a few years ago, and he left the impression of a hostile editor who has a tendency to WP:OWN content even if consensus may be challenging his personal opinion. I had a quick look at the talk page mentioned here, saw him casting aspersions, and realized my memory must be correct. I don't think it's a coincidence that I recall him specifically for the no-true-scotsman thing. Cryptic Canadian 04:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Not responding to this any further, but Adamant1 really needs to find a better tone in their noms and arguments for deleting articles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame, where they derisively refer to the latter as merely 'a room'. My vote! that a hall of fame and organization for a well-known genre of music were notable and they need to find better sources was viciously taken apart in a way that's chilled me from commenting any further (and note that I'm hardly a hardcore Christian, I just argued that deep sourcing should be very easy to find for a Southern Gospel topic and they think that, along with simply reminding the nom that the SGMA isn't a company but a non-profit, is a 'totally trash' reason for a keep vote!.). I can see why Walter has taken issue with the OP's tone, because I never want to deal with them again myself. Again, no further comment, so don't bother with a ping, just my experience with the OP. And just looking at this summary on Bethel, it explains succinctly why it was a rare error on my part to comment on an AfD they created. Nate • (chatter) 21:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Just stumbled upon this thread and thought I'd give my two cents. I had a weird experience with Walter Görlitz on the Kirk Franklin article in April 2018. I tried to add a recent image of Franklin to the infobox to replace the current one from 1999. Despite the image being creative commons, Walter reverted my edit twice and nominated it for deletion on wiki commons despite the fact the image was from this video with a creative commons license at the bottom. He then nominated it for deletion but it was closed because... it was creative commons. (I later requested the deletion of the photo because the metadata contained identifying information). A second incident was in December 2019 on the Yolanda Adams article. I tried to replace the current photo (which in my opinion is useless because you can barely identify her) with this one from September 2019, also creative commons licensed. Despite this, he reverted my edits and I just gave up at that point. I believe he violates WP:OWN a lot. These articles would have better images (in my opinion) if not for him! Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment First video is copyrighted to Emmis Communications, the owner of WBLS; definitely a copyvio (YT has that blanket disclaimer but the final ownership continues to reside with whoever produces the content, and it would have a "© 2019" tag on the station's website, no matter what). Second really doesn't look any better than the HQ 2010 shot. I'd rather have a really great PD image than a blurry video screencap any day of the week. No OWN found here at all. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • First of all, the deletion nomination was closed and the file was kept because it's not a copyright violation; WBLS tagged the video with a Creative Commons license at the bottom of the description, and yet Walter Görlitz refused to let the image be in the article. I think you misunderstand—YouTube's Creative Commons FYI states that "you retain your copyright and other creators get to reuse your work subject to the terms of the license." A screenshot of Franklin smiling in the video could not possibly be worse than that picture from 1999. I will try to add one to the article again. Heartfox (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims

Requesting action or advice regarding persistent insertion of poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims at Velike Lašče and other articles. The user (User talk:Starangel19) has been repeatedly advised to read WP:WPINARS, and multiple editors have requested that the user stop inserting controversial claims without reliable sources. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is this one editor's side of the story anyway. In the past I have admitedly made some editorial mistakes. But one important thing has to be mentioned here; the editors of the articles involved are repeatedly and persistently disregarding significant information with regards to the political affiliation of the WW2 "victims" in Slovenia that they are so fond of writing about on an English version of wikipedia of numerous Slovenian towns. They purposefully don't mention that many of these victims were in fact collaborationists of either Italian Fascists or German Nazis, which have both occupied the territory of Slovenia during WW2.These editors do this even when this type of information is known to them in the sources they themselves are quoting (example Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina wiki-page) or when another author of a wikipedia page (example Prostovoljna protikomunistična milica) has emphasized their political affiliation to the occupiers. These editors are trying to cover up collaboration of the "victims" with the occupiers of Slovenia-the Nazis and the Fascists- and are in fact trying to practice historical revisionism by purposefully keeping reader in the dark. In these articles on Mass Graves in Slovenia they repeatedly mention victims as being Croatian and Serbian. What they purposefully fail to mention is the fact that these were disarmed military units of Croatian collaborationists Ustashe and Serbian collaborationists Četniki, which were retreating through the territory of Slovenia on their journey towards the West, where they hoped that they would escape their punishment. I am extremely bothered by the fact that a group of Nazi/Fascist apologists are trying to re-write the history by keeping crucial details away from the reader. Wikipedia should not become a forum for Neo-Nazism and Neo- Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WP is driven by verifyability of material in reliable sources, not by claims made at random, as you are stating in your diffs and here. If there are such connections, simply provide a reliable source to show that, but understand that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. As these are extremely controversial claims and in an area covered by various discretionary sanctions, you could find yourself blocked if you fail to follow such advice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would add to what Masem said by saying that it is the very importance of this topic, which you acknowledge, that means that we have to be careful only to say anything that can be verified in reliable sources. We are not in the business of making general claims about such collaboration without specific reliable historical sources to support them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are really not claims made at random but basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia. There is nothing extremely controversial about what I am saying except perhaps for someone, who is completely in the dark about Slovenian history. For one such source you can read MA thesis by Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* during WW2 (pdf link among the listed sources on WP page of Rogaška Slatina under Mass graves). You can read and verify yourself what the author Siter wrote in his thesis in the quoted/listed pages and what the WP editor is writing and what he purposefully fails to acknowledge. Siter specifically states that the number/nationality of the victims is presumed/supposed as none of the graves have so far been exhumed. He also states that the military units of Ustashe have been terrorizing the local population well after the end of WW2. In fact he mentions Ustashe (slov. Ustaši) 41 times. He writes that Ustashe commander Ante Pavelić and his entire cabinet if ministers spent some time in Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* on their way to the West. I may be an inexperienced WP editor, but at least I am not using my experience for falsification of history and promoting a very dubious agenda of historical revisionism, which is giving rise to Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism. I am sure you can find something to read about historical revisionism in Croatia, where it is becoming extremely problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If these facts are so well-known then it will be easy to find independent reliable sources for them, which is all that people are asking. But something better than a masters thesis (from which Wikipedia editing is a displacement activity for me) is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)If this is "basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia" information, then it should be easy to provide books and other well published reliable sources (not college/masters-level theses) to document these. Random masters' theses are not usable as sources --Masem (t) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor of Rogaška Slatina is himself quoting MA thesis by Daniel Siter, I only took the time to read and verify the parts that the author is MIS-quoting to further his own apologist agenda. He is only using the MA thesis by Siter to give credibility to his own claims, which cannot be actually found in the mentioned thesis. In Europe an in-depth analysis of a town during a certain time period can provide for a reliable academic source as the author's research is guided by the professors at the university, in this case University of Ljubljana. Perhaps it is different in the Anglo-saxon world and the quality is much lower. It seems very controversial to bash MA thesis as a reliable source, but approve it being quoted anyway. I am not sure we can have a constructive debate in regards to this; it seems to me you are not familiar with Slovenian history and you don't speak Slovenian, so you are limited to giving me a sweeping general advice, without actually contributing anything specific or constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If MA thesis are so insignificant then why are people doing them? Rogaška Slatina is a town of 5000 inhabitants, it is not the focal point of academic research in Slovenia. In eventual absence of PhDs done on the subject of R.S. during the war, what should one do? I see the academic bar of WP has (suddenly) become impossibly high when people start to hide their lack of knowledge on a subject behind their academic "superiority".

People are doing them for the simple reason of qualifying for an M.A. degree. M.A. theses are not considered reliable sources because they do no undergo the fact-checking and peer review that PhD theses or papers published in academic journals do. This goes for any topic, not just your pet topic. And it applies whether you or your opponents are citing such a thesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well for that matter, if high school essays are so insignificant then why are people doing them, either? (Hint: not so they can be cited in WP articles.) By your reasoning we could use my nephew's fourth-grade homework as a source. EEng 02:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my opponent is quoting an MA thesis as if the latter is proving the editor's claims, which it does not. Nobody objected or stopped him from doing so and nobody (but me) went and verified the quoted information. Instead of being listened to and perhaps wisely advised, I am being questioned, taunted, patronized and threatened to be blocked from WP. I guess this is what happens when you start to rattle people's cages and they get their knickers in a twist. I wonder what would have happened if the editor mentioned used and MIS-quoted a doctoral dissertation on the subject of war-time Rogaška Slatina? Similarly, you would probably rally around him to cover up your own ignorance on the subject and do nothing of a substance to improve the quality of WP. Oh yes, you would attack ME for alerting you to it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please just familiarize yourself on our standards for verifiability and reliable sources. If you have questions, you can ask at the teahouse, or for more complex questions or dispute about the reliability of specific sources, you can start a discussion at WP:RSN. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Well the good news here is that Starangel19 has shown a pronounced interest in nations that fall under the greater umbrella of Eastern Europe, which means that the Arbitration Committee's ruling on the matter come into play full force. The editor has now been informed of the sanctions here, and henceforth further disruption will allow us to take faster action. Advise given above will undoubtedly fall on deaf ears, I'd give it month before we get an indef block and/or page protection. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement of RfC result at Republican Party (United States)

A recent RfC at Republican Party (United States) was closed by S Marshall with a decision not to make any immediate changes to the status quo version in the article. Following the close, I reached out to S Marshall seeking permission to make two minor tweaks to improve clarity and remedy a MOS issue, and they affirmed that my changes would be consistent with their close. I implemented the changes, but two editors who regularly patrol the article (and argued for the removal or modification of the sentence in question during the RfC), Springee and Toa Nidhiki05, have, without notifying or receiving approval from the closer, been further modifying the sentence and reverting to their preferred version. Your attention to this matter and assistance enforcing the RfC result would be appreciated. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Close as malformed. Sdkb made good faith, BOLD changes in support of what they felt was the correct edits based on a RfC closing. Other editors, myself included, disagreed. The next, correct course of action, one Sdkb has not taken, is to turn to start a discussion on the article talk page. Coming here instead suggests that anyone who didn't agree with your BOLD change was either acting in bad faith or in opposition to a hypothetical closing that provided a simple and obvious action. In this case the actual closing was well done, offered a direction but also said people need to continue to discuss possible changes first. Springee (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A change that has been affirmed as consistent with the close of an RfC by the admin closer is hardly a bold one. "Take it to talk" is a fine response when an issue has not yet been discussed, but it is not appropriate when there has already been an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You’ve reverted two editors to try and force your change in. What’s your objection to discussing on the talk, per WP:BRD? Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb made an edit to try to implement the consensus of an RfC. Neither Springee nor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted that edit. One of the things Sdkb did was to change the piped text in the existing link to Southern strategy. Then Springee removed that link (the link itself, not the language used to describe the link), replacing it with a link to southern states. In other words, and entirely separate edit that removes the very subject of the RfC. It was that that was the subject of the edit war. The rest of this is plain misrepresentation, and why I reverted to the article as it existed this morning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say the link in question was always problematic WP:EASTEREGG. I suspect if the link location had been known vs what it appeared to be it would have been reverted a long time ago. We have a primary article Southern United States. The stabled linked text is "Southern states". If you put that into the search bar you get [[1]]. None of those links goes to Southern Strategy. Additionally such a link is neither supported by the body of the article nor the RfC closing. I'm OK saying we will rewind to the last consensus version and work from there. Springee (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The point -- for this venue anyway -- is that you and Toa Nidhiki05 have made it sound like Sdkb made a bold edit and was trying to force it. To the contrary, it was your removal of a link that Sdkb did not add which was the subject of the edit war. Trying to then characterize it as someone else trying to force their own preferred version isn't great. All of that said, my comments here shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of bringing this to ANI. Only commenting because I was involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I made one change. I didn't edit war anything since it was a single change and corrected something per WP:EASTEREGG. Still, the correct place for all of this is to restore to previous consensus and talk. Sdkb's opening an ANI before even opening a talk page discussion does nothing other than poison the well. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Following up quickly to note that there have been no admin comments in response to this so far — everyone commenting above and at the article talk page is an involved participant. Some assistance closing the discussion and resolving the matter would be much appreciated from any admin inclined to help out. Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Considering that less than 24 hours have passed since you posted the above, & that Admins do have a life away from Wikipedia (& that some of us admins do other things than patrol WP:AN/I when we are on Wikipedia, such as improve articles & other content), I'd suggest you show a bit of patience towards your fellow volunteers. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Of course. I did not mean the above as a "hurry up", just as a "please don't glance at the section and assume that the presence of a bunch of comments means it's getting handled". As this is the first issue I've had to bring to this noticeboard, I'm not sure how long posts here tend to stick around before being addressed (or archived), but I'll take your comment to mean that I needn't have been concerned. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see that closure and the links given show that you you were advised that tweaking the article could be problematic because "Others might have valid objections that I haven't thought of" (very prophetic of S Marshall). In this case, while closing the RFC, the most important part, label #5, was absent from the summary: Any attempt to add should be phrased and discussed on the talk page so that consensus for the wording and its place in the article could be hammered out peacefully. At present then while you have consensus to move forward you do not have consensus as to what forward looks like or where it should go, and that is the issue. I'd recommend this be referred to the talk page in line with WP:BRD for now, as it looks rather much like a content dispute at this time. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over template protection

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is pure vandalism to make a point and abuse of WP:TEMPLATEEDITOR rights. It's a juvenile stunt at the expense of others who have accessibility issues and not at all funny. See Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would normally have converted this to a WP:ANEW report, but this is extremely delicate and requires community input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties:

• Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonesey95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorted in descending order per my personal perception of disruptiveness. Correction: The rollback seems justified. Sorted by number of edits in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged, so I'm responding here. I'm happy to discuss the issue on Template talk:CBB yearly record start but this edit is a completely unacceptable stunt. If other users ask me to revert on the talk page or here rather than change it to some joke, I will oblige. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Policy sections to consider: WP:TPEREVOKE, #1 (pattern?) and #4 (vandalism?); "Dispute with a fellow template editor". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11 has now denied "vandalism" but confirmed their intent to "make a point", in Special:Diff/949330876. I think we can safely say that Jweiss11 has misused their privilege to make a point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I guess we have a different definition of vandalism. I was hoping my edit would drive thru the problem with Koavf's approach to this matter so that we can could advance to discussion as a community. My caption was exactly in line with what the caption is supposed to do, alert text readers for the blind that there is a table there. It has no utility for conventional displays in this instance. It's just redundant clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11, your response seems to contain either a genuine misunderstanding of what Koavf was insisting on, or inacceptable sarcasm that continues the "making a point, disruptively" behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Can you explain what Koavf was insisting on? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Any HTML parser is well capable of saying "Heads up! This is a table!" or any other text when encountering the opening tag of a table. Just like any other heading, table captions summarize the content in a few words. Replacing a table caption by "Heads up! This is a table!" is equivalent to replacing a section heading by "Heads up! This is a section!". Your argumentation is similar to "Only blind people need section headings". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, Koavf has argued that these captions are needed specifically for accessibility for screen readers for the blind. Take a look at how this renders with Koavf's caption at Mike Krzyzewski#Head coaching record. There are already section headings there preceding the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is the second edit war without explicitly violating 3RR I've seen from Jweiss11 ([2] [3]). I have, in agreement with ToBeFree's analysis pulled Template editor user perm. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, so this is the second time you have observed me to not violate 3RR (or 1RR where sanctions apply) when reverting another editor who made changes to long-standing content without consensus, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is the second time I have observed you edit warring without explicitly violating 3RR. The framing of your question suggests that 3RR is the only way an editor can edit war. This is not correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that concludes the discussion about Jweiss11's participation in this conflict, thanks. Now I'd like to address the reporter. Koavf, you're probably one of the most experienced editors around. Was it really necessary to keep reverting – against two other editors and over template protection – without having gained proper consensus on the talk page? Couldn't an RFC or other methods of dispute resolution have brought the desired clarity? I feel it would not be entirely fair to close this discussion without having at least mentioned concerns about your over-insistence in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, The second revert you found to be justified, so I'll just assume that the consensus is that it was. The first one was because, as "Dispute with a fellow editor" above mentions, he reverted me and template editors should revert one another with "good cause [and] careful thought" which, "this is clutter" does not display. He and I discussed table captions at length on the talk page and the problem was with the accuracy of the wording, I added new wording and posted to the talk page immediately after to solicit feedback on that new wording. I have had many, many discussions over basic accessibility over and over again (alt text, MOS:COLOR, table captions, internal scrolling, collapsed-by-default content, etc.) and the attempts to get local consensus is exhausting. We already have these guidelines from W3C/ARIA in the first place and localized here in documentation such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries or MOS:SCROLL. I'm happy to discuss which captions or what type of alt text is appropriate in a given situation but I don't feel like I should have to make the case that basic accessibility should be a feature of the world's largest reference work thousands and thousands of times. If I sound put out, I am. If I seem rude, please excuse me: it's an infinite amount of work just to add this stuff in the first place, let alone bicker about it over and over and over again at every single page and template repeatedly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  No worries. I'm not entirely sure about this and would probably have sought local consensus via an RfC, despite the understandable annoyance that comes with doing so, at least after having been reverted by two different template editors. Special:Diff/949317017 looks way too risky for my taste. Then again, I lack the practical experience with making thousands of template changes and having to gain consensus for the same discussion again and again. I should at least note that Jweiss11's final template edit was the only one that undeniably caused damage to the encyclopedia on all included pages. Edit wars are disruptive, but warring over two somehow acceptable revisions is far away from the public disruptiveness of the edit that led to this report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, you seem to be confused about who has caused damage to the encyclopedia. For the time being, we seem to be struck with Koavf's obstructive addition of clutter. My edit is gone now and was merely a device (an outside-the-box implementation of WP:IGNORE) involved to bring light to the issue when straightforward dialogue with Koavf had hit a brick wall. The upshot is we now have an RFC on the issue, which probably should have been initiated with by Koavf before his relevant edits today. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11, describing your edit in this way after all the discussion and permission revocation is hopefully the result of temporary feelings and not an indication of long-term unsuitability for trust-based privileges. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think that the permission revocation regarding protected templates was a hasty and poorly-thought out measure that hurts the project by undermining our collective capability. It would be helpful if involved parties could weigh the volumes of work I've done developing and managing templates over the last decade-plus against one unconventional edit, one that was intended to be instructive, in dealing with another editor who had flouted consensus during an obstinate and obtuse episode. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  AFAIK, the template editor permission is intended for editors who can be trusted to edit templates. I don't think it applies to someone who think's it's okay to make a harmful pointy edit to a template, affecting 3000+ pages, because they apparently think it's okay to ignore those who need to use screen readers just because they consider something "clutter" when they haven't even bothered to discuss obvious possible solutions before their dumb pointy edit which achieved nothing other than harm Wikipedia. A key point of editing templates is understanding what you're doing can affect many pages, and so a dumb edit which can normally be forgiven for a dumb heat of the moment thing, even if it was done with an unfortunate disregard for accessibility, is not so 'forgivable'.

  And yes, I am making a big deal about the accessibility issue as well because it is a big deal. We should not be putting unnecessary barriers in front of people with disabilities. Especially when we are editing templates which affect thousands of pages. Plenty of us have made mistakes because we weren't aware of something. While to some extent, it is our responsibility as editors to learn about these things, especially when editing templates used on many pages it's again often 'forgivable'. But it's another thing to continue to have no regard for it when it's pointed out to us.

  Note that I too have struggled to keep my temper in check when formulating this reply given my personal feelings towards those who seem to act like accessibility is something they don't need to worry about. Still I didn't make a pointy edit to a template affecting thousands of pages.

  P.S. As often the case, I think the general response 'well why didn't you start the discussion' applies here as well. It's generally lame when two parties edit war and both sides insist the other side needs to be the one to initiate discussion. Status quo ante is one thing but ultimately someone needs to start discussion. And once accessibility issues and a pointy edit comes into play, any sympathy for an editor allegedly trying to preserve the status quo in an edit war goes out the window anyway.

  Nil Einne (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged here as someone who has edited this template during this dispute, so I feel an obligation to respond. First, to state the obvious, the edit in question placed an obnoxious, unhelpful, pointy header on 3,000+ pages. Jweiss11 explicitly stated I was making a point (link), which is not what the template editor right is for. The edit was not representative of the sort of behavior I would expect of someone with the template editor right. As for the substance of the discussion and how the table should be formatted, my involvement has been limited, as far as I can tell, to reverting the addition of a header with non-factual text and posting a message on the template's talk page explaining why I had done so and encouraging all involved editors to discuss an appropriate resolution before changing this widely used template. If the editors continue to war over this template, I recommend a higher level of protection for it and a search for a more appropriate venue for discussing a mutually agreeable outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Having been alerted by a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility #Captions in tables dispute, I looked at the revision history of Template:CBB yearly record start and was appalled at the edit that effectively vandalised the template. I checked the number of affected articles and then decided to block Jweiss11 for 48 hours for the combination of edit-warring and disrupting Wikipedia. Now that I've been alerted to this discussion, I'm willing to see Jweiss11 unblocked if an uninvolved admin disagrees with my block. --RexxS (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I've read the unblock request and I've unblocked as I believe the block is no longer necessary. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• This is a bit silly. Jweiss's edit is hard to defend as anything other than a "stunt" that constitutes "point" disruption. I don't recall what the specific guideline is, but it's rather straightforwardly disruptive based on whatever rule prohibits editorial meta-commentary in articles. That said, I think the "point disruption" was obviously done in good faith, and I think calling it vandalism is excessive and inaccurate. Jweiss was obviously sardonically demonstrating his perceived absurdidty of including an otherwise-useless caption purely for the sake of screenreaders (which he argued could be satisfied in other ways). It was wrong, and an abuse of the TE permission for sure, but at the same time it was wrong of both sides to edit war on a protected template while a dispute is ongoing. We expect better than this from you as well, Koavf. And then to top it all off we have some bizarre punitive block in which there was no arguable preventative angle, just great. Get it together, guys. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, What would you expect me to do differently here? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's exceedingly simple, don't edit war. This is the same simple standard that is applied to everyone, everywhere, in every area, and every dispute on this project. I appreciate your accessibility concerns, I do, and I can forgive your most rollbacking of the one willfully disruptive edit, but the template had existed without a caption for well over a decade, and your desire to add one was disputed. There was no immediate urgency nor no excuse not to follow the consensus-building and dispute resolution processes. There was no excuse for you to engage in an edit war (nor is there ever one), reverting four times prior to the "disruptive" edit in order to reinstate your contested change. You should know better, you should know about and follow WP:BRD, and there's no way this should need to actually be explained to a user of your experience, much less a user with the most privileged and restricted user right on this project short of adminship. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, Do you consider it bold to add what is already required by the MOS to a given template or page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not a legitimate premise to edit war. There is, generally, no excuse or "right reason" to edit war, with the exceptions of WP:3RRNO. If you are supposedly edit-warring in favor of the community's consensus, it is a given that the disruption you participated in was not justified, and properly resolving the dispute in your favor would have been a realistic alternative to disrupting a page, or in this case, thousands of pages, with an edit war. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, Do you consider it bold to add what is already required by the MOS to a given template or page? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Koavf, maybe before diving into trying to get Swarm to answer that question you could first acknowledge his clear (and in my estimation correct) point not to edit war. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Yes, edit warring is bad. I'm responding to the fact that he cited WP:BRD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

"Be bold" simply means to go make an edit you feel is necessary. You did that, so yes, it was a BOLD edit. There's no such thing as a "non-bold" edit that is exempt from BRD lol. Could you imagine the wikilawyering over edit wars if there was? Lol! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling

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

---

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

Would someone mind asking Hob Gadling (talk · contribs) to tone it down a bit? I've tried already and failed. I'm not asking for anything more than a stern adminny-sounding warning. I think it will be more effective coming from someone other than myself. (From the way he responded to me earlier I suspect he thinks I'm some sort of anti-science editor.) Here are a few examples of comments drawn only from the user's latest 50 contributions.

Attacking other editors

• "Go away, anti-science POV warrior." [4]
• "You keep ignoring the fact that I already gave a secondary source, although I mentioned it again. Will you do so a third time, or are you here to build an encyclopedia?" [5]
• "Those are lies...So quite whining." [6]
• "So shut up about it and follow WP:FORUM. Do not claim that I am lying, and I do not have to defend myself." [7]
• "Next time I talk to you I will link the important stuff twice in every contribution, and I will use boldface with a larger font in different colors and blinking." [8]
• "Just stop blaming me for your mistakes, and no snark will be needed. Actually, you are the one who should consider trying a hobby which does not confront you with people who disagree with you." [9]
• "I stopped reading after your first sentence, because WP:FORUM. For someone who quotes WP scripture at people, you are extremely forum-y." [10]
• "But the problem is that anti-science users like PackMecEng have a far higher opinion of their own opinion than of reliable sources, and this one, like many other pro-lunacy editors, has consistently ignored every single link to articles where he could have learned something. This is the Fringe theories noticeboard, and pretty much everybody here knows more about loons and their tricks, about conspiracy theories, and about denialism than you, profringe editor, ever will. You are not fooling anyone, profringe editor." [11]
• (after being asked to tone it down) "I already took it down two notches from my original wording idea, and the result is "profringe editor". I am being very generous here." [12]

BLP issues

• "Since he [living person] is spreading really, really, really stupid and dangerous misinformation, a fact which is extremely obvious to anybody with a smidgen of scientific knowledge, this is important and needs more coverage. The man has particularly virulent form of Dunning-Kruger, drifting into delusions of grandeur, and he will kill people with it...since he is a crank, does it not belong in the lead?" [13]
• "I get the feeling you are trying to protect [living person] from the responses to his bullshit...you cannot cope with the fact that he has made it publicly known that he is an extremely ignorant layman in other fields as well as extremely ignorant about his own ignorance. And now you are trying to WP:WIKILAWYER around it." [14]
• "I would not be surprised if it turns out that one of his billionaire buddies owns a company that makes the stuff and [well-known U.S. president] gets a cut when sales go up." [15]
• "Yes, [living person] is a denier, even if he "just" believes that "the warming isn't as dramatic as is being forecast". He is a layman who thinks he is smarter than the experts." [16]

~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Awilley Can I ask why you haven't asked User:PackMecEng to clarify how she decided Hob Gadling was a conspiracy theorist [17]? jps (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Replied here ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• <sigh> It was not nice of me to post that picture and call Hob a ranting conspiracy theorist. I do apologize for it, I was more poking fun but I see now it was not received that way. PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• It was less "poking fun" than "garbage Tu quoque rhetorical tactic", with -- given the climate-change denial movement's conspiracy theories -- a bit of projection thrown in. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What projection?

-EEng

• What projection? PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here, let me help with your reading: ...with -- given the climate-change denial movement's conspiracy theories -- a bit of projection thrown in. Spot it? --Calton | Talk 03:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see. No, I was just poking fun. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but I hope you can understand that in the context of you stridently declaring that there was a difference between "climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" (a trope that has featured for decades in such places as Watts Up With That?), turning around and calling someone a conspiracy theorist who points out that there has been a coordinated campaign to discredit climate science strikes me as very WP:PROFRINGE. This may very well not be your intent in this matter, but given the voluminous history of this topic on Wikipedia, it hardly matters whether someone intends to be in favor of that approach or simply appears to be in favor of that approach -- the outcome in terms of how we have to deal with the situation is the same. jps (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, I looked at it at the time and concluded that PackMecEng was referring to Hob's reference to the conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science, and that it was meant ironnically because this is a genuine and documented conspiracy albeit one decried by conservatives as a conspiracy theory. Guy (help!) 11:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this at the very least skirts the border of WP:PROFRINGE. It's certainly not unbalanced to be concerned over that. Irony, to be effective, needs to be unequivocal lest we fall victim to Poe's Law. jps (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

jps, I'd rather see us fall victim to Atsme's Law. Quoting from the book, Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology ^{2003 Cambridge University Press Intro pg 6} ...Science illuminates and assists – it does not constrict or legitimate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If you read the context of this quote, you will find that the authors are explicitly criticizing this opinion as being an embedded assumption. jps (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• The question was directed at Awilley (who has the same horse in the race as Springee, see below). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 on these concerns. On a different article, I noticed the same pattern of BLP violations:

• "[living person] is a conspiracy nut who levels baseless accusations of fraud at scientists". [18]. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a BLP violation, that's a description. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• calling a living person 'a conspiracy nut' is a clear-as-day WP:BLP violation. If you don't understand that, I suggest you refrain from further editing until you read and understand the policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of those comments suggest a mindset that is here to right great wrongs rather than improve article content. The personal attack directed at PackMecEng is also problematic. Disagreements are fine but those comments personalize contentious issues and make it harder for all to reach agreements. Is this an ongoing issue? If so I would suggest a "light" tban. Basically an indef tban that would have no set time until appeal. If the editor can articulate the problem and state that it won't be a problem going forward lift the tban. The objective is to make it clear that this type of behavior, both directed at other editors and at BLP subjects is not OK but assumes the editor is otherwise a valued contributor. Of course an acknowledgement of and pledge to reform the issue upfront would negate any need for a tban. Springee (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  The wrongs I want to right are either in the article content and need to be aligned to the rules, or they are about to put into article content by users who want to introduce their anti-science POV there.

  Someone who accuses me of being a "conspiracy theorist" for summarizing the scientific mainstream opinion on climate change denial is a profringe editor. Especially after ignoring, again and again and again, other people's links to Wikpedia articles that explain that scientific mainstream opinion in detail.

  I also want to note that user Springee has a horse in the race, having argued in favour of climate change denial before, so his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Just two examples:

  1. Talk:Climate crisis "Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc." - "Alarmist" is a denialism dogwhistle.
  2. Talk:Global Climate Coalition - arguing against the use of "denial", which is the common term used in science.

  More examples are easy to find.

  When you disagree with the science, trying to ban the users who argue in favor of the science is one of the few ways you have left to win a discussion on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have very little involvement with this topic area. That you would go digging, and having to dig that far back to find examples, suggests you are approaching this with a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Certainly presenting quotes out of context (and only linking to the general page vs the specific quotes) is misleading. Springee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you doing the kind of pro-denial POV reasoning years ago and remembered you as a potentially problematic user. Now I searched for your name and "climate", and immediately found a few hits. There was no need to dig "far back", as that kind of search is not date-sensitive. My main point is that you are not a neutral party, but have been holding the same opinion as my opponents for years. That your POV has not surfaced for a while, until this week, means nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Having been subject to this kind of WP:PUNITIVE TBan in the past, I have to say that it merely serves to exacerbate problems. I also very much disagree with the implication that all the comments presented "personalized" issues. What I am more concerned about is that there may be some ANI railroading going on here without an acknowledgement that there are other editors involved here acting problematically who, in my judgement, may be causing bigger problems in terms of article content. Should we ignore WP:CIV? No, but only enforcing civility on one party while ignoring other problems tends to do more harm than good. jps (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a punitive Tban. As I said, all that is needed per my proposal is to acknowledge the issue and pledge to not repeat the behavior. If Hob Gadling does that before this ANI is closed then I would oppose the tban. The idea isn't to keep anyone off the pages, only to make sure they follow BLP and CIV rules. Springee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIV we can all agree on, and I will be the first to admit that this is something I can do better at, but I think some of the concerns over BLP raised here are of the WP:CRYBLP sort that we have seen a lot in these content areas. I hope you can understand that there can be differences of opinion over what constitutes a BLP violation on a talkpage. jps (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, I see no reason to do that. If another person appears who does not have such a history, but still thinks I should backpedal, I will. But I can not promise that I will not call WP:PROFRINGE editors WP:PROFRINGE editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you should backpedal, but it perhaps would be better to raise concerns over WP:PROFRINGE edits at admin noticeboards such as WP:AE or WP:AN rather than on talkpages. It's an annoying feature/bug of Wikipedia that the admin class don't like it when you document problems in the wrong places. jps (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"As long as all my accusers...", that is exactly the sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior I'm concerned about. The two examples HG cited in my past are garbage and suggest they have a "with us or against us" mentality. None of it excuses the personal attack Awilley listed above nor the accusations against PackMecEng who happens to be a very level headed editor. Springee (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is level-headed? That remark was retracted, but the fact that it never has been a problem for you at all shows that

• you are either firmly in the anti-science camp and think that people who accept man-made global warming are so obviously nuts that calling them conspiracy theorists is just a statement of fact,
• or you are very good at ignoring facts that do not fit a once-formed opinion.

Your claim that the examples I gave are "garbage" is just handwaving. Here is the whole search: [19]. You consistently defended the deniers against scientists and their friends back then. You went on a crusade to eliminate Mother Goose's Dirty Dozen of denialists from all articles.

WP:BATTLEGROUND? So you are allowed to pick one person from a two-person fight - incidentally the one who happens to be on the opposite side from you in a long-going conflict involving many people - threaten them with bans (WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement"), but those people are not allowed to point out that you have an editing past that just might bias your position? In other words, WP:BATTLEGROUND applies to me but not to you? I think you should step back and leave the field to uninvolved users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

First, that someone else behaved badly doesn't justify your bad behavior. Second, you are again trying to personalize this topic by suggesting I'm anti-science and attributing a position to me. Your comment about the Dirty Dozen of climate change ignores that the editor who was adding the material was as much an issue as the material itself. HughD was subsiquently topic blocked and later blocked for extensive sock editing. This is again a case where you are jumping to conclusions based on poor understanding of the history. None of that excuses your uncivil behavior. It is VERY problematic that you can't see the issues with your behavior. Springee (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh.

Okay then. I give up. I see problems with my behaviour now. Go on seeing no problems with your own, or don't. I don't care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Propose tban per my description above. It's clear this editor sees no issues with their BATTLEGROUND attitude towards others nor problems with violating BLP when talking about article subjects. It does appear they intend to RGW and anyone who objects to their strident POV stands against them. Propose that the tban covers climate change and can be lifted at any time once they can articulate the issue and pledge to avoid similar issues in the future. Springee (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Object to this proposal as malformed and possibly agenda-driven. The goal of any sanction would be to stop disruption. What exactly have we established has made it difficult for editors to improve the encyclopedia? I do not see evidence that these infractions have caused such problems aside from perhaps a vague concern over chilling effects, but it does not appear to me that any of the discussions have resulted in damage to article content. More problematicaly, that you propose groveling as the way out of this makes me think that this is simply WP:PUNITIVE in spite of your protest to the contrary. That you may have also adopted some rhetorical positions in the past which could rightly be seen as a kind of WP:AGENDA makes this proposal all the more suspect. jps (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the agenda? I'm not an active editor in the space in question. You are correct, the goal of any sanction would be to stop the disruption. The disruption is the battleground behavior and personal attacks. Above you disagreed regarding BLP violations and for argument sake I will agree. As I stated before, the criteria for lifting the proposed tban is acknowledgement of the issue and a pledge to stop it. That's not even a "demonstrated track record in other areas". As I've outlined above the tban could be implemented in the AM and, assuming the conditions are met, rescinded in the PM. The intent is not to block HG for 6 months before they can appeal. It's to say, you may not edit in this space until you agree to follow CIV and related behavioral policies. Remember, following those policies isn't optional. Springee (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that Wikipedia does not have a very good system in place for people to deal with content disruption that is happening at the level of WP:AGENDA-driven users. WP:AE and WP:AN are not exactly user-friendly spaces and WP:DR is really better suited to situations where there aren't external issues. WP:SPADE claims that arise in the context of editing articles are not easily handled anywhere at Wikipedia. Back in the day, we had these WP:RfC/Us which, although they were real shit shows, at least were a means to channel this problem. It is one thing to say, "BE NICE!", but if some real problems with users are identified in certain areas there isn't much guidance on how to handle this. So far, in this thread there has not been much advice given for how HG could appropriately document and discuss these problems in any venue. jps (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (non-admin opinion) Any blocks or bans at this point would be punitive, rather than proactive, as jps says. There is no evidence that Hob Gadling's activities are doing anything other than hurting some people's feelings. Those complaining of his behavior are still active in the topic area and have obviously not been seriously dissuaded from editing. While the diffs presented may constitute a violation of WP:CIV, there has been no outside, uninvolved attempt to counsel or warn HG over this. I'm not going to try to evaluate whether there is an actual violation or not but HG may be well-advised to concentrate on the speech and not the speaker going forward in this topic area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• • Eggishorn, um, there was outside, uninvolved attempt to counsel or warn HG over this by me, and also by Awilley, at FTN, and at Hob's talk page. In response, I have been accused of being a profringe climate change denier, even though I am very uninvolved in this topic area and have never expressed any such views. Also, "hurting some people's feelings" – yes, mine, for example, and probably PME's as well. That's a problem, and it's the reason we have the WP:CIV policy in the first place. It's hard to work with people who call you a climate change denier, or "anti-science", and so forth, simply because you disagree with them. It makes it impossible to have a discussion and reach consensus about disputes. As to punitive-not-preventative, Hob, above, said that he is not going to stop with this behavior, and in fact has doubled and tripled down. So there's a problem, it's a policy violation, it's ongoing, and all prior efforts to resolve it with discussion and warnings have failed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I see in attempting concision I sacrificed clarity and in so doing I inadvertently slighted the efforts of Levivich and Awilley. I apologize to you both. A clear warning that HG is stepping over clear-cut lines was what appeared to be missing. I didn't mean to slight hurt feelings, those feelings are real. Every experienced editor here will have their feelings hurt at some point and generally continues to edit despite that. Until hurt feelings prevent other editors from contributing their time and efforts, however, the hurt is not disruptive. CIV-related issues are often timesinks and arguing over feelings in the absence of clear disruption is not generally useful. When hurt feelings waste other's time and hurt the project they then become clearly disruptive and should be sanctioned. Hence the statement that "HG may be well-advised..." While I would still oppose sanctions at this time, perhaps I should clarify that further to: "Support a formal administrative and/or community warning that any further speculation or statements by Hob Gadling about the motivations or personal beliefs of other editors in this topic area will be treated as personal attacks and subject to appropriate and escalating topic bans or blocks." Does that clarify my position above? Again, apologies for not recognizing your good-faith efforts to defuse the situation prior to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thank you for this explanation! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN – I was involved in another FTN thread and saw the personal attacks at issue, and was the editor who asked Hob to tone it down. In response, Hob has made more personal attacks, including now against me as well as Springee, in addition to PME. The comments in this thread such as As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, I see no reason to do that ("that" being "acknowledge the issue and pledge to not repeat the behavior"), I can not promise that I will not call WP:PROFRINGE editors WP:PROFRINGE editors, and When you disagree with the science, trying to ban the users who argue in favor of the science is one of the few ways you have left to win a discussion on Wikipedia, show that the battleground mentality is strong with this one. This editor seems to think that literally everybody critical of his behavior "disagrees with science". Good luck trying to prove my "history of pro-denial editing". Just 15 minutes ago, he accused Awilley of being "anti-science". Unfortunately, all attempts at discussion have failed; a TBAN seems necessary to stop the battleground behavior. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, okay. Levivich and Awilley have been blind on one eye at first, rebuking me but not my opponent although what she said was clearly worse, and Awilley heavily misrepresented what I said in the link Levivich just gave, but that probably had other reasons than I suspected, though I do not know which ones. And PackMeEng has already retracted the worst parts, so I am giving in here. I am sorry for escalating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for this and your other recent comments and for striking your earlier comments at FTN, in light of which I'm striking my !vote in support of drawing-and-quartering. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The editor proposing a TBAN is clearly on the "opposite" side to Hob Gadling (piping Climate change denial to "climate skeptic" here, for example) and the admin who posted this did suggest that they merely wished HG to tone it down a bit. So, per Eggishorn above, basically. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  "The editor proposing" is largely uninvolved in the topic. HG's presentation of quotes were highly misleading, especially the one related to "climate crisis" vs "climate change". Finally, keep in mind that the only condition my proposal sets for lifting or even not tbaning in the first place is state they will stop personalizing the disagreements. Expecting a user to adhere to CIVIL shouldn't be a goal but a baseline. Springee (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, you really think a suggestion that they tone it down a bit will make a difference at this point? They just called Awilley "anti-science". I'm just gonna take the liberty of assuming that you agree with me that Awilley is not anti-science, and it's not OK to call other editors anti-science, and so the only question is: what's the remedy here? Because the problem is ongoing, in real time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not really looking at a topic ban at this point if the problem can be solved with a less invasive measure. If a "light" topic ban were imposed, I would want it to be done by an individual admin under the discretionary sanctions system so we don't have to go through another long community discussion to reverse it if/when the user commits to stop the personal attacks and ad-hominems. And before considering a topic ban I'd at least want to look at the editor's article contributions, which I have not done. (All the diffs above are from talk pages. I haven't seen evidence that the BLP problems extend into the article space.) @Black Kite: perhaps you would be willing to warn the user and close this thread? ~Awilley (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support doing something to get them stop insulting and attacking. A few more examples:

• "Please do not use empty reasoning that can be applied - by replacing the terms as I did - to any arbitrary bullshit. Either use valid reasoning or be silent." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [20]

• Stop preaching your denialist POV. That is not what Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) [21]

• "Go somewhere else to be paranoid" [22] (Apologized Acknowledged a mistake, after being called out.[23])

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Black Kite, jps's insightful observation about focusing on potential ANI railroading where civility concerns are being used to mask more serious potential content concerns, and per Hob's acknowledgment above that they see how their behavior was problematic. This seems punitive rather than preventative. Grandpallama (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm OK with the clear warning from an admin. I don't see where Hob has acknowledged their behavior was problematic. Certainly this reply shouldn't be taken as such [[24]]. Springee (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Grandpallama. I can't see any sort of topic ban benefiting the community, and everyone is a bit stressed at the moment. Curdle (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Going to try a bit of mediating.

Levivich - you know, I hope, the regard I have for you as a contributor. I know you are not anti-science, and from the apology for escalating above, I think that Hob Gadling does too. A lot of people sometimes express themselves poorly when they feel strongly about an issue (I hope I don't need to present any diffs for you to know what I mean here...), and it's possible to be so sure that you're right that you temporarily go over the line into being a bit of an asshole territory. You and Hob are both Good Peoples in my book, and I hope you don't think that I'm dismissing the fact that you were offended in what I'm about to say to Hob.

Hob Gadling - you and I have never interacted directly, as far as I can recall, but I've seen you around a lot and I am immensely grateful and inspired by your tireless work to keep our articles focussed on the consensus of mainstream science, especially in areas that experience a lot of traffic from POV warriors. That being said, it would probably be a Good Thing if you were to be more careful about applying labels to other editors, and in making sure that you don't go over the top when describing specific living people on talk pages. Yes, we need to call a spade a spade - but we don't need to go any further than that. In my experience, unnecessary hyperbole detracts from the strength of the argument - say what you need to, and no more, and you'll probably find more people agreeing with you. If you'd be willing to agree to tone it down, which is all the OP is asking for, I think we can draw a line under this and go back to editing normally. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I should probably add, in fairness, that an explicit acceptance that Awilley and Levivich are not 'anti-science' would be a good idea. You can argue against any position they've taken without labelling them. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You are completely right, I should. But I need to modify that sentence and expand on it. Awilley and Levivich are not 'anti-science' as far as I know. It was was unwarranted to call them that. I will focus on the reasoning again and try not to talk about the people behind it. Since Yae4 gave good examples for both on this very page, I will use them to illustrate:

• Good: "Please do not use empty reasoning that can be applied - by replacing the terms as I did - to any arbitrary bullshit. Either use valid reasoning or be silent."
• Bad: "Stop preaching your denialist POV." Instead, when people give me nonsensical, inflammatory pseudo-reasoning from the denialist toolbox like "[climatologists] are dependent on panic to support increasing funding to support their livelihoods" - which was the reason for me saying "Stop preaching your denialist POV" - I will link WP:SOAPBOX and point out that Talk pages are not for spreading anti-science rumors like that. And yes: what Yae4 said is definitely an anti-science talking point. (Which does not necessarily mean Yae4 is anti-science.)

I have been opposing the introduction of pseudoscience on Wikipedia for more than fifteen years without any entries on my block log. The quotes Awilley gave above - some of which did focus on the reasoning, and I do not know why he quoted those here, for there is nothing wrong with them - all come from the last few weeks. I guess the virus-induced social isolation got to me, and I moved too far away from the usual "focus on the reasoning" standard. When I see the Worst President Ever bungling this crisis, sacrificing lives to his ego, I get edgy. I should not take that out on other people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it appear that Hob Gadling is cooling off a bit I think the warning is sufficient. I will say HG, you need to try to understand WHY people might disagree with you. I didn't start off thinking you should be tban'ed. If you look at my original post I suggested it if this were a long term issue. When you went on the offensive that suggested that you weren't listening to the "take it down" message. It appears that you are hearing that message now. Based on your accusations and digging for quotes some have assumed my tban position was based on trying to solve a content dispute with you. Given how rarely we have ever ended up on the same topics that is a laughable claim. You cited two examples where we crossed paths. In one case because I objected to a article lead change. The history is on the page. The other is a great example of why we need to try to understand the other side rather than assume they are acting in bad faith. You cited my comments on Talk:Climate crisis. Perhaps it would be useful to know I found that page via a NPOVN RfC posting. The issue at hand was not is there a climate crisis but should Wikipedia use the term instead of climate change [[25]]. there is no climate crisis or that global warming isn't going to cause climate harm etc. I was one of a number of editors who didn't want to see the climate crisis article change from an article about the term. I was responding to a posted RfC. You only quoted part of my sentence. The turquoise is the full. The part you quoted has been italicized. So in reply to the question should Wikipedia refer to climate change as the climate crisis in Wikivoice I said, "tqTemplate:''Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc.'' Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change." It certainly is misleading to suggest that I'm denying science because I'm one of the editors who think Wikipedia should trail popular use of terms rather than lead it. Anyway, I hope that your attack on me was lashing out, understandably, because I had proposed a possible tban. If you are willing to understand stand where I'm coming from and my concern that you chose to question my motives and suggest that I was trying to have you blocked to win a content battle vs because I was concerned with the CIVILITY issues I'm certainly willing to strike my tban suggestion and assume good faith on your par. Springee (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I have no evidence that you are anti-science either.

Let me give you a tip too. I hope it will not sound as patronizing to you as your tip sounds to me. If you had written "who usually happens to be a very level headed editor", taking into account the conspiracy-theorist slip, or, after I tried to draw your attention to the mismatch between being level-headed and calling someone a name like that, if you had at least acknowledged the issue by calling it a slip or something, instead of changing the subject by erecting the strawman "that someone else behaved badly doesn't justify your bad behavior", that would have been "a great example" of trying "to understand the other side", as you put it, and it would have gone a long way to convincing me that you are an honest person and that I should make peace with you. I phrased my response the way I did because you completely failed to address my main point and changed the subject. Whenever that happens, I get angry at the person who does it. If you look carefully at the FTN discussion that triggered this, you will notice that the users I had a conflict with did the same thing before I reacted the way I did.

The first step is reading what the other side writes and perceiving what their point is. If you do not even try to understand HOW people disagree with you, then you will definitely fail at trying to "understand WHY people might disagree with you".

But I guess you were not at your best back then either. Stuff happens. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You were given very good advice here [[26]]. Going after the things they say, the logic of their arguments is fine. However, the long list of quotes at the start of this discussion showed you attacking the person rather than the argument. I understand that things can get frustrating at times but that's the best time to take a step back and think vs just type. Being "right" isn't a bypass for CIVIL. Springee (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank User:Girth Summit, who said exactly the right things. His comment above was what turned the tide for me, and I want to point to it as a model on how things like this should be done. Showing understanding is the way to induce understanding. Demanding understanding without showing the tiniest trace of it oneself is always counterproductive - it just makes people dislike and distrust you. GS did not make that mistake, and that helped a lot. I will try not to make that mistake either in the future, and I hope his competence will inspire others to do it too right next time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it is helpful to step back and consider that we are all people. It would have been helpful if I did a better job understanding why you felt attacked. I don't agree that PackMecEng, a very level headed editor in general, intended to insult but I can see how you could have reasonably seen it as such. It doesn't excuse the response but it does offer context. Similarly, when you switched to ascribing motives to my comments here falsely leading people to assume I was commenting here as part of some content dispute, well I hope you can see that is why I went from saying a tban might be needed if things didn't reverse to one was needed now. To be clear, I'm here because I really think the sort of incivility you have shown is destructive to collaborative editing and that makes it an issue for other editors. Even if people didn't agree that a "block until you cool it" was needed, they clearly saw the underling issue. I'm glad to see you also see it. Springee (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, it's kind of you to say that. Awilley, as the OP, I'd like to hear whether you're satisfied with the statements that HG has made? I think that there were problems with the way that he was interacting, but he has acknowledged that and indicated that he will try to do better - does that assuage your concerns? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for what you did here. I have no objections to this being closed...if nobody else closes this or objects in the next couple hours I can do it myself. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• (after ec) Oppose tban, prefer block. I clicked on diff after diff presented in the initial complaint and I agree, they are nasty. They all seem to date to March 20 at the earliest. I am not impressed by Hob Gadling's responses here that he will cease accusing those who disagree in any way with his edits of being anti-science or of ganging up against him personally, much less violating WP:BLP, which obtains on talk pages as well as in article space. I have again and again been impressed by Black Kite's judgement, but this kind of aggressive disrespect for fellow editors is IMO the epitome of WP:CIV violation and far more corrosive to collaborative editing than is the use of four-letter words. Take-no-prisoners arguing is why I, for one, don't even risk copyediting climate change articles, to name one area. And whatever our internal definitions of civility, we should not suspend BLP for people we disagree with. That's part of the point of having it. This editor has been behaving unacceptably and needs to be stopped for the good of the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yngvadottir, I think he got pissed off. It looks like he's calmed down now. Guy (help!) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  A collaborative environment often gives us reason for annoyance, even anger. Reacting repeatedly by labelling fellow editors "anti-science" shows a fundamental hostility that shouldn't be waved away. There's a harmful double standard when we're harsher to those who drop f-bombs when they get "pissed off" than those who show a classic WP:BATTLE attitude. And the BLP violations are unconscionable, and also worthy of being labelled as a double standard. This blindness to someone being just flat-out unwilling to tolerate others' existence on a page is why swathes of the encyclopaedia are more and more characterised by extremism; it drives out those who don't see an "other side" in any given debate. And I'll say it again: excoriating living people is supposed not to be tolerated, even on talk pages. We don't run a climate-change discussion forum here. No, this is not acceptable. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions - I see no reason that the requested warning will not suffice, and I feel it's inappropriate to hijack a thread where no sanctions are on the table to try to get a content opponent TBANed. Consistent petty incivility is not immediately blockable and additional leeway is given to users who are fighting the frustrating and never-ending battle of anti-science POV-pushers. However, this petty incivility is not tolerable, and will eventually result in severe blocks, and there are numerous examples of this playing out. HG needs to start heeding advice to check his tone or things will eventually start escalating, but I see no need to railroad the guy over a request for a warning over minor incivility. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban I don't see why a climate change topic ban would make sense. If there's an issue about civility or BLP it's something else. —PaleoNeonate – 10:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Agreeing with Yngvadottir in that a climate change topic ban seems out of focus, but there should be a sanction addressing incivility, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and BLP issues which is well-backed with diffs here. He is doubling down on the unneeded "science" vs. "antiscience" editors battle lines in this very thread: As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, so nothing has been achieved here. If nothing is done, this thread will be yet another example of "why was this kind of behavior enabled", for ANI has been notoriously bad dealing with incivility. --Pudeo (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, my reading of this thread is different from yours. HG has dialed it down quite a bit since he made that comment, and made some statements to the effect that he realises he overstepped the mark. That kind of critical self-reflection isn't easy when you're under the spotlight. Our goal here should be to encourage people to improve their behaviour, and only block them from editing as a last resort - I think we'd all do well to recognise when someone acknowledges they've made mistakes, rather than to hark back to things they said before that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, I think if this ends with a warning that should be sufficient. As others have said, if the behavior continues after a warning then additional measures can apply. I think a number of people misunderstood my proposed tban, likely thinking it to be a long term thing as opposed to my intent, a circuit breaker meant to be reset the moment the issue was addressed. My bad for not making that clear with by bold text proposal. Anyway, if a warning serves the same purpose that is fine and the intent. I do agree with those who say the objective is to stop the incivility, not the content editing. Springee (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Convenience break for editing

Not participating in the discussion, just adding a subsection header so you don't have to edit the whole section all at once. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think it's just awsiting closure to be honest - the OP has indicated that they're satisfied with the statements that HG has made, the person who proposed sanctions has indicated that they longer think they're required, I think this is dealt with. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But you have to admit, the break did make posting that comment more convenient. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I used reply link. It made typing thiseasier though - I don't know how to small with reply link (I think it would make my sig big), so you were right in the end.. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it only signs when it detects none, methinks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, wow, thanks - looks like you're right! (You still are cool in my book!) GirthSummit _(blether) 07:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, that's fine; I didn't read the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support logged warning - and I agree with Springee about PackMecEng, a common sense, level-headed editor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:KyleJoan and User:Davefelmer

I noticed a few issues a while back and again this morning, it started out on the article Birds of Prey (2020 film) with a kind of edit-war and KyleJoan has raise an SPI against Davefelmer about creating multiple accounts to get his agenda across. I think there is a lot here to go through on the Birds of Prey article history and talk page. I really think admins intervention is needed now. Govvy (talk) 09:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The main issue is that Davefelmer repeatedly adds disputed materials to the lead section of Birds of Prey (2020 film) while an RfC discussing said disputed materials is ongoing. In relation, they summarize/justify their additions by falsely claiming that they have obtained consensus for them. I'd also like to state that many of Davefelmer's recent edits of film articles' lead sections have been reverted by other users; some examples include Iron Man 2 per this diff, Charlie's Angels (2019 film) per this diff, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker per this diff, and Birds of Prey (2020 film) per this diff. KyleJoan^talk 10:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article talk page in question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film). Said disputes have come from this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)#BoP_a_box_office_dissapointment which is NOT ongoing as there has been one comment made to it since March 17 with 3/4 editors involved siding with the inclusion of the relevant information, and this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Birds_of_Prey_(2020_film)#RfC_about_relation_to_DCEU_Universe_and_break-even_point which is the RfC in question. Two different points were raised by user KyleJoan, one of which has not been touched but another in which again 3/4 editors have sided with inclusion of information KyleJoan went against. There's been one comment made to the page in the last 13 days so I would say that that debate is not ongoing either, except for the fact that yesterday KyleJoan went and opened an SPI investigation into one of the users that sided with inclusion as my sockpuppet, which is the SPI linked by Govvy above, and anyone that looks through it will see the absurdity of what we are dealing with here (he's claiming evidence of SPI tampering because two replies by different users in a movie article talkpage happened to share the words "picture" and "balance"...I mean what's next, demanding any two users who happen to use the words "set" or "happy" automatically be sockpuppets? What about "budget" and "good"?). It's simply an embarrassing reach to delay a consensus being formed that he does not like.

And with due respect, his random pointing out of some edits in movie articles I've made in the past being reverted means absolutely nothing. Any Wikipedia editor will see some of his edits reverted and discussed, that's the nature of the project. If you look back at my recent history, you'll also see edits made on movie articles which were not reverted and have stood too, but that is similarly neither here nor there. None of the highlighted edits generated any significant disputes with other editors and the pages have not been touched for a while. It appears these inclusions with no relevance to the RfC and BoP talkpage this noticeboard is about have been included for no other reason than to try and plant small seeds of negativity in the perception of me as an editor to whoever will review this, which I urge said people not to fall for as if I were to do likewise for KyleJoan, there would be a pretty extensive pool of information to draw on and add to my response with. Davefelmer (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

User:PlanetAakash and User:BenJulio87

Very suspicious of these 2 accounts, they have been gaming the system, there might be more sockpuppet accounts associated with it, which they use to write paid articles, the recent one is of Karan Jani. He didn't achieve any substantial prize note-worthy -> the one which he received worthy is Breakthrough Prize which was shared with 1012 contributors, here is the link -> https://breakthroughprize.org/News/32, and other awards are just local university awards which he got at his university he studied. He doesn't pass the Notability criteria for academics. Also, PlanetAakash has done paid articles before, you can check on his talk page, and BenJulio87(his supposedly uncle who is an Australian by birth(Indian Government Official lol!) created a Draft:Aakash Gautam(who is PlanetAakash). 2405:201:C808:F33:B171:3312:D05B:621E (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Kolyvansky, edit warring, IDHT, screeds

Kolyvansky (talk · contribs) Editwarring in Canada Drugs, a long screed in Regulatory capture, WP:IDHT on my talk page, a TP full of warnings. I fear the problem is intractable. Please advice. Kleuske (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, no edits since the last warning, but this could go direct to WP:ANEW if he repeats it. No opinion on the merits of the content, but this is straight up edit warring. Guy (help!) 20:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyranny of New page reviewers: a cry for help

Despite having performed many valuable and worthwhile contributions to Wikipedia, in the last couple of years a new category of New page reviewers has arisen. These days when I try to create an article it is relentlessly assaulted (see below). I cannot contribute to Wikipedia very well, under these conditions. With over ten-thousand edits and dozens of new articles my contributions have been worthy and deserve to be supported. I have mostly quietly worked in the area of Chinese poetry and Chinese mythology, although at one point I also overhauled the Japanese poetry article section. Nevertheless, in regard to certain New page reviewers:

• I am considered worthy of insults and threats for daring to create a new article; for example, see Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology.
• I am told that Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing is impermissible and against policy, and that I have to use Ref tags instead, even though this is not the best practice for certain types of articles (more academic and specialized ones, that is), and which instead makes such articles more difficult to edit (at least for those of us actually doing the editing), and they are less satisfactory as a result.
• Despite WP:Stub, and Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing these New page reviewers insist that I have "no references", and insist that they should proclaim this with a major template transclusion, above even the article lead (which is certainly of no service to the end-users, which is what we are supposed to be all about).
• It is insisted that: WP:CITE does not mean that: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. The arbitration committee ruled in 2006:

Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. If you are the first contributor to add citations to an article, you may choose whichever style you think best for the article."

Instead the New page reviewers insist that I write the article at their direction, using their preferred reference citation style. For example, see Talk:Trees in Chinese mythology.

• These New page reviewers are ignorant of the subject area about which I am writing (such as, Chinese language or Chinese culture), and they contribute nothing positive towards expanding the article: merely they create a very disruptive and very discouraging atmosphere, and frustrate my and other editors' attempts to improve Wikipedia.
• Chinese to English is treated as something demanding unknowable reference citations, when it is a case of mere dictionary and not encyclopedic understanding.
• The three revert rule is gamed so that the New page reviewers have the advantage.

Is there any way in which this tyranny of New page reviewers can be mitigated? It's a waste of time when I have to spend so much time trying to reason about articles with people that don't really care about the content or actually working on the articles, when I am only attempting to work on the articles without being gratuitously disrupted. This new page review situation is really harming Wikipedia in a very significant way. Is there at least a way in which I can contribute to Wikipedia, using parenthetic referencing and not be constantly disrupted in ways which seem not at all in accord with concensus guidelines? Dcattell (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I've had overeager editors come to an article that I created, attempt to fix things that weren't broken, and make a mess of it. Some of what you're describing would fall under that, such as unilaterally changing citation style. New page reviewers shouldn't do that, and they can be blocked if they edit war to do so. However, asking for citations and removing unsourced content aren't disruptive (unless there's already a citation there, of course). If the article has sources, but they're not cited in a way that a new page reviewer prefers, they'll just have to deal with it and move on to the next article. One thing you might like, by the way, is {{sfn}}. It's the high-tech version of parenthetical referencing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Frankly, limited sympathy. If it is unclear for the readers (of which the New Page Reviewer is one) whether a section of text is referenced because you neglected to provide inline citations, then that reader is justified in asking for concrete attribution. Why not just provide it? If you can't or won't, then treating the material as unsourced is not an unreasonable proposition. The point here is to provide clearly attributed summaries for the reader, with personal preferences of the author running a distant second. - Re parenthetical referencing, you are correct in that there is no requirement for using templates (although I wish there was) and the reviewer ought to have left well enough alone, but what happened at Trees in Chinese mythology hardly strikes me as traumatizing or even edit-warring. Is this melodramatic screed really necessary? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NPP is the place for this, but it's true: "You Will Respect Mah Authoritay!" is the attitude much too often.
  My suggestion is {{r}}, with its page= parameter. It's low-tech, lightweight, easy to use, not fragile like {sfn}, and much less intrusive than parenthetical referencing. EEng 00:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Dude in your only alleged diff/complaint you accused the NPR of having a "fixation on this article". That's a personal attack. They're just doing the job, and you accuse them of being some insane person with some sort of "fixation". That's ridiculous. Someone's just doing their job, and then you lash out at them with an insane accusation. NPRs are meant to push article writers to fix their articles as needed. Not seeing the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Dcattell, as a coordinator of New Page Patrol, I'm sorry you have had some unpleasant experiences with new page reviewers. Creating content is hard and I would hope that all reviewers would be respectful of the work creators do. Even when that work has problems. At Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology I see a reviewer attempt to say what they see as the issue and attempt to do so in a sensitive matter. It's clear you became agitated but I don't, as others have indicated above, think they became fixated on the article. Further one issue for me, as I know it is for many content creators, is striking the right balance between shepherding an article and crossing over into ownership. I hope the suggestions Eeng gave you above are helpful as you continue your content work. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Barkeep49, as you are the coordinator of new page patrol (I hate the word "patrol" with its implications of militarism, but I suppose we're stuck with it) I'm addressing this to you. All too often I find that people who review new pages have far less knowledge of what a good encyclopedia article is than the people who are doing the constructive work of actually creating content. Do you recognise that this is a problem, and are you doing anything about it or just sticking your head in the sand? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, as with all of our volunteer efforts some volunteers for NPP (your discomfort is why I almost always refer to it that way) are better than other volunteers. This is true for any of our efforts - even in purely administrative realms. We certainly make efforts at reviewer quality. For instance I have added to NPP School a "graduate school" which we call NPP Mentorship for people to get help who have the NPP permission. I also tried a "peer review" cohort which didn't have great success. The people who enrolled were mostly those who were the ones who are generally considered to be doing the highest quality work. We also work to create a real sense of community at WT:NPR - if you go there now you can see reviewers ask for help from each other.

  The other way to ensure reviewer quality is to be selective in who we grant the permission to. Rosguill who is an active NPP is the primary person who has been handling WP:PERM/NPR but I can tell you that in general the approach Ros and I take is to give new reviewers a time limited grant of the PERM. In this way when they come back (hopefully) we can offer feedback at that time as well. But this speaks to an issue, just as we don't want to discourage content creators (who are at the heart of the encyclopedia in my estimation) we don't want to discourage NPP who are on the frontlines of protecting the reputation our content creators have built by keeping out non-notable people, limiting spam, and otherwise ensuring articles comply with policies and guidelines.

  Hopefully this shows you the ways that we're not sticking our heads in the sand (a comment, btw, that felt unnecessarily pointy). Please feel free to follow-up with other questions/concerns/ideas you have. And if you observe an issue with a reviewer one of the things I agreed to when becoming coordinator is having "difficult conversations" so you can feel free to let me know of concerns you might have either on my talk page or via email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger As someone who is active(ish - far less so than some) in NPP myself, I'd add that we would dearly love more help from the active content-creation community. I agree with you that prolific writers who are familiar with policy, sourcing, and all the little things that new editors don't know about, would probably make excellent reviewers. I'd encourage anyone with a decent amount of experience to get involved and help with the sizable backlog. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  The problem with that has always been that editors who try to do NPP properly, including actually looking at sources, which takes some time, get preempted by people who see it as a race and so get their sloppy patrolling in first. The whole way that the process is set up rewards speed over accuracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I hear what you're saying. I go slow myself - the days when I review more than three are few and far between, as each one takes me at least ten minutes, maybe more. The backlog is a beast that is always hungry though - there aren't enough hands on deck to deal with the number of articles that are created, and to do a perfect job each time. This thread is about reviewers being too strict; I've also seen good-faith reviewers berated for allowing through poorly-sourced guff because they weren't strict enough. It's not easy for a small group of people to strike the right balance every time, when there is a time pressure involved. Again - many hands make light work. If you find the front ent of the queue to be annoyingly fast-paced, work on the back end, or the middle. Set an example, show how it should be done. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree some NPP are motivated by speed rather than by accuracy. This has always been discouraged. I would like to point out that in the incidents that sparked this discussion two NPP who were checking sources and who did edit articles. This is not to say that "drive by" checks don't happen; they do. We have tried to emphasize that accuracy over speed mentality. It's my own concern about this that explains why I've resisted calls, despite the backlog creeping ever higher, to do a backlog drive. I think such drives do incentive, in a way we don't normally, speed. If you have ideas Phil on how we could further that idea of accuracy as truly important I would welcome hearing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  [27]--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I am supposed to reply here. Anyway the software said I was supposed to put my reply at the bottom of the page. So I did. Thanks. Dcattell (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no need to that; let's keep everything in one place. I've combined the two sections.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dcattell, one possible fix for you personally would be to create the articles in Draft namespace then move them to mainspace after you've completed your initial round of edits. Guy (help!) 11:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Long version of concerns by Dcattell

Thank you all for the timely responses to my request for help, altogether they are most helpful. I also apologize for being excessively verbose and for allowing my emotions to bleed into my prose style. I also apologize to New page reviewers in general for not being clear that New page reviewers generally perform an invaluable service on Wikipedia: just not at all in the case of the last few article which I have started, and in fact the opposite. I also would like to point out that I have been editing for about a dozen years and it seems to me that what I am encountering is something new or on a new order; and also that I think that I have done due diligence on researching policies and guidelines on Wikipedia, including and following them (although not to the point of seeking dispute resolution). I think that I am due some reasonable respect for knowledge of and for following Wikipedia guidelines as well as specific project guidelines. I have read WP: Dispute resolution, but it not reasonable to go through this process for each and every new article: it interferes with improving the article. I would like to focus on a major problem which has been addressed here, but not resolved; and which is really what I should have said to begin with if I had been more clear in my mind. That said: Is it too much to ask that New page reviewers actually read the new articles and check the references cited before applying article curation tags, disputing content, or deleting content? I know for a fact that this was not done in the case of the last several articles or stubs which I started (the challenges to the article appeared within a minute or a few minutes at the most of first posting the article: it is humanly impossible to have read this amount of material that quickly, much less evaluated the article by that means. Robots are are not an excuse and a quick glance at the new article or stub is not an excuse to challenge articles which are actually cited with reliable reference sources. I ask that Wikipedia develop a policy or guideline for new articles and article stubs, at least for veteran editors working in the somewhat academic and specialized area of sinological topics, that New page reviewers actually read the articles, consult the cited references, and only afterwards begin an article curation process or the process of deleting reputably sourced material. I also think it is a contradiction to Wikipedia policy and guidelines to place article curation tags in article space: they clearly belong on editorial talk pages. Challenging an article's content and posting an erroneous tag claiming that an article has no cited references is just wrong, and counter productive, when the article does have cited references. Adding a tag that an article could or would be improved by the use more references when an article is less than a day old and has adequate references for what start level content appears is just disrespectful to the editor starting the article and to editors wishing to collaborate on the article. Is it to be presumed that we don't know that other than perhaps GA level articles that articles can be improved by expanding the content and adding more references. Not only that, but it discourages us from working on an article when reference material is being challenged and removed. How am I supposed to improve an article when the reference material that I have already added is being challenged and removed faster than I can add to it? This is not a pet peeve, requesting a kitchen sink, or engaging in content dispute with any individual editors (other than demanding that my reliably referenced material not be removed on spurious grounds of "original research" "or "unreferenced): I am flagging a major problem. I am not complaining because I am a little "annoyed", and I would follow my usual practice of just plowing ahead and working in by my generally correct editorial style (as can be seen in my record). Why I placed a request for help is because the situation is such that the burden of starting and developing an new article has reached an unreasonable level. The bar for starting a new article, at least of the specialized sort which I am working on has become too high. Maybe the New page review process could assign reviewers based on the WikiProjects for which the articles are tagged on the Talk page? If it is WP:China and WP:Mythology maybe we could get someone interested in Chines mythology, and we could get a reviewer actually interested in the article content, reading the citations, and perhaps contributing towards the content, rather that focusing on presumptive pretexts to challenge and remove material. Perhaps New article reviewers could be encouraged to hand the review off to a specialist if the task of evaluating the article and its references seems to call for someone with knowledge of a specialized area or the use of various methods of inline footnotes? Might it be reasonable to provide a new, start level article or stub meeting the referencing and other a few days or a week before subjecting to an intensive article review process? Does it seem reasonable that New page reviewing should always it seems threaten to remove challenged material in the guise of suggesting improvements to the article? Pretty much every veteran editor know that unreferenced material can be challenged and removed: is it necessary to broadly template articles with this threat, and say it is a suggestion for improvement? Wouldn't it be better to read the article, consult the references, and then address specific concerns point by point? and other If this is not the place for it, please let me know where to address my concerns. CASE STUDY: 03:09, 24 June 2019, I began Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology with a list of 8 reliable reference sources and at least 12 inline citations. Not the top importance article, but critical to reducing the burden of the somewhat over-burdened and top importance Chinese mythology article, and continued to work on the article. 14:28, 25 June 2019 New article reviewer User:Hzh claims the article is unreferenced and threatens to challenge and remove material. I then continued to improve the article, including the referencing. Hzh again falsely challenges article. I begin a dialog with Hzh who then makes unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims about the article including as to the references, original research and so on. A few minor parts of the article were awaiting references, but these challenges were made just on general grounds, without any specifics (since indeed such arguments would have failed by simply consulting the references and the citations given), and threatens to have me blocked for allegedly violating these policies and and groundlessly dismissing the references. 11:26, 27 June 2019 User:Hzh removes referenced material, specifically a table with about half of the entries easily checked as indicated in Birrell, Anne (1993). Chinese Mythology. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins). ISBN 0-8018-6183-7, as indicated in the article. The other half I was working on, as well as improving the Birrell references; but I never got a chance to. I basically stopped working on the article, general improvements, adding content, adding references and improving references. The environment in which I am expected to edit is toxic. It is too hard to develop articles when every step of the way is being relentlessly challenged, the challenges generally lack substance and could easily be put to rest through minor improvements or by actually consulting the references. PLEASE! May the refernces be consulted. I have put reliable references in there! They support the article! I belive Hzh also objected to including Chinese translations for swords in the article. To to so would be against WP:China policy and Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The most recent threat from Hzh was on my talk page, also threatening the article Trees in Chinese mythology for which Hzh was not hte new page reviewer for but never5theless chooses to threaten to remove the material, thus likely the aricle on spurious grounds of Original research (this can be easily shown be checking the provided referenece to De Groot, J.J.M. (1910 [2003]). The Religious System of China. Vol. IV. Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7661-3354-9. Available online: De Groot, J.J.M. (1910/2003). The Religious System of China. Vol. IV. ISBN 978-0-7661-3354-9. Accessed on Google Books 7 April 2020. Is Hzh my new permanent new page patroller, patrolling every new article I create, premptivley challenging all content on the broadest possible terms without regard to the actual article or the references cited in the article (which Hzh refuses to acknowledge. It is overly burdensome for me to have to write or edit under these conditions. I would like generally to have some improvement in Wikipedia New page reviewer policy, and I am sure eventually these points will be addressed, not necessarily because I was an early editor to bring them up. Specifically, I would some assurance that Hzh stop threatening to remove and actually removing referenced, non-originally researched material. Also, it is unreasonable to have Hzh follow me around each new article I create and to gratuitously threaten them on my talk page. One or two of Hzh's criticisms resulted in some positive article changes, but under the guise of "being helpful" Hzh actually chllenged each section of the article, on one spurious ground or the other. Judging by User talk:Hzh, this user delights in pushing policy to and beyond reasonable limits. I don't want a personal dispute, I just think I should not be subject5 to this disruptive editing, where everything I do in the article is challenged on spurious general policy grounds and the challenger never deals in specific. If my articles aren't referenced, why are there references? If my articles aren't cited, why do they have citations? If the citations don't say what the article says they say, then why aren't specifics dealt with? It's is too easy for Hzh or anyone else too say something is original research when they refuse to pay any attention to the research. At no time has Hzh cited any references to back up claims about the article. At no point did Hzh challenge reference material or any content whatsoever, check the reference cited, and find that the reference failed to support a point in the article. All criticisms of my articles cr8iticized Hzh boil down to the article says something Hzh doesn't like, so Hzh demands that the article be rewritten according to Hzh's pronouncements, Hzh the invokes of the name of some Wikipedia policy to literally bully the editor into complying. Hzh can simply shutdown work on an article by saying Wikipedia:Citing sources, WP:OR, and so on; putting me or another editor in an awkward position, then Hzh or another editor can and has ignored all specifics to the contrary, and continue to continuously threaten to remove and actually remove referenced and WR:OP compliant material. Hzh should not be appointed by others or self-appointed as personal and permanent New page editor, what do I have to do for relief?. Thank you in advance for carefully considering the main points I have raised here. If I could have said it in less words I would have. If I did not objec5tively think that some of my suggestions might go on to help Wikipedia I would not have worked so hard on them. Dcattell (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dcattell, we are all volunteers. You need to learn to condense. El_C 18:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, however divided by twelve years of editing it is not all that much. So here's the condensed version:

• I have been editing Wikipedia, I guess going on my twelfth year. I think the contributions which I used to make, and am willing to continue to make, can no longer continue under the current environment of new article creation. Contributions include numerous articles and overall organization of Chinese poetry, Japanese poetry, and a start on Chinese mythology topics. I am asking for help because for the first time I really need it, and I am ignorant of most Wikipedia functionality other than reading or editing articles.

• I have specifically been subjected to bullying by User:Hzh, and would like some sort of support and help in this regard. Hzh refuses to engage with the references and seems to engage in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The articles that I have been attempting to work on are objectively the worse for it, Hzh does not positively contribute to the articles, and I do not see any useful purpose towards attempting to work on articles given this situation. This is not a content dispute, Hzh is not engaging in content, especially any referenced content, in any constructive sense of the term. Perhaps Hzh could find something else to do. I certainly could, however this would be at the detriment of the development of encyclopedic content on Wikipedia.
• I would like to see some valuable reforms in the New article review process. As an experienced editor in the area of new articles, I would like to contribute in a positive manner towards this. I think it would be useful to Wikipedia for me to share or discuss this in the appropriate forum or fora (although what these would be, I have no idea). However, if Wikipedia will not listen and respond to the issues of its editors, it is likely to stagnate. I would hate to see that. I have enjoyed editing Wikipedia, sometimes, and feel it has been a contribution toward making the world a better place.

Thanks, Dcattell (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The important point here is that you considered a demand for verification using valid sources to be tendentious and disruptive editing. For example, the table you mentioned here - [28], you regarded as valid a Chinese Wikipedia category page on famous swords as a source for mythological swords. I didn't agree, and asked for sources, which you refused to provide. You are now arguing after 10 months that half of the entries are in the Birrell book after all, why didn't you just put it in there as asked so that I can actually check? What about the other half of the entries? Hzh (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Word. If attribution of a text segment (e.g. a table) is missing but can be provided, then it should. If no attribution can be provided, then the table should not be in the article. Hzh's insistence on implementing one of these options is not disruptive, and the article is objectively the better for following through on either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I get a CliffsNotes version of Hadrian's Essay above? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I replied to this on the relevant user talk page, since it seemed like a personal request. But, if anyone wants to read it... Dcattell (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I have notified Hzh of this discussion, as required. Dcattell, please be sure to do this next time. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for hinting to me of this requirement, and fulfilling this task. Would you be so kind as to provide a link toward relevant information? Sorry, I am clueless. Is it because I mentioned a specific user? Also, I hope there is not a next time. Dcattell (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dcattell: Yes, that's correct. When you edit this page, a yellow notice box should be visible at the top instructing users to that

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}--~~~~ to do so. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors. The templates {{Pagelinks}} (for pages) and {{Userlinks}} (for editors) may be helpful."

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The learning curve is a bit steep here however. A lot to process. The relevant articles are Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology and especially the associated Talk page and to a lesser extentTrees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology (as moved to a new title). As far as diffs go, I have less than a complete understanding of them, and getting up to speed will unavoidably and regrettably take me some time. However, the page histories involved are short, and have a limited number of diffs. Thanks and apologies, Dcattell (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to reply here, given that I appear to have been accused of things I did not do. I did not remove referenced material, specifically a table with about half of the entries easily checked; I removed a table, but I see no references in the table before I removed it - [29] apart from a link to a Chinese Wiki category on famous swords . Legendary or famous swords are not the same as swords in mythology, to suggest that they are without sources would be OR, and that was the reason it was removed, there was no references for any of the sword being mythological. I also did not issue threat on his talk page, merely saying that what's written in Trees in Chinese mythology appear to be OR after I got pinged by Yunshui when DCattell complained about another reviewer. DCattell seems to agree with what I said (symbols are not the same as mythology) because they changed the title of the article to Trees in Chinese mythology and cultural symbology. It seems that the editor has confused mythology with other things not mythological. I also did not object to including Chinese translations for swords in the article; if I understand what the editor is referring to, it is that article should not use a Chinese category page as a citation (the category does not work as a citation anyway, since it is not about mythological sword). If there is anything in the confusing accusations above that needs answering, do let me know. Hzh (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am still confused. Unless there's something else going on that they are not linking to, Dcattell's complaint is regarding a New Article Review that Hzh performed nearly a year ago, in which Hzh raised some concerns about sourcing in good faith. Dcattell quickly degenerated into personally attacking Hzh, and is now accusing them of "tyranny", "nitpicking", "ignorance", "disruption", "tendentious editing", and much more. There is no evidence presented of actual wrongdoing, just the perceived insult of...being subjected to the NPR process, and not being exempted from criticism. This appears to be a strange lashing-out over long-held grudges. As we should all know, our NPR system is comically broken. The few Reviewers who actually put in the work are oftentimes subjected to endless complaints and abuse for doing the job. New candidates are subjected to incredible scrutiny and usually given only "temporary" grants at WP:PERM even if they're autopatrolled article creators with tens of thousands of edits. I only just recently had a promising new Reviewer resign from his position over the perception of "grief and abuse" that the task had brought him. And yet here we're humoring some guy who's attacking a Reviewer for apparently doing their job, almost a year later, with no evidence of wrongdoing. I'm strongly inclined to boomerang this report as frivolous. This is ridiculous. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• @Dcattell: I have read through your entire extended content now. I think you raise some interesting general points about NPP and offer some suggestions that in an ideal world we would implement. The fact is that we are short on volunteers in NPP just like we are short on volunteers in many areas of the wiki. Reviewers hopefully stick to areas they think they can competently review - e.g. I will review FOOTY articles which many reviewers will skip over while I skip over a lot of topics that rely on Chinese language sources because I know that there are other reviewers better equipped to do those reviews. I could write a lot more about those ideas but let's actually dive into your specific case study: Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology. I'm going to collapse myself but again I get why the experience might have frustrated you (you are right about parenthetical citation) but also I think Hzh was basically following all policies and procedures. I also think he was respectful of you throughout even when it is clear you'd become upset.

Barkeep's detailed analysis of the case study directed to Dcattell

When Hzh first tagged the article, it was on June 21 or 93 days after you'd created it. So, at least in this case study, it was not an article that hadn't had time to be developed properly when it was tagged. If you have an example like that I would like to see it. The tag that was placed was citing a lick of in-line references. That's a different tag than if there had been no references. That is Template:unreferenced if you'd like to see what that one looks like. When that tag was placed there were indeed some in-line citations using parenthetical reference. EEng up above gave some tips about how to make those into references that are linked. There were also whole sections without any references at all. I get why the tag bothered you - strictly speaking parenthetical references are acceptable if not very common. It might have been better for Hzh to send a message to you rather than placing the tag. At the end of a series of edits around specific issues he saw I see Hzh initiate conversation with you. That feels exactly what I would hope to see from an NPP and shows, in the comments, him grappling with what the sources are saying. This was not some driveby work. This is an editor doing exactly what you wanted - careful examination of content. I think it's important to underline here that Hzh has just as much right to edit this article as anyone else. Over the next couple of days conversation continues as do your efforts to improve the article. This seems like the normal editing process - I can get it might not have felt good to have someone question your work (I've bristled more than once when someone has done so to me) but it's also part of Wikipedia. I accept that the tradeoff for having my work read by thousands is that sometimes it doesn't get to end up exactly as I want it or I have to work a bit harder than I might like to get it to the way that I want. The real flashpoint seems to be over the table. Before Hzh removed the table (which wasn't present when he first reviewed the article but was added later) this is what it looked like. That table does not use any citations that I can see. And I also see why Hzh had OR concerns. In retrospect do you understand this or should I explain it more? I just can't get my mind to Hzh harassing you or otherwise behaving wrong at all. I can understand why you decided to stop editing that article. But Hzh didn't follow you around to other articles. He didn't lord his being a new page reviewer over you - I don't see him mention it until days into the discussion. I can get why it felt like he had power over you, which would be the prerequisite to be bullied but in reality NPP don't have any special privileges over any other editor other than one button they can press. So I'm not doubting like you felt like there was a power imbalance but I promise you from Hzh's perspective he felt like it was a discussion among equals. I know that won't make it feel better but I does hope it gives you some insight into where he as coming from. And hopefully now you know that NPP don't have special right or authority over how an article is edited so you won't feel that way if you get into a discussion with an NPP in the future. You were the first to throw out the idea of a behavior problem - suggesting Hzh was engaging in disruptive editing. Maybe this was an attempt to equal what you seemed to have perceived as the power imbalance but I see Hzh respond respectfully to you despite what was a pretty aggressive message. Hzh does mention blocking a couple days later but does so in a pretty soft manner and while, on the whole, attempting to be respectful while maintaining policies. This is exactly what I would hope all of us NPP would do.

• So those are my extended thoughts. Even though you are technically right on the parenthetical citations I really do hope you take Eeng's advice on how to use the more widely linked citations while still maintaining your basic citation style. It feels like a small change that could save you a lot of frustration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Crveni5

• Crveni5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the risk of making a mountain out of a molehill this editor is either determined to ignore convention and consensus or is incapable uof understanding these concepts. The issue relates to List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men where Crveni5 insists on, sparodically moving living entries out of chronological order (this being the conventional order for deceased cases and living cases when moved by every other editor who edits the article). The history of this is as follows:

1. 2 March 2020 [30] Reverted their edit informing them of the correct order
2. 3 March 2020 [31] Reverted again using "Rvv" to denote that the edit appears intentionally disruptive as it followed an update by the user who regularly does the updates (and therefore knows the correct order).
3. 10 March 2020 [32] Reverted again.
4. 19 March 2020 [33] Reverted another edit made shortly after the regular user had updated the article. Gave the user a level 3 warning. User explained that their edits were not vandalism and they were free to edit how ever they wished (an argument they have used previously).
5. 25 March 2020 [34] After reverting yet another similar edit I explained to the user that they were editing against convention.
6. 2 April 2020 [35] Reverted another edit made after the article had been correctly updated. At this point I was beginning to wonder if the editor was actually doing this deliberately of just had no idea what they were doing. Attempted to resolve this with the edit by displaying the results of their edits versus the correct edits. As per their usual habit they failed to respond, then desisted from editing until returning to do the same thing again:
7. 8 April 2020 [36].

This user has been warned previously for multiple issues all of which suggest that they are not here to edit cooperatively. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

DerbyCountyinNZ, @Crveni5: My thoughts here are to recommend y'all go to Dispute resolution noticeboard. Opening a case, and being guided by a volunteer should work to solve your issue in a structured environment. You will have to play nice and follow the rules, failing to do so will land this back here, which will be an unpleasant experience. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• DS. EEng 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Meganr314 and edit summaries

I'd appreciate another set of eyes on newly-registered user Meganr314. Many of these edits appear to be unnecessarily stylistic or wording changes, some of which are not useful, suggesting that the user is gaming the system to become autoconfirmed. Also, the edit summaries provided have included a hashtag, which may be some sort of promotion. I have warned the user about the edit summaries in particular, but the behavior has continued, so I have brought this here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Danielagamez. It seems related to the Gaines Fellowship, whatever that is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's some information about the Gaines Fellowships. I have no idea why they are hashtagging Wikipedia edit summaries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the other editor and the program itself. I'm wondering if this is supposed to be some sort of course- or thesis-related editing that isn't being fully disclosed. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

A most unexpected block, and the correspondence that followed

Last night I was mad as a wet hen over this block by Swarm [37] My intention isn't to relitigate it here, but rather, to ask if I have really been so obtuse as suggested, and whether the blocking administrator acted appropriately. I attempted, over and over, to be truthful in my explanation: I saw a disruptive discussion on a user's talk page [38] and reported it here, to ANI. Eventually both parties were blocked, but before that resolved I followed some of RheieWater2005 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and mistook this edit [39] for vandalism. I attempted to revert it several times, was prevented from doing so by a bot, and left it be. Some hours later I was blocked, for a week's duration. The sentence was commuted by Drmies.

What I was incredulous about was the blocking administrator's certainty that I was acting as a sock. That probably could have been checked. I don't think my edit history was reviewed for a moment; in fact, an administrator who was familiar with my edit history came to my defense and was advised And, I will note to @ToBeFree:, a newer admin, that being an anti-vandalism IP and being an illegitimate sock are not mutually exclusive. So I'm not convinced this blind defense based on "anti-vandalism" are mutually exclusive. They also noted that The duck rule would seem to imply that this was either the sock fucking around, or a typical "false flag" reproduction of sock behavior, which is in itself a well-known LTA sock behavior. At this point, it became clear to me--and subsequent conversation confirmed this--that there was nothing I could say that would resolve the block in my favor. I asked that admin several times not continue at my talk page, to no avail. I solicited the assistance of a few admins who know me; one of them knows who I am in 'real' life, and that made the accusation that I was engaging in something underhanded sting more. It was humiliating, and I finally made a request to unblock, the first time I've been compelled to do that in over fifteen years here. The block held overnight.

As I suggested, I'm not posting this to open a lengthy discussion, or a contentious one. But this bothered the hell out of me. I don't think the block was right, I don't think the length was right, and I sure (as hell) don't think the discussion was right. If I'm off base, please close this swiftly. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't really have much to add beyond what I said at the IP's talk page. An IP was flagged at AIV for repeatedly triggering an edit filter. The edit they made was reinstating an edit made by a sock at their SPI page. The edit itself was nonsensical, adding an inapplicable container category to the SPI page. It struck me as obviously suspicious disruptive editing, either from the sock themselves or the type of "false flag" pseudo-socking behavior that we see. Once the IP told me that it was a mistake, I went out of my way to make sure they knew that if the block was in error, then I would be happy to unblock them. I merely articulated the specific things that struck me as suspicious behavior, and asked for their explanation. As you can see from their talk page, I repeatedly stated that I would unblock them if they would simply answer these points of confusion that they alleged were erroneous, and they repeatedly refused to do so, to the point of "banning" me from their talk page. As you can see from my replies, I was flabbergasted at their refusal to simply explain the situation. I was not unreasonable, aggressive or harsh with them, I simply asked for them to explain why the things that I found suspicious had a reasonable explanation. They never answered my simple questions. Eventually Drmies simply unblocked them, taking their innocence at face value, and my questions were never answered. That's fine, another admin did not share my concerns, no big deal. Even if the IP feels that I gave them too hard of a time, I'm hard pressed to understand why they could simply not answer my concerns. Perhaps they were angry with me, which is understandable from a blocked user. Regardless, I don't feel I did anything wrong, I simply explained what led to the block and asked for their side of the story, rather than "blindly" unblocking. Regards, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yeah I'm sorry, it got a bit late for me, and I was surprised to see you still blocked the next morning. A week-long block without a warning for a few attempts that were filtered out, after a ton of obviously positive edits, that's a bit strict, yes. Swarm, I think the part that you are not getting is that this editor has been around maybe as long as you and I, and that obviously their pride was seriously hurt. In other words, that you wanted them to explain what seemed obvious to them, that didn't help. As for your question, I think it was answered, and I've known this editor for, what, five or six years? so yeah I take them at their word, plus what happened to me seemed quite clear. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• FWIW, from a quick review of the IP's talk page:
  • I'm kind of puzzled why Swarm thought the IP hadn't already answered his question already. It seemed pretty clear to me that he had.
  • I'm kind of puzzled why the IP didn't just re-state the answer to the question (that he'd already given), instead of repeatedly saying "I've already told you why".

Example No. 34,5124 of how two good faith editors can misunderstand and get their backs up a bit over this imperfect communication medium. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Floquenbeam. I completely understand the initial block, but I thought the IP gave a fairly reasonable explanation. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• To address these points, I acknowledge that the IP provided an "explanation", but I found the explanation to be incomplete, and I replied to it with the specified questions that I had in spite of their explanation. The IP apparently thought that their initial explanation was satisfactory, I did not, and sought an additional explanation, presenting the specific questions that were unanswered by the initial explanation. The IP refused to answer these additional questions. I do not think my additional questions were unreasonable, or that they were answered by the initial explanation provided. If this was perceived as ignoring their explanation, I apologize, however it was quite the opposite. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not here to hammer anyone for mistakes which we all make from time to time, and I'm involved obviously, but the explanation was perfectly lucid to me from just a skim. Rereading now, I'm still not sure what more should've been said. Perhaps now fully understanding the situation Swarm would be willing to lay out how they feel this could've been better communicated? Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I simply would have liked my specific questions to have been answered. The explanation was incomplete, by my understanding, as it left me with questions, which I then asked. I don't think a simple followup explanation due to specific unresolved questions is an unreasonable request. Whether or not you feel I should have had questions, I did, and I asked them in good faith. There's really no reason to refuse to answer them and terminate communication over that. I was simply communicating in good faith, and the user refused to return the favor. I don't see how that makes me in the wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely think both of you were definitely acting in good faith here, which is why it seemed odd that the discussion on the IP's talk page was so lengthy. Having said that, I'm not really sure what this ANI thread is supposed to accomplish now? In the end, no one did anything wrong here and no actions are going to be taken. I think this can be closed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• For those of us without admin goggles, how many times did the edit filter get triggered and how much time elapsed between the edit filter getting triggered and the block? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Anyone can see that: link. For some reason, only CheckUsers can see the edit filter results for an IP range, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks NRP. Looks like the IP triggered the edit filter 3 times, and was blocked 10 hours later. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I've never heard that WP:NOBAN does not apply to unregistered talk pages either, fwiw. ——SN54129 13:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Serial Number 54129, thank you. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk page disruption by UserNumber

UserNumber is frequently showing aggressive ownership of Talk:Bakarkhani, by closing the RfC even after being deeply involved in the content dispute and edit warring everybody who has reverted him.[40][41]

He is also removing any further comments on talk page.[42] He has been already told by admin El_C to stop it,[43] but he won't and he is threatening that he will "report you guys if you don't stop misbehaving",[44] if anyone reverted him again.Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Aspersions by anonymous editor on record label article; no discussion

• 86.184.90.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Spinnin' Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The anonymous user above has since April 6 continued to reverse repeated trimming of non-notable sub labels of the subject of the above article, from both myself and Binksternet. Every time the list was restored, no reliable WP:SECONDARY sources were presented. WP:ASPERSIONS applies here as the editor has claimed all removals were either vandalism or bad faith. A recent attempt to bring the editor into an existing discussion at Talk:Spinnin' Records#Sublabels has failed. It appears this will continue to be the anon's agenda with no effort to discuss when reverted, and they are cutting very close to WP:3RR with their actions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted. Let's see what happens. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• According to the protection log this ain't the first time the article's had invigorating edits, so lets see if a little semi-protection opens a dialogue. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies' second year of gymnasium

-EEng

• • OK, TomStar81, I'll start. Is that 81 in your name a road, or maybe your birth year? I was in the second year of gymnasium in 1981. Maybe around that time I started getting interested in languages. OK your turn! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Gizapink continues to make personal attacks against other editors after having been blocked for doing so already.

The user in question after having been previously blocked for violations of WP:NPA just left a message passive aggressively asking User:CaradhrasAiguo if he was "working for the Chinese state" [45]. See Blocklog for "Gizapink" . It's pretty inflammatory behaviour especially considering Gizapink has a history of making these sorts of personal attacks. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Gizapink reverted CA to put it back on CA's talk page and claimed that CA has an OBVIOUS agenda twice at WP:ANEW (1, 2). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

As Chess alludes to, the previous block was for this passive aggressive (surprise!) remark. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 07:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, I'm pretty sure this is the diff that led to Gizapink being blocked for the first time in March. A topic ban from COVID-19 related topics or another block might be appropriate here. I'm not going to pretend that I don't have a "history" with CaradhrasAiguo so to speak (feel free to see their talk page) and in the interests of full disclosure I'm not an uninvolved editor. But this was really blatant, really uncivil, and is something that needs to be dealt with. Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:22, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week, and, to be honest, I am afraid that we are spending too much time for an editor who has made 140 edits and already got blocked twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat at the Teahouse

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

---

User:Suprach made a legal threat here. I told them there and on their talk page that they must retract that before doing anything else, but instead they posted this. --bonadea contributions talk 07:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the user--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:SwissArmyGuy keeps asking for my social media accounts and refuses to tell me why

I got an email today from a user I have never talked to, yet alone knew existed. User:SwissArmyGuy sent me a Wikipedia email asking if I could review the coronavirus pandemic in Norway. After I replied, saying that I didn't know what he meant by this, since I am not trained in medicine and diseases and such. A bit later, he sent me another email, but not as a Wikipedia email. He asked if I have any social media accounts, like Facebook and Twitter. After I said that I only use Discord and asked why he wanted these accounts, he did not give me a concrete answer. Afterwards, he sent me yet another email, asking if I have an Instagram account. I said I do, but I only let people I know follow me. He sent me a follow request on Instagram, which I haven't accepted yet, and don't know if I should. This is creepy, so I decided to make this post.

Evidence: [redacted] --Эрик (トークページ) 14:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Kingerikthesecond, reminder that you have to notify other editors when you're reporting them on AN/I, I'll do that for you now but please remember to do so in the future. creffett (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, but I am not sure how to do that. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Nvm just saw the red box on this page. I now know how to notify. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Kingerikthesecond, before I go any further, two things: a. please do NOT post such links anymore here. b. I do not see how your user name is in any way represented in your signature. As far as I am concerned, it is not cool to use that kind of a disguise. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, my Cyrillic's a bit nonexistent, but I think that Эрик transliterates to Erik/Eric. Not great, but we've definitely seen worse. creffett (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't know why it shouldn't be okay as long as it links to my profile? --KingErikII (トークページ) 14:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:SwissArmyGuy, can you explain what was going on? Drmies (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, how should I present evidence of my claims? As for my signature, I can change it if you want. --Эрик (トークページ) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

HD 182681

A User:Reskin keeps on adding the name (in one form or another, either redirect or page name changes) of Yonmara for the star [[46]], [[47]], [[48]], [[49]]. I have been unable to find any reference to this claim, not have they tried to add one (despite CN tags). Also may be a COI as well, and thus promotional content [[50]]. In fact this all they seem to have done for the last couple of months.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And still as it [[51]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• This may explain it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Slatersteven, that website you linked appears to be for a video game or something (and states the year of discovery as being about two centuries out). I doubt COI, though I won't rule out fiction. creffett (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Written by Reskin, Jason (20 March 2007).Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I created the article about this real star and did the scientific research and citations December 4, 2019. The common name has been in use for almost 2 decades. If you don't want the content please delete the article in it's entirety.