Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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)

@Walter Görlitz: No I didn't. Even if I did though, they looked at the articles themselves and I'm sure they could have told the difference if it mattered. What happened to accepting what other people tell you? That must only matter when it comes to getting what you want. Why not just accept that half or more of the references in an article shouldn't be to Amazon or iTunes? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:51, 11 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)
      • Look through the changeset histories of many articles and the vast majority of edits will be him reverting people over little, minor none issues. He's reverted me more then a few times for doing basic edits like changing a word an article or adding a "better source needed" thing to one. When I was a new user he called me pathetic in a changeset comment and said I needed to get a life. So, he definitely has some ownership issues and a not good attitude. Which are clearly not just confined to my edits. @Mrschimpf: I apologize for my tone in the AfD. I was already pretty upset over the personal attacks etc by Walter and the whole room thing really seemed like nitpicking. As I explained later, it is actually in a room. It's extremely frustrating when people don't assume good faith on the part of the nominator when they vote. All we can do is what we can do. Clearly I shouldn't have described where the hall of fame was located. Regardless, even though I had things going on, made the grave error of describing something and there was nitpicking on your part, I still could have used a better tone. Even if your's wasn't great. So, that was my bad, really. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
        • After reading this comment chain, I took a closer look and it truly does seem that "revert, revert, revert, insult" is a habitual issue with him, because his block history is a mile long, all for edit warring and incivility. I was particularly taken aback by this one where he wastes his time deliberately making someone's editing experience more difficult, for a reason that is objectively wrong. He's also been brought up at ANI many times for these same problems (([1], [2], [3]). He doesn't seem like a bad editor, per se, but frankly, I'm surprised that he hasn't been hit with a 1RR yet. Cryptic Canadian 03:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think either if your edit summaries were particularly clear that the original video on Youtube was Creative Commons licenced. Maybe Walter Görlitz should have looked more carefully but the reality is despite Youtube providing the option, not that many copyright holders actually use it. I.E. A lot of time either the video wasn't uploaded by the copyright holder even if the tag is used, or they don't release it under a free licence. I mean heck, Youtube themselves generally hide the licence unless you click the show more. And of course, even when the content is released under creative commons, it's often the case that screen caps, extracts or reuploads of the whole video aren't that useful so they aren't in articles. So I don't think it's particularly surprising if editors may miss or be unaware that some Youtube content can be re-used.
    Since the file was deleted on your request, I don't know what it looked like, but if it was like File:Mariah Carey WBLS 2018 Interview 1.jpg, IMO it's not particular clear that you are stating the original Youtube video is Creative Commons. (More recent ones like File:Wendy Wiliams 2019 WBLS Interview.png are clearer due to the use of the Youtube template.)
    Remember we get a lot of people who seem to think just because they "made" a file, by making a screencap or something somehow it's entirely their own work and they get to choose the licence without regards for the copyright holder of whatever they took their content from. In other words, it's a fairly understandable mistake to make. No one is going to support sanctioned Walter Görlitz over it.
    I would suggest if you get into this confusion in the future, more communication is the key. In your edit summary, say something like "original video on Youtube was released by the copyright holder under CC-By-SA" or something. Or stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages.
    Nil Einne (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I think your missing the point here that discussing it either doesn't help or when it does there has to be a massively uphill battle, involving insults and reverts in the meantime. It doesn't help that he routinely deletes messages on his talk page that might shed him a bad light and then continues reverting people. So realistically where else are things going to be communicated except in changeset comments? Also, it's unrealistic to use article talk pages as places to hash out personal disputes and people shouldn't have to go through a protracted process every time they want to make a basic edit just because Walter disagrees with it anyway. More so considering most of the time he just ultimately ignores people who do try to discuss things and continues his behavior, like he did with the person who messaged him about the syntax highlighting reverts. More discussion isn't the answer here. At this point it needs to be dealt with in another way, that doesn't involving repeatedly groveling on his talk page for the privilege of making rudimentary edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Reverting copyvios is the correct course of action. If you think it isn't then you shouldn't be editing here. If you agree it is the correct course of action, then I don't see why you don't accept that Walter Görlitz made a minor mistake in not noticing that the video was CC licenced on Youtube, which as I've explained in detail is fairly understandable under the circumstances. I have no idea how "Reverted 1 edit by Heartfox (talk): The image is a still from a YouTube video, which is itself copyrighted (TW)" or "Reverted good faith edits by Heartfox (talk): Copyyright violation (TW)" is an insult, or at least enough of an insult to make an editor unable to talk about the issue. I also have no idea how on earth a belief that an image is copyvio is a "personal dispute". (Although more personal issues can to some extent be discussed on editor talk pages.) Frankly, I wonder if you are missing the point I was trying to make. I was only commenting on one particular aspect of what Heartfox said which I found fairly flawed. I did not comment on anything else, since I found that particular aspect flawed enough that it didn't seem worth it. I have not read your comments so of course could not be replying to them, and frankly your reply to me suggests it was the correct course of action. Nil Einne (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That was only one example out of many though. He can be correct in some instances on a policy level, but still be completely in how he handle things. They aren't mutually exclusive and his problems should still dealt with even if he might get a few reverts right sometimes. I don't if he did in the particular case your talking about. Nor do I care because my problem with him isn't about one edit but a continuum of multiple issues. That said, what I was specifically responding to was the last part of your message where you said "stop just communicating only via edit summaries and use talk pages." Your use of plurals made it sound like the last sentence in your message was more a general thing that wasn't confined to that single edit. More so since that's what 99% of the comments so far have been about. If I miss interpreted your phrasing though, my bad. At least we know where your position is on this whole thing. That it's OK to revert people "because opinions" on unrelated talk pages, and that people who reply to you based on how you phrase things should piss off and go edit somewhere else, because again "opinions." I'd appreciate it if you didn't comment anymore. Your attitude isn't constructive and doesn't add anything to the discussion. There's enough negative, judgmental crap as it is and it seriously gets in the way of resolving things. Thanks for helping resolving that one dispute though (that really doesn't matter), really.  --Adamant1 (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Walter_Görlitz came to my attention as the only editor (if memory serves correctly) who reverted and argued for using Liliputing as a source at Kodi_(software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as "consensus" was forming that it was a self-published, not reliable source. The factoid being supported was not controversial, so the logic behind insisting on using the source was puzzling to me. I don't recall any other interactions, including any of the above TL;DR. I can't fault them for standing behind their position, or their "civility" during the discussions, and they eventually went along with the "consensus" in the interaction I recall. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I briefly interacted with Walter Görlitz only on one occasion. Here. His editing of subjects related to religious communities does appear problematic to me. For example, in this edit he reverted to restore content sourced to self-published materials included by a sock puppet [4]. Here he restored material which is simply not supported by the cited source. Then he did it again [5]. I have no idea if it is related to one specific subject or something more broad. My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds pretty par for the course with him. He reverted me a couple of times to restore sources I had removed because they didn't discuss what they where being cited for. I think reverts are just his default behavior. A lot of times he probably doesn't check the edit he is reverting before he does it. Which I think is proved by how many reverts he often does in such a short time period. The majority of his edits are reverts and most of them are done in quick succession. It's doubtful he reviews them, let alone thoroughly. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, at least in my case, he did check the source and did discuss the matter on article talk page, only to replace it by another source that ... also do not support the general statement [6], as I explained several times on talk page [7]. But again, this is probably not a big deal. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Adamant1: He admits to doing exactly that in another ANI thread happening right now, in response to yet another editor who is very upset with his disruptive reverts. Tellingly, he blows it off, as if this isn't a long-term, recurring issue that hasn't repeatedly gotten him blocked or hauled to ANI/AN3. I would say it's time for a 1RR. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cryptic Canadian: I agree about it being time for 1RR. I noticed that he was mentioned in another ANI down below, but I haven't had to read over it. Except to see that someone was saying that he was acting above it all. If it is allowed and would be helpful perhaps you can mention this thread there and, if it hasn't been brought up yet, suggest a 1RR. It seems this discussion hasn't engaged the attention of the admins and I would like to see things dealt with. Reading through his prior ANI's it sounds like a few of the admins have already told him that if he continues abusing the revert system that would be the solution, or a block. I think 1RR would be adequate. As a side note, it's kind of ridiculous he's having issues in two ANI's at the same time. Especially for very similar things. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Except the edit that the other edit was upset about was in no way disruptive. I in no way blew it off either. I engaged in constructive discussion yet none has been forthcoming from that editor. It seems you're both twisting the truth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

(EC) IMO any proposal for action needs to be focused and with good examples illustrated by diffs if you want to have any chance of success. The thread that you both seem to be referring to seems to mostly concern another editor. While Walter Görlitz's name may have came up, it seems another poor example, as with the copyvio issue I highlighted below. In fact it's even poorer since this time, AFAICT, it's in reverse. It seems to have started when Walter Görlitz made 2 edits to an article. One was changing United States to U.S. [8], which okay you could debate whether it was a good idea or not but as a single edit, you're not likely to get far. Anyway the other edit was fixing a broken link in a ref, as the Help:Pipe trick doesn't work in them [9]. These were both reverted. The edit fixing the broken link was reinstated by Walter Görlitz which was again reverted. Finally, this was reverted (reintroducing the fix) which seems to have been settled on.

As I remarked below, I do think it would have helped if Walter Görlitz had better explained early on why they were making that change. (Their first edit did say "fix", however it sounds like Walter Görlitz is aware of the pipe trick which doesn't work in refs. So it probably should have occurred to them there's a good chance other editor isn't aware of that and had failed to notice the link is broken. So they could have said something like "this fix is needed since the pipe trick doesn't work in refs" which would have been clearer than "no, the publication edit is needed".)

But I am basically saying the same thing as I said about the copyvio issue but in reverse. Which means I see even less reason to sanction Walter Görlitz over them correcting an error reintroduced by another editor, no matter if they could have explained things better. As for the incivility, it was clearly a 2 way street.

If the claim is Walter Görlitz reverts too readily, then diffs of this should be shown. Given WP:BRD which means reverting an edit you disagree with is often not wrong, this would most likely be in the form of examples where they reverted in a way what was clearly harmful e.g. reintroducing clear errors. Or maybe if they revert minor changes when they had no good reason to revert but just because they wanted others to seek consensus. Or cases where they reverted and then refused to participate in the discussion. And you'll need enough examples to show this is a consistent problem and not just something that happens occasionally. You could try coming up with examples where they reverted and participated in the discussion but consensus was against them, but this is likely to be more difficult. (You'll probably need even more examples, and also the cases would need to be clear cut i.e. consensus was quickly against them.)

Nil Einne (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that this particular revert was justified, and that the other party has been grossly uncivil. My only intention in referencing that thread was to point out that this editor admits to reverting on impulse, which seems to adequately explain the diffs and examples already provided here by other confused editors (including myself), and which implies that it is likely to continue if left unchecked. Rest assured that I won't actively push for this, as I do understand that this place gives significant carte blanche to people who've put so much time into Wikipedia, no matter how obvious the patterns are (see: all of the support for Jytdog to be allowed back). I'm just offering my two cents as someone who's also had a negative experience with this editor in the past and who's also now baffled by the extensive history of edit warring and mindless reverting on display. —{ CrypticCanadian } 02:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Nil Einne: I provided difs of Walter making harassing comments above (that he repeated here). Along with a link to a discussion about Amazon and iTunes links where he blew off consensus and edit made disruptive reverts by putting back links to those sites that didn't even contain the information they where being cited for. There was multiple articles he did it on and I don't feel the need to dig through difs to prove it. Especially since there was the discussion that an admin was involved in.
  There are many other examples including the discussion cited by @Cryptic Canadian: where he reverted Syntax highlighting for essentially no reason and blow off the user who tried to discuss it with him. There's also the multiple complaints here and you can look through his user contributions to see that he does a large amount of reverts in an extremely quick way, that would make it impossible for him to review to make sure they are correct.
  He was told by admins multiple times and as far back as 2014 that if he continued miss-using the revert system or got a bad attitude that they would do a 1RR or block him. I don't have to provide every damn example under the sun going back 6 years for it to suddenly be warranted. Again, there are enough examples here to, but it's easy to find other ones. The miss use of reverts is also largely what lead to the harassment that instigated this complaint, because me starting the discussion about Amazon and iTunes links was caused by him reverting me repeatedly when I tried to remove links to them. Which then lead to him believing I just didn't except his reverts because I have a disdain for Christians.
  Someone who is unwilling to accept that their revert was wrong (especially after a discussion) and chalks up the original disagreement to a disdain for him or a religious group shouldn't have the right to indiscriminately use reverts. There doesn't need to be a bunch of examples to back it up. Although there are many. Again, multiple admins told him to stop that kind of behavior like 6 years ago. If he hasn't by now a 1RR is 100% warranted. Otherwise, how many times does he have to be told or continue acting that way until it is?
  Re "incivility is a 2 way street" I'd love to see examples where me or anyone else here made threats toward him, made calls for him to be banned from editing certain topics, said he was just motivated by disdain for a religious group, otherwise insulted him, or did anything even close to those things. Both I and @Cryptic Canadian: (who are the people calling for 1RR) have both went out of our way to say that the issue is with Walter's attitude and miss-use of reverts. We are both fine with him as an editor in general. In no way has anything we have said involved threats, insults, personal attacks on his motivations, or his character. Which again is how he has treated me multiple times. To insinuate otherwise is seriously victim blaming. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Adamant1 This round started when you made a valid comment about splitting the Bethel Music article, I then wrote that I thought that it was a good idea but said I did not think you should do the splitting as you have shown a disdain the subject in the past. You have made multiple contentious edits to Bethel Music musicians, the history of Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer), Amanda Lindsey Cook, both of which are on my watchlist show evidence of this— and the history of the parent church article, Bethel Church (Redding, California) does as well. I had just addressed concerns at the AfD for Gospel Music Association article, which you had just created without doing WP:BEFORE and there were others. That AfD concluded with a delete, a quick refund, and several editors in the new AfD (which you did not initiate) called you out for not doing WP:BEFORE. I was not heated in the discussion on the Bethel Music talk page, I merely voiced a concern. Your response started well, asking me to explain how you've shown disdain, you then became defensive and made attacks on me claiming I attack you (which I do not) and that talk you (which I have not). You state that you show good faith but that I do not. I attempted to respond with statements without attacking you. You followed with more defence, attacks and launched off into yet another subject (an RSN that you started because a restaurant article you nominated for deletion had a Michelin Star and you wanted to know if it was a RS—the answer was yes—and you didn't like that I entered that AfD after you alerted RSN about it where I was patrolling.) At this point, I was busy and I referred to your three-paragraph long response as self-serving, pointed out my involvement at RSN, and tried to assuage your concerns that I was not stalking you. You then deleted part of your earlier comment and continued to claim I was harassing you when all I said was that I don't think you are the right person to split the article because of the previously demonstrated disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. I disengaged and you came here. All of that to say, no, I am not harassing you and still think have have shown a clear pattern of disdain for Bethel Church and their musicians. That's not an attack, that is an observation. If anything, you should have a topic ban at least from that church, the musicians on its recording label. I would even consider a topic ban on Christian music as appropriate, but there's much less evidence of problems there. This is not a formal proposal, however. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again Walter, what was "contentious" about those edits (especially when other people said they where OK to make) and even if they were how would it justify you harassing me three years later? Saying I'm motivated to edit articles by a disdain for Christians is not "addressing a concern." If you actually had a real concern, instead of a personal problem with me, you could have voiced it without the added useless personal slandering tone. Which I probably would have been fine with. Harassment isn't so much based on the "correctness" of the actions, it's about the targeted threatening way the person goes about them and that's how you where acting. 100% negatively calling out my motivations is attacking me. You'd say the same thing if this where reversed and I was randomly posting on secular music articles that you only edit them because as a Christian you disdain rock music or if I said I was going to report you as a hostile actor to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rock music. Seriously.

Also, if you where making observations instead of just vague accusations there'd be real evidence of me making blatantly detrimental edits, where I clearly said my reason was dislike of the subject. What you have is some questionably bad edits I made as a new user (it happens), and attempts to learn how to edit better by asking questions on noticeboards. Which doesn't rise to the level of a topic ban. Let alone prove your extremely baseless theory or warrant how you've treated me since then. It's still not completely clear the edits were wrong anyway. Not that I care if I get topic banned. Since I don't really edit Christian articles anyway and could give a crap about doing so in the future. I doubt I'd get topic band for what your saying I should be though. That said, there is more then ample evidence for you to get a 1RR and I'm 100% fine with it being a formal proposal if need be. I'd suggest a topic ban, but I feel like it would be a little to harsh. IMO only someone with a clear dislike (shell I say disdain?) or personal grudge for the other user would suggest one. Especially with zero evidence. A 1RR seems completely appropriate though since it's been suggested by other users, admins, and the miss use of reverts (plus a clearly bad attitude) was what instigated this problem in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't see your third topic on the external source notice board, where WhatamIdoing gave me the run down YouTube links, because it didn't alert me about it and I was already on to different things by then. That said, it seems like you where just posting until someone gave you the answer you wanted to hear. Since it was already settled in earlier discussions. Plus, both of you left out of it that my issue was with over using those links. Not their use in the first place. I did post about it on WhatamIdoing's talk page a few days ago to see if they could clarify things. There hasn't been a response though. I can't be blamed for ignoring what other people tell me when they told me it in discussions I didn't know about and wasn't involved in. Whereas, you could have accepted the original opinions by ian.thompson and the other user that excessively linking to commercial sites isn't OK, instead of bringing it up repeatedly (and not being clear what the issue was) until you got the answer you wanted. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I was simply showing evidence of what I consider your disdain for Bethel Church and its musicians, and recent interest in other Christian topics. I'm not trying to rehash the discussion or call you out here, but you did ask me to show some examples. In short, the conversation at Bethel music was you made a suggestion, I gave a response and voiced a concern, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and attacked, I responded, you responded and escalated. So why is this about me voicing my concern? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 15 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 ([10] [11]). 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)

Swarm, Reverting vandalism is not "exempt from BRD" lol? Yes it is! LOL! ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting a bit bizarre. You know that I'm referring to good faith edits, and have already highlighted WP:3RRNO as the exceptions, under which vandalism is included. Saying you're allowed to revert vandalism when you were edit warring in a legitimate content dispute strikes me as a bit funny, because you weren't reverting vandalism, that's the whole point. The "vandalism" was one edit, which was only provoked by an edit war that you contributed to because you refused to follow BRD. This is literally the same standard edit warring principles that get explained to any newbie. I doubt that you're actually unfamiliar with them, but why you're pretending you don't understand them or they don't apply here is beyond me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, I didn't say that I was: I was responding to you writing "any edit you want to make is bold lol" which is not true. I'm only reacting to what you keep on writing and it's hard to get a straight answer from you, even when I ask yes-or-no questions. If things are "bizarre", I'd recommend you read back thru the thread without imputing motives into what you think I probably meant and instead look at what I actually wrote. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Mubashirsyed014

Mubashirsyed014 (contributions) is deceptively marking his/her edits as minor and using misleading edit summaries. He/she has been warned about this twice - see User talk:Mubashirsyed014#April 2020; he/she agreed to stop doing it on 9 April, but continues to do it.

• 09:02, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 03:04, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 02:50, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 02:40, 11 April 2020 m (Added a link.)
• 08:24, 9 April 2020 m (Added Wikipedia link.)

Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And he/she is still posting significant content with a misleading edit summary and ticking the minor edit check box:

• 06:17, 12 April 2020 m (Added a link.)

Toddy1 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, and the talk page suggests they are not here for long.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon and civility

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

---

This user consistently writes confrontational and vulgar edit summaries. These are just highlights from the last couple weeks; please browse Special:Contributions/John_from_Idegon to get the whole picture.

• "How about you either fix it or fuck off so i can"
• "Addition of ignorant meaningless bullshit."
• "Make your tests in a sandbox"
• "bullshit. Your ignorance does not equate to my incompetence"
• "cute essay. Bet your English teacher liked it. It is not however encyclopedic in any way. Paraphrase your content from reliable secondary sources and cite them."
• "poor sourcing, trivial and localist in nature. A criteria for inclusion needs to be established via consensus. Even the sourced things are crap. It's the author's WP:OR that established these as "landmarks". There certainly aren't any sources. I doubt anyone gives a damn where the state highway garage was."
• "Still trivial, still the wrong article, still pointless, source still crap."
• "RAgain, those sources are not reliable. if you wwant this trivial crap in, you need CONSENSUS. And as you have been advised multiple times, see WP:OWN. Wikipedia now has the means to physically prevent individual editors from editing certain articles. you've been disruiptively editing on this (and a few other articles for years)"
• "Every damn team you play are not your rivals. provide reliable published secondary sources for your change"

The problem seems to extend to talk page responses, too, like this one and this one.

Normally, I'd make approach them on their talk page myself, but one of the comments was directed to me so I'm recusing myself and dropping the issue off here. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

While several of these are a bit much, and John from Idegon should really tone it down (left him a note to that effect), still, I'm not seeing anything that's otherwise actionable. El_C 00:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go away for the rest of the day. I have no patience with DICK behavior today. And I'm dealing with it in 3 separate places. Wish people would worry more about our interactions policies than civility. You can't regulate speech, but you can change the way you feel about it. When I can't make a good faith effort to try to fix a weird error because some fool is stuck in a box and won't leave it alone, it gets frustrating. Have a nice day y'all. If you don't want colorful language, don't be a dick. If it's that big a problem, permaban me now. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John, it's still best that you arm yourself with patience when editing. That would be in everyone's best interests. So, give that a bit more effort, please. El_C 01:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this response, and the further responses here, pretty clearly demonstrate the contempt John from Idegon has for your advice ... and for other editors. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've escalated my caution to John to tone it down. El_C 02:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this. It appears that John from Idegon has a penchant for initiating multiple edit conflicts during the same time-frame, all without much cause. He initiated one at Lauren McLean, refused to provide any policy for his deletion of my content, and left two unnecessary notices on my talk page instead of communicating via the talk page. It appears that while this was going on, he was doing the same at Tri-Cities High School, EAGLES Academy, and Dayton, Ohio. One only has to take a look at his recent contributions to notice his uncivil edit summaries, ranging from snide to downright racist. This editor clearly has major civility problems. and may be WP:NOTHERE. KidAd (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, El C. I'll leave it for now, but don't expect a behavior change. As long as we run bottom up (and that cannot change), some will react badly when others don't follow our sound guidelines for interaction. So how is that the one reacting's problem? This issue would go away completely if y'all threw some sanctions out for not following BRD. And as I already said, if that isn't a satisfactory solution, block me now. I'm not gonna change. John from Idegon (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

KidAd, regarding "downright racist": while that's a harsh response on John's part, I do not see any racism. Say what you will about John from Idegon —who really does need to start doing better on the civility front— prone to racist exclamations he is not. El_C 01:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@KidAd: Actually, you were going against WP:BRD and edit warring at least as much as John from Idegon was at the McLean article. No comment on anything else. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I fully admit to participating in a conflict with JfI. That is on me. And I have crossed out my accusations of racism. I'm sure there's more context related to the If you don't know how to communicate in English stay off my talk page. This is English Wikipedia comment. KidAd (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I decided to look at a few of these. The edit summary "Make your tests in a sandbox" followed a summary from another editor that included "this is a test edit to see what's broken". Editors should not make test edits to mainspace encyclopedia articles but instead should do testing in their sandbox space, so what's the problem? As for the alleged "downright racist", I have read the diff five times and see no racism. All that being said, John from Idegon (who is a highly productive editor) ought to strive to be less confrontational and abrasive when interacting with other editors. Especially in edit summaries which cannot be changed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed that this ANI was started due to a discussion I opened on the editor's talk page. It because because I was called out here when I tried to explain an edit that I fixed a bad link introduced by someone else, but with a tool I use. I apparently need consensus to fix a link like this. While I made another change earlier, and he reverted that, for this change, I think it's a bit harsh. I opened a discussion on the talk page and explained that the piling on at the ANI above might not end-up the way he'd expect since I was not making a bad edit in any way, but was greeted with a bit of profanity in response. I'm not sure what he means by "The fact that you think you have a ... RIGHT to change things is the entire problem", when we all have the right to change things, especially when they're broken.

To his defence, I often get heated and don't check sufficiently when reverting, and when the adrenaline starts and the amygdala takes control, I don't always think straight. I'm sure it's happened to the best of us. I am concerned that he sees not problems with his behaviour and that he not gonna change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, you can read. I'm not making excuses. I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing. Follow guidelines for dispute resolution and you will never see it. Hold yourself above policy and you will, every time. We have no language police here, and that's been clear for the entire time I've been here. And virtually to a person, every person that comes here bitching about people's word choices are the worst offenders at NOT following the simple guidelines we have for dispute resolution. Again...if the community holds them to the established standards, then folks like me don't have to lose patience with them. And if you live in a glass house, throwing rocks is generally a bad idea. John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, KidAd, for striking out the accusation of racism. I suggest you consider doing the same for the speculation about NOTHERE. John is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia and has made massive contributions toward that goal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328 I have done so. Both accusations were inappropriate/unproductive. KidAd (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, KidAd. Please try to internalize this. Our content is not decided by policies. It is decided by consensus. There are many many areas of content that are not defined by policy. Depth of content is one. The closest policy to the dispute YOU caused by holding yourself above our content dispute resolution process is WP:NOTEVERYTHING, but AGF alone is all the reason you needed. It's all the reason anyone needs. What is it about Wikipedia that brings out the megalomania in people? Takes a pretty big ego to believe only yourself has the correct answer, ya? So I've got you insisting that this very insignificant politician's endorsement of a failed presidential candidate is so encyclopedic no other input bears consideration; I've got the OP constantly reverting my attempts to actually fix the problem he identified and admitted he didn't know how to fix; and Walter again insisting that he is completely above it all. If you all just gave your fellow editors GF and followed the guidelines established for these situations none of this would have happened. When you don't follow the established guidelines, chaos ensues. If you find my abrasiveness objectionable, imagine how objectionable I find your collective ignorance of our very sound guidelines about the cause of the problem. The problem is NOT my reaction, it's your actions. John from Idegon (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, John, the problem is also your reaction. You do need to start doing better on that front. El_C 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon If you can't even be civil in your own ANI discussion about your incivility, I don't think you've taken long enough of a break. As an ignorant megalomaniac with an inflated ego, I think you might have to explain the above policy interpretation more clearly. I started a discussion on the very insignificant politician's talk page if you would prefer to do it there. KidAd (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

OK John, I am not insisting I am above it all, but I will ask, once again, where in the revert I made of yours, is the problem that needs to achieve consensus? Are you going to stick to the claim that I'm being tendentious. I'm not claiming I've got it right, but I have asked you several times where I've got it wrong, but you will not show me where changing [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|]] to [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]] is wrong and needs consensus. On the article's talk page I made this exact demonstration. I've requested on your talk page and here, yet you're making a claim I've got an attitude but you won't show me what the problem that you see actually is. Feel free to show me though. But even if it was a bad edit, it's not the edit or its correction that is the problem, it's the way you're approaching it. And if I were the one instance of poor behaviour, I would overlook it, but there's a long list above where you've done as bad or worse. It's for those issues that this discussion has convened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the incivility here? You expect a pat on the back for DOING WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE? Egad. John from Idegon (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL includes "rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity, ill-considered accusations of impropriety, and belittling a fellow editor. You've done all of those in your above comments to me alone, and for what? KidAd (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Then enlighten me. What in the above comment is uncivil? I'm ignorant of your perception of incivility. Which is the entire problem with playing language police. However not following the established guidelines for dispute resolution is binary. I did, you didn't. And yet my language which is completely acceptable to me and many others, is in your view the problem when you made an out of policy response to the situation at hand, and continue with your hyperbolic comments about my behavior? Test edits should be made in a sandbox, people I do not know have no business addressing me or anyone else here as dear, by failing to follow BRD, and dismissing that as a non problem, refusing to leave things one has admitted ignorance of alone so others can fix it....I fucking swore. Try following the well thought out guidelines we have established for situations that come up all the time, and there are no problems. At all. In my culture, that's the response you get. It has been my pattern for years. It won't change. Every person commenting here (except the administrators) has been in repeated breach of minimally GF. Sorry if I cannot see any equivalence between the sets of behavior here. Y'all are clearly breaking policy by insisting that it somehow doesn't apply. No, Walter, you cannot make unilateral cosmetic changes. If it's disputed, you discuss. An explanation would have ended it. KidAd, you know BRD, you know how it works...I know this because we've been down this road before. Again, discussion would have solved the problem (as long as you're willing to follow DR procedures and are willing to listen to other views.) The OP had a point, in regard to the instance at hand. We both failed to assume good faith. That could have been solved with more patience than either of us applied. I thought I could fix the problem, discovered I couldn't, and was reaching out to someone I know could fix it when he reverted me yet again. It's been a long day. I'll be happy to discuss the article at hand with KidAd, I'll find someone to fix the issue on the school article and I'll be happy to discuss the issue with Walter just as soon as he drops the "I've got a right..." position. But not today. Probably not tomorrow either. Good night. John from Idegon (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection to industrial language; I often use it myself; but anyone who thinks that adding the word "fucking" to a sentence makes it more direct, persuasive, or well-reasoned is just plain uncivil, ill-mannered, and likely to arouse hostility to even their best argument. There is no need for such language anywhere on Wikipedia; anyone using it should wind their fucking neck in. Narky Blert (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• John, I basically agree with El C's comment: some are a bit much, none are really actionable. However, I would personally ask you to keep it clean in mainspace article edit summaries. Meaning, no profanity, please. No snarky or angry comments–not in article edit summaries. Why? Because it's the official log of the article. It should be professional. It's one click away for any reader wanting to see the history. And children read it. Like, small children... six or eight year old children. And there's no way for anyone to edit the edit summary to clean it up after the fact. Imagine going to the library, pulling out a chemistry book, and the table of contents says "Chapter 1: Fuck this guy. Chapter 2: For the last time..!" I mean, it would make for an interesting chemistry book, but it would a weird library if every book was like that. Tri-Cities High School is an article that is going to be read by middle- and elementary-school-aged children, almost certainly. Right now if they click "View history", the second item down says "How about you either fix it or fuck off so i can". Come on, we just don't need that. That won't entice a reader into becoming an editor. It's unprofessional and makes WP look like it's Twitter. I generally don't have a problem with profanity, and everyone loses their patience sometimes and justifiably writes sharp words, but I'd just ask that you keep that out of mainspace edit summaries, as one place to stay professional, just as we'd keep it out of mainspace articles. Thanks. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Levivich. What you said reflects my view, also (albeit more eloquently). El_C 06:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• I had intended to recuse myself, but I can't help but adding an opinion at this point. (Also, what's the difference between bullets and indents?)

I'm piping up because this opinion doesn't reflect mine. In particular, I can't figure out how the "none are really actionable" conclusion is met. Using WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, we find at least four criteria met just in John from Idegons' posts in this very thread. (They are, by my read: 1a) rudness, insults, profanity, indecent suggestions; 1b) personal attacks; 1d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries; 2a) taunting or baiting; 2b) bullying.) Is there some other standard that's meant to be applied, rather than that one?

There's no justification for the sharp words John from Idegon used in his two edit summaries the Tri-Cities High School article. After all, nobody was in the way of his path toward fixing the article. The breaking edit was there for sixteen days before I tried to fix it, and I did nothing to deserve the response I got. In what I've observed so far in his other responses and summaries, there was no justification for his intimidating, vulgar, or disparaging comments or summaries.

Maybe it's my fault that I only went back a week or two. Researching John from Idegon's previous interactions reveals responses like this, and like this. There's bundles of them.

Sure, someone might loose their calm every once in a while. But that's not what's happened here; and it's not what is continuing to happen, either, even after being warned twice. The "think of the children!" argument above turns a blind eye to the targets of a consistent, persistent pattern of personal attacks. That John from Idegon was awarded an editor retention award is a strong endorsement that his anti-social, abusive behaviour is not only tolerated, but endorsed. It says "we want to retain bullies, and don't care about the targets we lose". So, I think his method of bullying and abuse is worth reprimand and censure ... assuming, of course, we really want The Five Pillars to mean something. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: If John from Idegon were a newly registered user displaying this behavior, this case would've been easily resolved and closed with an in indeff block. That is not the case though since John is not a new editor but here's the disappointing part, John has been editing for 8 years and should already know the behavior he's currently displaying is unacceptable. Even now as of April 12th, John is still continuing this behavior on their talk page: See User_talk:John_from_Idegon#Please_add_my_tendentious_editing_to_the_ANI_discussion. And the worst part of all of this, John has acknowledged his behavior as inappropriate but refuses to change it. That reply alone is proof of him having no regard for WP:CIVIL. If this case is left unresolved, John is just going to continue with his behavior until he ends up here again. But what I've seen here at ANI, the best way to resolve such behavior is a block. Not a warning to the editor, not an apology from the editor, but a bock, particularly, a block on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Apart from everything else, WP:NOTHERE clearly doesn't apply to John and wouldn't be a reason for a valid block. If you believe that he should be sanctioned for violating CIVIL (which I'm not sure he should), that's a different case and should be argued on its own merits. But he's a highly productive editor who is clearly here to improve Wikipedia. Grandpallama (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Acerbic occasionally, and sometimes, perhaps, reacting to some problem he’s seen the 12 millionth time as though the particular wikiteur who did it last was responsible for all of it, but a competent, conscientious writer who regularly works cleaning up the rougher edges of the place... i.e., making it more like an actual encyclopedia. “Not here...” my shiny metal &cetera. Qwirkle (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• comment I've only interacted with John from Idegon a few times. I've felt they had clear reasoning and good suggestions. I can see how they would get frustrated with some of the editors who's behavior can appear agenda driven (that isn't saying they really are but it's easy to think to see it in others). Anyway, I hope John from Idegon can focus on the content and keep it more PG. I fear this sort of talk page stuff will get a good editor blocked and I don't want to see that. Springee (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• This edit is absolutely beyond the pale. Re-introducing a broken link and claiming a need for consensus to fix it is probably the most clear-cut example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point I've ever seen. The edit warring to deliberately break a footnote on Tri-Cities High School appears similar. Given those, the "everyone is the problem but me" attitude, and the apparent pride that John from Idegon takes in his incivility, there is a solid pattern of unproductive behavior here.

  I would propose a topic ban of sorts - a restriction against the use of profanity and insults in edit summaries. While only a part of the problem, Levivich is correct about the need for professionalism in the page history, and there should be some means of ameliorating this disruptive attitude. Wikipedia has a problem with granting established editors carte blanche to act with incivility; giving some leeway is understandable, but allowing a persistent toxic atmosphere should not be. As Jerm mentions above, a new editor would be indeffed without a second thought for this kind of behavior. If "be civil in edit summaries" is too difficult, then "don't disrupt to make a point" along with our other pillars and policies are probably too difficult. A topic ban would at least provide an opportunity for an otherwise-productive editor to remain so. --Sable232 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• John, I read WP:TPG and saw nothing about the use of the word "dear". If I shouldn't use it, I won't use it. I removed the D-word after you responded angrily to me. English is my first and only language, so please don't assume that I can't communicate in English. After you pointed out the mistakes on my merge proposal on Talk:Greater Los Angeles, I made several corrections. Then, I asked you if I could remove the comment you made following the merge proposal, as I had already corrected it and I felt that keeping the comment would be a distraction for the merge proposal. Read the talk page now - it is very clear what articles I'm trying to merge, and why they should be merged. You even reverted some of my corrections which I made in response to your comments. I did everything you asked me to do, including retitling the section. Sanjay7373 (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  This edit is really close to what I'd consider racist. In addition to being incredibly incivil, I'll leave out the irony of disparaging the editor for their use of English, while simultaneously stating This is English Wikipedia... —Locke Cole • t • c 22:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  There is nothing racist about that post. Pointing out that this is the English Wikipedia? Pointing out a lack of mastery of the English language? I see that as frustration, not racist. "American" isn't a race, btw. John, you really do need to tone it back just a little. I don't care about using "fuck" or "bullshit" in edit summaries, I'm talking about the hostility. For me, this isn't about policy, it's just about keeping the environment calm. There are plenty of times when I would like to call someone an idiot or asshole (and rarely have I), but it shouldn't be a constant thing. That doesn't make you wrong about the merits of your arguments, but sometimes that gets lost because of the tone you express it in. Seriously, for your own good and to just keep the peace, you will be a bit more convincing if you took some edge off the tone. Please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

  Hence why I said it's really close to what I'd consider racist. And ask yourself this: if the editor making the talk page comment was named something other than Sanjay7373 do you think John would have made the comment about their understanding of English? Be honest. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown: Except that, unless I'm mistaken, I can't see that Sanjay7373 had anywhere mangled the English language at all, and looking at their other edits, their English is absolutely fine. So if that's the case, the "this is the English Wikipedia" just happens to be aimed at someone called Sanjay7373? There may be a different explanation, but the optics are not good at all there. Black Kite (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say he was correct, I just said I don't see how that comment can be taken as racist. Assuming his judgement of the editor's grammar is completely wrong, it still isn't racist. Blunt, perhaps. Rude? Meh, maybe. But not racist. That word is thrown around all too often, and typically inappropriately, which only waters down real racism. Taken alone, you simply have to assume way too much to get to racism from that comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  And I didn't say it was racist, I said it didn't look good, but there may be another explanation. It certainly could be racist if it was typed for a certain reason. But regardless, even apart from that, the entire comment is completely out of order and John needs to wind his neck in a bit. He said above "If you don't want colorful language, don't be a dick.". But Sanjay7373 wasn't being a dick, and he still got the abuse. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I will admit, this is the first time I have edited a user talk page. I have just reached 500 edits, John has made over 100,000. Obviously, John has more experience on Wikipedia than me. But my use of the word "dear" (which might have been inappropriate) distracts from the central point of the discussion: that "metropolitan Los Angeles" and "greater Los Angeles" are synonyms and that the two articles should be merged. I have cited the policy-based reasons WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:REDUNDANT, retitled the section, made it clear which articles I want merged, and removed the reference to where I lived. I did everything John told me to do. Yet John reverted (some of) my edits, saying "Do not change any comment that has been replied to". It wasn't simply a comment, it was a proposal to merge two articles. And please tell me how I "lack mastery in the English language". The only grammar mistake I made was putting a period at the end of a question. I corrected my mistake after John pointed out. I have seen plenty of minor spelling/grammar mistakes on talk pages. Sanjay7373 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Sanjay7373 As long as you were not personally offended by the "If you don't know how to communicate in English" comment as anything more than rude, I don't see any reason to belabor the point. I should never have blown that comment out of proportion and apologize again. KidAd (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with using "Dear". In English it's a traditional way of opening a conversation or letter and given your inexperience with using talk pages it was completely understandable. The reaction you received was very WP:BITEy (including the subsequent edits which included blanking the conversation with the edit summary "go away" after you'd removed the harmless "Dear" and stood your ground invoking WP:NPA... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing." I'm sorry, but this should be unacceptable. Regardless of tenure, all editors should be required to comply with our civility rules -- and check their "foul mouth" when editing here. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  That would be my concern as well. This has been going on for some time, and the failure to recognise that there is a problem is an issue. I was hoping that things will improve, but this is looking less likely to be the case. - Bilby (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Use of profanity does not violate our civility rules. That's well established (regardless of some folks' consternation with said consensus). Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Really? I didn't know profanity was the standard language we use when communicating with others. I dare you to use profanity while communicating with an admin, see if you won't get a warning to stop. Jerm (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, really. And I didn't say it was "standard language"; I said it didn't violate WP:CIVIL. There have been multiple discussions about it, some of which you can easily find on the talkpage of the policy itself. Using profanity with an admin is not going to result in sanctions unless it's considered abusive or directed at them. Like I said, I get that some people don't like this, but it's the current consensus. Within this very thread, a few admins have already said they don't see anything directly sanctionable in the listed edit summaries. Grandpallama (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You don't need to have a policy stating profanity is WP:UNCIVIL, it's WP:Common sense. And with that, I have nothing else to add. Jerm (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: any "common sense" needs to be read in light of previous consensus. The most recent widespread discussion of a related issue that I'm aware of of is Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 20#Request for comment on the specific term "fuck off" – sanctionable or not!. I won't try and summarise the closing summary but unless consensus has changed, any action needs to be read in light of that and previous discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you needed to ping me to a conversation I'm clearly following, nor do I understand why you're arguing with me. Consensus is consensus. If you don't like it, start an RfC about it (again). Your "common sense" doesn't align with the current consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: You are simply wrong. While it is all-too-often not enforced by the regulars at ANI (particularly against long-time users), profanity is a violation. WP:CIVIL says so on its face: "Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor . . ." It's long past time that we should start enforcing the policy. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

How about folks quit pinging me to a conversation I'm already taking part in? I'm not wrong--everything I said reflects the current consensus. The attempts here to reclassify profanity as a violation of the policy are, as I said, not supported by the many, many archived discussions at the policy page. And the quotation to which you refer talks about a "single episode of extreme" language, which none of these are. In fact, the term "gross profanity" is specifically used to detail what is considered "rude" by the policy. Like I've said (multiple times now), I get that a portion of the community doesn't like this, but a behavioral discussion about a particular editor isn't the place to attempt a relitigation of the interpretation of the policy. The community has been very firm that it's not going to police people's use of colorful language as long as it's not part of abusive attacks against user. Grandpallama (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Cbl62. The odd swear word doesn't particularly bother me, though sexist terms like "dick" and similar are, I feel, less acceptable. But the point is that, although anyone can get frustrated and lash out now and again, it shouldn't be habitual. The fact that a person has made valuable contributions to the encyclopedia doesn't absolve them of the requirement to follow the guidelines on civility as on everything else. Deb (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I've neither argued that habitually bad behavior should be overlooked, nor have I suggested that prolific contributors should be excused. You and I both agree on that. What I've said is that the use of profanity is not, in itself, a violation of WP:CIVIL, which is what the initial claim here was. John's behavior is debatable, but if he is to be warned/sanctioned/whatever, it should be for the overall behavior. The use of profanity is not the problem, at least based on past community consensus. Even trying to police particular words, such as the one you call out, is problematic, given the relatively different weight certain words carry in different English-speaking locales; the "c word" is horrific in the U.S., but pretty mild in the UK. Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is a very long discussion so perhaps I've missed some explanation. But does anyone here really feel fixing [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|]] into [[The Advocate (LGBT magazine)|The Advocate]], in a ref where the Help:Pipe trick does not work and therefore the rendered page shows exactly as it shows here, "require[s] consensus" (which in this case can only be taken to mean needs to be discussed first) or amount to tedious editing? (Look at the diff if you don't understand me [12].)
  To be clear, I think it would have helped a great deal if Walter Görlitz had better explained early on why they were making the edit. However ultimately whatever Walter Görlitz's failings, I think an editor who has harmed Wikipedia by reintroducing a broken link needs to show recognition they've screwed up, and it isn't just the other editor's fault for not explaining things better. In fact, if we were to assign relative levels of blame, the editor who reintroduced the broken link would have to be the one at greater fault. And I say this as someone who hates to be wrong or at fault.
  Further I think this also illustrates one reason why more civility is helpful. If you keep coming of insulting or "pissy" in your edit summaries or comments, you tend to annoy other editors. Human nature means that there tends to be some response in kind and also other editors may not explain so well why you are doing something wrong. This can often be a 2 way street so a simple problem like an obviously broken link which should have been easily fixed ends up being a whole palaver.
  To be fair, in this case the early edit summaries don't really seem that bad, however editors who often encounter begin to recognise each other and unfortunately it's difficult to not let previous experiences colour how we respond.
  Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• Shall we get back to writing an encyclopaedia rather than fuss over all this snowflake nonsense. The man hours and effort put in by some here could've easily knocked out a half decent article or two by now. Cassianto^Talk 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
• This thread seems to have been largely muddled by irrelevant squabbling, but looking at the facts I definitely do see an obvious pattern of incivility which the user themselves does not seem to dispute but rather embraces shamelessly. In fact it's just about as blatant of a pattern of incivility that you can come across. I understand giving leeway to "frustration", but strangely the incivility is present in low-stakes situations where such a degree of frustration is not actually understandable. Most concerning is the fact that John openly says that he will not ever change his behavior. We are not the civility police, true. We do not enforce the civility policy heavy-handedly, true. That does not mean that civility is "optional". A pattern of "inactionable" incivility becomes actionable. Or, it needs to, otherwise the complaints go to Arbcom or the WMF who are not so forgiving as some of the users in this thread. It is, quite simply, our responsibility as admins to uphold the civility policy. This should be closed with a formal warning, absolutely nothing less. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a matter of WP:Civil and is in no way "Snowflake nonsense" as presumed by the comment above mine.

I've looked over the evidence provided by the reporter and while some of it is meh, there's enough to paint a good picture concerning Johns lack of civility in dealing with users. This is especially troubling given John is an experienced editor since 2012 as well as his replies to this report particularly "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing".

A one way IBAN for John could be the way to go, but given they've made it clear they won't change their ways, this may warrant a lengthy block (Though i'd personally hate to see it come to such an extreme option in regards to the latter). AryaTargaryen 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It is not for you, nor I, or anyone else on here for that matter, to "no-platform" someone, simply because that someone behaves differently to you in disputes. That does not make you right and them wrong. Nor is it your job to oversight and educate someone on their personality traits, no matter how much of it you may disagree with. Wikipedia is made up of all different personalities, which is why Wikipedia is what it is today. It is not a result of social justice warriors being pink and fluffy to one another; it is not a result of people sticking to WP:CIVIL and its flawed interpretations about what is and what is not acceptable language. It is about people from all walks of life sitting down at a keyboard and doing what they enjoy doing, writing, and as sure as god made little apples, in that scenario, there will always be people who disagree with one another. The more folk like you try and make this place a politically correct echo chamber, the more it'll falter. My friend, Eric Corbett, long since exonerated from this place, sadly, wrote Gropecunt Lane, an article about prostitution in medieval England, that in a million years would never have been written by one of WP's SJWs. The fact that it was written about, and has helped educate us about what exactly went on in those times, can only be a good thing, right? The diverse make up of this place is its only redeeming feature, and as much as I tend to hate how it's run (inept Arbitration Committees, a fair-share of even more inept administrators), it would certainly not be the kind of excellent online resource that it is today without these foul-mouthed hot-heads (and I include myself in that) being around. Cassianto^Talk 08:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • I disagree. It's absolutely up to us, the community, to "no platform" someone if they abuse the platform. We do this all the time with blocks and bans. I hope it doesn't come to that and we can come to a better resolution, but "goodbye" is always the ultimate resolution for anyone who steadfastly refuses to comply with our pillars and policies. It's really hard to respond to "I have a foul mouth, and that won't be changing" with anything other than "OK, then take your foul mouth elsewhere." Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
    • So you don't believe in diversity and tolerance? That's very telling. Cassianto^Talk 17:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • That's a strawman, and very close to a personal attack, Cassianto. Plus, given the terminology sprinkled throughout your comments here ("snowflake", "social justice warriors", "political correctness", "no-platforming") it seems you're dragging personal political views into a discussion that should be focused on Wikipedia practice & policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

        Cassianto, I will also add to Hand's comment above that if you keep using such terminology here, this may also result in a civility thread about you as well. (not a WP:BOOMERANG, for sure, so what would that be?) SemiHypercube 18:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

      • Diversity and tolerance on Wikipedia is welcoming editors regardless of nationality or background, not allowing veteran editors to be as rude as they like to everyone else on a collaborative project.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Cassianto, Eric wrote Gropecunt Lane? Are you going to break the news to the 72 named editors, 39 IP editors and 7 bots who made 299 edits before he got there?

How does a vulgarly named place which is now the topic of an article compare to similar vulgarities used in an uncivil way towards another editor? It's the usage which is uncivil.

It's good that you advance the need for tolerance, so please, explain how John telling another editor to fuck off advances that tolerance? Cabayi (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Did the "72 named editors, 39 IP editors and 7 bots who made 299 edits" get it to WP:FA? Maybe you'd consider this version, before Eric and Parrot of Doom got their uncivil hands in it, to have been the article's best period? And talking of other contributions, perhaps you mean this quality edit, which appears to have been conducted by one of your precious "39 IPs"? Cassianto^Talk 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, I would definitely like to see a stern warning or short block for persistent battleground attitude. It's impossible to collaborate constructively with editors who don't know how to compromise with and respect others. Handy History Handbook (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• I see nothing wrong with Johns behaviour, I do however see various issues with Mikeblas', I would suggest closing this idiotic and pointless thread and those moaning over Johns edit summaries go and focus that energy on articles. –Davey2010^Talk 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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

• Followup: I've added a handy counter [13]. EEng 20:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Zoglophie

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

• User behavior of editing by making multiple 'publish changes' in one article. Especially, with behavior by deleting then publish, blanking then publish, adding content then publish, replace content then publish in one article section at adjacent times (per H:PREVIEW), mostly in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu articles.
• Persistence using capital letters in words that do not need to use capital letters (per MOS:CAPS), mostly in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu articles.
• Moving or adding infobox after the article introduction (per MOS:LAYOUT), in Sun Yu and Wang Pengren articles
• Adding flagicon in the infobox (Taiwan flag, which per paragraph 4 of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, Republic of China or Taiwan flag did not use as country representation in sports or in the sporting competition), and linking anchor to the same target in one line (Republic of China and Taiwan to the same target) (per MOS:REPEATLINK), in Cheng Shao-chieh and Tai Tzu-ying articles.

I've tried to give an explanation through User and my talk page, but user ignores that and used user personal preferences for editing on Wikipedia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Continuous harassment by Stvbastian

• I don't know why the user have to always harass me by warning me for a block, he/she can give me advice because i may not know some things cause I'm new in Wikipedia and I always try to put best in the Badminton Articles especially Women's singles.
• Compare prominent women's singles players article with now and 2 months back, you will get to know what contributions i made in all of them. See : Saina Nehwal, P. V. Sindhu, He Bingjiao, Lindaweni Fanetri etc.
• I admit my edits are continuous because I regularly find good citations to feed in these articles and will try my best to make Articles looking more good.
• Some of the words or statement needs special attention so to highlight them, i put it in capital letters.
• Blanking of section is not meant for vandalism, I did it to rearrange the sections in order. Like Career>C. Overview>etc. Please refer to edit history in Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu.
• The user needs to go through the rule in MOS:INFOBOXFLAG because he doesn't know the destinction between Player's Nationality and Player's representation of country in International sports. See Chou Tien-chen where i haven't edited yet it clearly shows the flag of Taiwan in Personal information and flag of Chinese Taipei in international badminton competition.

{Edit:I have fixed the repeatlink problem as objected by Stvbastian, still i am relevant to my previously made edits in Tai Tzu-ying & Cheng Shao-chieh articles in which i have added flagicons to distinguish between nationality and country's (Taiwan's) representation in International sports}

I have informed him very well about this but he/she doesn't care and continues to argue with false claims. He/She even reported me intentionally in Edit warring because he wants to falsify the general rule as per Mos: INFOBOXFLAG. I hope strict response will be given to such activities. Thankyou Zoglophie (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This is so awkward when you said that i should give you an advice, please check our conversation in User:Zoglophie and my talk page, there were so much advice that mostly ignored by Zoglophie, even user against my advice with user personal understanding which is not based on Wikipedia rules or only based on other articles that are not necessarily in accordance with Wikipedia rules. For example about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and MOS:REPEATLINK in Cheng Shao-chieh and Tai Tzu-ying articles. When Zoglophie firmly endures on his/her personal understanding, by performed 2 reverts in my edits, and finally user him/herself reverted his own edit about MOS:REPEATLINK in that articles. And for MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, please take a look on Saina Nehwal article, because recently User:Drmies removed the country flag in the infobox per overflagging, overlinking. Hopefully he can help to give you an understanding about MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Stvbastian I knew you would mention the edit by a user in Saina Nehwal, however, you still are ignorant of the fact that the Taiwan or 2 other names ROC or Chinese Taipei have 2 different flags. One for Nationality and one for Country's Representation. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that most of the other Taiwanese players have 2 flags in them which is not the case of overflagging because they have 2 different flags. Edit in Saina's article is okay, why? Because there is no difference there like in Tai Tzu-ying and Cheng Shao-chieh. Your claim of overlinking was correct, i corrected it and mentioned in both of the reports of the edit i made. But you need to see even Chou Tien-chen, Lin Chun-yi (maybe more) have overlinking problem which i will fix after the discussion will be closed. You said you've given me advice but you don't mention the continuous block threats you have given to me. You are the user with bullying nature and i didn't like it. I am the new user and you should be of helpful nature like many other experienced users in Wikipedia, especially to mention other Senior Badminton Editors. I think you got my point now. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Second awkward, you are still explaining about nationality and representation of Taiwan athletes, but actually i already understood about that for a long time, since i who explained you about nationality and representation of Taiwan athletes, for your disruptive editing by changed Chinese Taipei flag to Taiwan flag in some articles (see your talk page). The point here is not about nationality or representation, but can we use the flag of Republic of China (Taiwan) in infobox? Read paragraph 4 of WP:INFOBOXFLAG carefully, "As with other biographical articles, flags are discouraged in sportspeople's individual infoboxes even when there is a "country", "nationality", "sport nationality" or equivalent field: they may give undue prominence to one field over others. However, the infobox may contain the national flag icon of an athlete who competes in competitions where national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport." Is the Taiwan national flag used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport? The answer is No. And for the statement country in infobox simply write Country = Republic of China (Taiwan) without flag. Please try to get rid of your misconceptions, personal preference or making edit only based on other articles that are not necessarily in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I only warned you with caution level 1 for your many disruptive editing, and then you said that i gave you continuous block threats? Please check your talk page again. I already tried to help you with a lot of advice and tried to fixing your disruptive editing in some badminton related articles, but you mostly ignored my advice and then you are the one who felt that my advice was bullying. Stvbastian (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Stvbastian Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. This is a line in Wikipedia's rule MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. This should be understood that Taiwan has 2 representations, and both of them should be mentioned because their 'National Identity' is somewhere different with their 'Sports related Identity'. Both use different flags. For their own Identity, in Personal box, It is Taiwanese Taiwan but their latter identity is different, it represents them with a different flag - see : Chinese Taipei. Even though it is a sports related article, it needs to distinguished about these 2 flags so their recognitions in the World can be understood. You said it is not necessary to relate them with other Taiwanese articles why? The past editors knew the fact i am tired to make you understand. Don't know why this is so hard for you to understand? Why this is 'awkward' for you?! This is personal preference for you? Ha!

Yes they represent Chinese Taipei in Sports with a specific flag and this is undisputable. They were my first edits probably in which I inserted the Taiwan's flag but after the study i clarified the difference of two identities. Can this be considered as they were my first few edits?

I have given edit summary before the mass deletion of any thing i added but whatever you can call that my inexperience in Wikipedia. After those few edits, i haven't made any mistake further and always consolidated my edits. It is now evident with most of my recent edits.

2nd instance of threatening behavior by you was when i added H2H details in Chen Yu Fei page. You simply sent me the reverted message (Check on my talk page) and your message was not appropriate, you said You will not receive the Warning level 2 & not be 'blocked'. This was the second instance. Third instance you just removed the colors of h2h table eventhough you know there is still no consensus for permanent colors. I can consider that because i am not childish to continuously change the colors, i kept it like that.🤔

I don't know if my recent edit(s) in Sun Yu, Han Aiping, Li Lingwei etc. can be called 'Disruptive' as you are regularly mentioning. For you, even my Wang Pengren's edits are 'disruptive' even when you know it has no details what so ever, and i only added his major medal details. In Gillian Gilks what i did is to place the medals in infobox alike other articles and even that is disruptive for you! Afterall every article is not complete(stub) and it is not necessary that you will have all the career details available in them and not every editor is able to provide complete information. But for you Noo that's Disruptive :| Sigh! Zoglophie (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• • • I request admin(s) here to intervene asap because it is already more than 24 Hours since the user is reported. Many other new reports' discussions are even closed now so it's my request to solve this dispute. Thanks. Zoglophie (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Quite frankly, this sounds like a content dispute that needs to be discussed via Talk page or WP:RFC. I doubt an admin is going to be involved in this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, this is disappointing, I believe an admin needs to intervene here. Zoglophie (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Fabienzidane adding unsourced population figures

Fabienzidane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on adding unsourced population figures to a range of articles about ethnic groups in Mauritius. Despite repeated warnings, this behaviour continues. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See also here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And this edit made since I filed this report, in clear contradiction of the cited source. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I left a note at their talk. Please ping me if necessary (e.g. if I don't notice follow-ups after 24 hours). Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User with no contributions to mainspace

• Florin747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Florin747 joined Wikipedia in 2017 after apparently some time as an IP editor. Since then, he has edited his user page, user talk, sandbox, and reference desks. He is apparently a university student and posts a lot of "ideas" or "homework questions" and doesn't seem to constructively answer others' questions on said reference desks. He has never made an edit to mainspace, or really anything outside the spaces mentioned. His English literacy (as a Romanian) is idiosyncratic. I believe he is not here to build an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Well no-one else had edited his talk page prior to your notifying him of this discussion. Maybe there should be an attempt at dialogue there first.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh. There's a consensus that the refdesk should be part of our encyclopedia project (or, rather, a lack of consensus against), and we have some people that engage there and virtually nowhere else (on the question side and the answer side). As long as we're going to keep it around, that's going to happen, and it doesn't seem any more problematic than any other narrow-focused editor whose activities have little to do with the actual writing of articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

If someone uses Wikipedia a lot and registers an account in order to use the refdesk, I'm not sure I see a problem with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It's one thing if he's fielding questions and answering them, but it's a bit hinky when they all seem to be homework assignments he's posting for others to work out. Elizium23 (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

So what? It's okay if we have anonymous users copy-paste off the website for homework (who doesn't :) but registering an account to ask questions is THË BÌG BÃD? --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:VOLUNTARY is in point. Also, if they're taking now, someday they might give back. What's the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement to answer questions at the refdesk in order to be allowed to ask questions. If people don't want to help with the homework questions, nobody is forcing them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Why would the refdesk exist if you had to answer questions to ask questions Tsla1337 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR - SHISHIR DUA

I think we need a competency block for SHISHIR DUA (talk · contribs), an editor whose over-enthusiasm strays into disruptive. Some examples:

• A quick look at their deleted contribs shows they have created numerous non-notable/poorly thought out articles/categories which have been deleted.
• Recently, they have created identical categories in Category:Indian Super League coaches and then Category:Indian Super League managers, both of which actually duplicate an existing category (and are therefore now at CFD).
• They have incorrectly added categories to articles, such as this
• They have taken it upon themselves to launch an entirely new WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Super League), something which is already adequately covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/India task force, and also created a heap of associated templates and sub-articles ({{Strikers of ISL}}, Wikipedia:ISL/Strikers of ISL, {{User ISL Vice-Coordinator}} etc.) which will need to be deleted.

I, and others, find ourselves spending more and more time cleaning up after this editor. My previous attempt to reach out fell on deaf ears.

I suggest that unless serious and genuine assurances are given, SHISHIR DUA is blocked per CIR. GiantSnowman 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop harassin' others by usin' administrative might. Everythin' is relevant SHISHIR DUA (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Everythin' is relevant is not a persuasive argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think their response is a great example of their general attitude to Wikipedia. Doing what they want, refusing to listen or work with others - the antithesis of what Wikipedia is actually about. GiantSnowman 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What I saw in their edits (5000 or so?) does not suggest CIR to me. They may have created a project and the attendant templates and categories, but this essentially conflates all your points: if they create this project because they think they are doing a noteworthy thing, it stands to reason that they would create the categories etc. to go with it. Now, that their comment here shows a lack of collegiality, which is essential to a collaborative project, doesn't mean they're a candidate for an indefinite block. But I am not the best person to ask them to stop being antagonistic. At the same time, going to ANI after one notification was ignored, that's a big step, and it seems to me that this should be taken up first at one of the soccer project pages--y'all have functioning projects, so use them. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Am I missing something? GS noted that the category they created already existed under a different name (Category:Indian Super League head coaches). They have created two new categories, which duplicate this one. Number 57 22:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And list articles copied and retitled with the exact same duplicated list under different names, I've PROD'ed some which got deleted. It can be quite repetitive. Govvy (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Number 57, did you ask that of me? Because I'd ask whether we are seriously considering indeffing someone for creating a duplicate category. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that would be very strange to block them if the category were the only issue, but several other problems have been noted by GS and Govvy above. Number 57 11:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: what about the articles/categories that have been deleted? The comments from other editors which have fallen on deaf ears? The more this editor edits, the more mess we have to clean up. GiantSnowman 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds, Drmies, Number 57, and Govvy: this editor has today re-created Category:Greek Football Cup players, a category which they previously created and which was deleted by CFD only a week ago. This cannot continue. GiantSnowman 16:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, yeah, in that case a short block to get their attention is in order. They need to understand they cannot simply recreate deleted categories like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Postings from Harold Lloyd Enterprises

A representative of Harold Lloyd Enterprises (User:HLE1893) has been posting at various talk pages requesting the removal of all content relating to silent film star Harold Lloyd's alleged involvement in encouraging/enforcing racially restrictive covenants in Beverly Hills in the 1940s. The user contends that the information, though supported by four reliable sources (including a 1945 newspaper article and three books published by reputable publishing houses), is false and jeopardizes funding for a proposed feature film on Lloyd's life. The lengthy posting by HLE1893 was done first on a user talk page (here), then at the Harold Lloyd talk page (here), a month later on the talk page of the Harold Lloyd Estate (here), and yesterday on my talk page (here). In response to the letter, the first recipient of the note removed the content from the Harold Lloyd page, though some content remains on the Harold Lloyd Estate page. This follows a similar pattern in August 2019 that resulted in the indefinite block of User:Chatterbox1880 for violating Wikipedia policy on legal threats.

I prepared a detailed response to HLE1893 earlier today which is found at: Talk:Harold Lloyd#Response to HLE1893. I am not suggesting or requesting a block of HLE1893 as I would like to give them an opportunity to respond to my requests for further information. Absent an indication that the four reliable sources have retracted their statements, my preliminary inclination is to rewrite the content to concisely report what the four reliable sources stated, with an explicit balancing statement that the heirs of Mr. Lloyd deny his involvement in supporting such restrictive covenants. However, as this involves implied (if not explicit) threats of legal action, I am posting here to see if anyone has other thoughts/suggestions on steps that should be taken. Cbl62 (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Eeesh, that message is a hair's breadth away from a legal threat (and I'm 99% certain it was written by a lawyer). It's not quite there, but it's basically a "here's what you're doing wrong, change it or we'll take legal action" letter with the "or we'll take legal action'" removed. creffett (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but that matters. In fact I think they raise good points. EEng 19:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not saying they didn't - but I suspect I'm not the only one who gets a little nervous when someone posts a message in legalese ("My client ("The Client") queries that you enumerate the habeas corpus of the nolo contendere to prove the party of the first part's negligent compliance") yes I know that's complete gibberish instead of just talking like a normal person ("hi, I work for the article subject, you say such-and-such in the article but here are sources that say otherwise"). creffett (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

They use the word "besmirches", you know it's for real. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bee smirches. EEng 00:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• The HLE letter did raise some inaccuracies as to details in the discussion at Harold Lloyd Estate. I have now edited the treatment there to omit those alleged inaccuracies and reduce the discussion of Lloyd's role to the following accurate (and balanced) sentence: "Though disputed by his heirs, several published accounts have described Lloyd as a leader in the drive to prevent African-Americans and others from residing in the area."

Removing the discussion in its entirety would constitute inappropriate censorship on a matter of importance -- i.e., the role of prominent whites outside the South, in the "liberal" North and South in carrying out restrictive covenants which were one of the most insidious (and successful) mechanisms for enforcing de facto racial segregation. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Out of an abundance of caution, I modified further so that the sentence now simply reads: "Though disputed by his heirs, several published accounts have described Lloyd as a leader in the drive to adopt restrictive covenants." If we can't even say this much, then we may as well abandon efforts to an accurate source of information. Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting out of control. You can't possibly imagine we're going to have an article say though disputed by his heirs because of what someone posted in a talk page discussion. EEng 21:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I included the "disputed by his heirs" language in light of the prior explicit threat of litigation by Chatterbox and the current implied threat by HLE. I viewed my language as a prudent application of WP:IAR. If the consensus is that such qualifying language is neither helpful nor appropriate, I will abide by the community consensus. But under no circumstance IMO opinion should we wholly censor the core statement -- which is supported by four reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll say it again: we absolutely, positively don't put in language like this based on a talk page post by someone claiming to be somebody. EEng 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm personally aware of that restrictive covenant applying to property in the Fairfax District, Los Angeles, not far away. The restrictive covenant is stated in deeds to all properties in the area, though a letter from LA city or county stating that the covenants were overturned by legislation in 1965 or so (i think referring to U.S. national civil rights law plus city/county resolution) is legally required to be included in the papers of any real property transaction. That stemmed from the express wishes/conditions of the person/family (Hancock or some other name which is similarly represented in placenames in the area today) that owned the very large, larger-than-Fairfax area, maybe extending to border of Beverly Hills which was subdivided in the 1910s or 1920s or so. It was called something like the "Hancock tract", before subdivision. I don't see the restrictive covenants mentioned in any of the Wikipedia articles about neighborhoods. The West Adams, Los Angeles article reports an echo of them: "The development of the West Side, Beverly Hills and Hollywood, beginning in the 1910s, siphoned away much of West Adams' upper-class white population; upper-class blacks began to move in around this time, although the district was off limits to all but the very wealthiest African-Americans." West Adams became a black majority area, I understand because it didn't have the restrictive covenants of the areas further west and north. I think there must be available history sources covering all this. A mapping out the development of the larger area, with tracts identified as to year of subdivision and shaded about their covenants, would sure be interesting. And this stuff oughta be mentioned in the neighborhood / area articles. Perhaps greater, appropriate coverage of the use of restrictive covenants in development of Los Angeles area would go some way towards addressing the HLE concerns. If Harold Lloyd led in effort to bring the covenants to Beverly Hills, that should be said, but it would be better to have it placed in bigger context, i.e. that was an effort to extend use of the covenants from adjacent (i think) if not surrounding areas, and related to likely protection of property values which surely would have been a factor for people building homes in the area, etc. Not forgiving it, but this would not have been a new racist initiative being introduced from out of the blue by Harold Lloyd and associates. Unless it was that, and the covenants then spread east back to Fairfax (but I think the development process went from east to west towards Beverly Hills). If this Los Angeles-area restrictive covenants is not yet addressed extensively somewhere in Wikipedia, it oughta be; people living there should know that is the history. --Doncram (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Covenant (law)#Exclusionary covenants mentions this, but with no detail and "citation needed" about Los Angeles being an example; it does include this source about Palos Verdes, an article written with help of a Los Angeles Public Library librarian. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The article does not state or suggest that Lloyd invented restrictive covenants. Nor does any Wikipedia article brand him as a "racist". These covenants became popular in the 1920s and 1930s as a "clever" way to enforce supposedly de facto segregation in "liberal" cities. While some likely had overtly racist motives for the covenants, others likely viewed them as a means of preserving property values. Lloyd's role in advocating for such covenants, as described in four reliable sources, should not be overstated -- nor should it be censored or deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• HLE1893 has been indef blocked for making legal threats, and for being a suspected sock of Chatterbox1880. Lawyers like money, and they would more likely be filing a suit against WMF, not on a talk page to a lone unpaid editor. No monetary value in going after an unpaid volunteer. They would also know the entire legal history of any discrimination that happened in the area. — Maile (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I believe this was a real mistake. Detailed lawyerly reasoning does not constitute a legal threat. I'm going nuclear by pinging in Newyorkbrad for his august opinion. (I believe everything you need is at Talk:Harold_Lloyd#Restrictive_covenant.) EEng 02:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Why wait 'til August? Let's ask for his April opinion. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

      You may march upstairs right now, young man! EEng 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

    • Should not have been blocked, that cuts off communication, and the person was working completely properly, making a reasoned request. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I see that I've been pinged to this thread, but it's almost midnight here—I'll take a look at this tomorrow (my time) if it hasn't been resolved by then. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I stated from the outset in this thread that "I am not suggesting or requesting a block of HLE1893 as I would like to give them an opportunity to respond." Cbl62 (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad They have presented themselves as official representatives of the estate, with no proof of who they say they are. They now have the opportunity to provide that proof through the Unblock Ticket Request System. If they are who they say are, the unblocking, and any concerns they have about the estate and Wikipedia, can be handled there. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean, if nothing else, their comment We represent Harold Lloyd Entertainment, Inc. (“HLE”). indicates a shared role account, which is blockable in itself. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad I have unblocked them, as the blocking admin. You all can figure out the rest, but perhaps it's better to err on the side of caution when the issue might not be so clear-cut. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In other cases I prefer to hear out what a lawyer-type representive having COI has to say, and to try to work with them. E.g. advise about use of royal we in communication, which one individual lawyer-type person plausibly might do semi-automatically, but which suggests/raises issue of sharing an account (not allowed here). They (using the "royal they"? no, using the non-gendered pronoun alternative to saying "he/she" which is fairly often used in Wikipedia discussion) need to take personal individual responsibility for what their account states anywhere in Wikipedia, in order to participate and be taken seriously in Wikipedia discussion. It could be an accepted core value and good practice for lawyers and staff, in working together, to use "we" to share credit or to avoid taking undue credit when they say "we represent" or "we believe". If in fact several persons have jointly drafted their arguments, for Wikipedia one individual still needs to take individual responsibility and recast it in form of "I and my colleagues believe", or better "I (and my colleagues) believe" or better "I believe". However, it does rub me the wrong way when the lawyer-type throws up a litany of arguments and suggestions, including some specious, hair-splitting, insincere ones, or when they exaggerate, as they have done (including at Talk:Harold Lloyd#Restrictive covenant, which i think is the main discussion). Maybe that works in some legal settings, but for me it establishes that they lie and deliberately mislead, and they are willing to lie, and they believe it is their job to lie, which is not acceptable here. And it undermines their credibility in all their other statements and my patience in dealing with them at all. --Doncram (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Lawyers say "we represent" or "this office represents" as a matter of accuracy: the lawyer is saying that the whole law firm, not just the person signing the letter, represents the client. Solo practitioners typically say "I represent", unless they're being pretentious. It looks to me like someone took a typical take down notice, removed the lawyerly bits, and posted it on wiki. Generally if a message is not signed by a lawyer I assume it's not from a lawyer since lawyers almost always identify themselves in any correspondence sent on behalf of a client. It's ethically required (and that is not a legal threat). Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeat reverts and goading using two different IPs

Yesterday I undid some work by an IP across a number of Formula One Grand Prix race articles, in which he made significant changes to table formats with no consensus. I retained most of his other work while reverting him on the tables. After a strange conversation on his talk page User talk:2A02:8084:F1BE:9180:84AA:25AF:B30A:6B79 in which he failed to assume good faith, and made strange judgements on myself and another editor, he has repeatedly reverted me on several articles, using two different IP addresses. During this time, he has called me a "naughty little boy" in edit summaries no fewer than nine times, at least, among other childish insults. For example:

1994 Canadian Grand Prix – edits and reverts using two IPs [14]

1994 French Grand Prix – reverts including after I added a source to the wording he objected to [15], then he removed the source a second time [16]

1994 San Marino Grand Prix — 3RR using two different IPs [17]

1994 Pacific Grand Prix – reverts using two different IP addresses [18]

There are a number of other similar articles in which he uses two different IPs to revert me, and I am close to 3RR on several of them. I don't know if he's trying to goad me into breaking 3RR, but the edit summaries would indicate that.

Besides the two IPs, he has an account, User:ChupoKlasky1991, but has not used it in over a month after "retiring" in the face of other editors disagreeing with him, something with which I was not involved.

Another editor has warned him here [19], but I don't really see why I should have to put up with this. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

• Both IPs blocked for a week. That's just simple disruption. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, this person has a long and ignoble history of very similar behaviour dating back years now, with typical sneery, goading, deliberately provocative behaviour, gradually escalating over edit after edit. I mention it so that people can have a think about what sanctions/protections can be put in place to mitigate the effect of this person's abusive behaviour. Having decent editors clean up after this pillock over and over again is something that Admins need to work on eradicating. Just take a look through the edit history of the IPs blocked this time and you'll see plenty of verbal abuse, calling editors trying to manage their imbecillic pantomime "fucking idiots" and the like. When I started to simply revert their vandalism without engagement they decided to try upping the ante and called me a cunt :-D Subsequently there were a few edit summaries that needed redacting, but eventually they got bored, although it was a tedious process to get there and greatly added to my sense of ennui with Wikipedia admins and their inability to properly police persistently abusive IP editors. Hence, I edit here far less than I used to. All their edits trace back to IP addresses belonging to either Three Ireland (presumably their cell phone provider) or Virgin Media in Dublin (home connection?). Take a look through my talk page history if you want a bucket load more IP addresses, and i suspect that I am not the only one with a list like that. I appreciate what Bretonbanquet has done in raising this topic here, but I do very much fear that he will find that once the one week block imposed by Black Kite has expired this will only continue. We need a more permanent solution. Pyrope 03:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Since I just rewatched the show, I have to add: "We need a more permanent soluuution...to our proooobllemmmmm..." creffett (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• If it does continue, let me know and I'll implement longer blocks or wider rangeblocks. There isn't much collateral damage to worry about on those ranges. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks Black Kite. I have my fingers crossed that they might not need it this time. Pyrope 14:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

NOTHERE editing by Ataxan.az

Hi, the reported editor is attacking other editors who disagree with him : [20] and saying this kind of nonesenses :

• "Wow, everybody tells that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of anything and reading it is a waste of time but I never have believed it. I understand it better now."
• "Instead of appreciating, insight contributions like mine which you probably will not find in any source (they are the result of years and years of personal research and gatherings) you reject them"

etc ... Obviously not here to build an encyclopedia.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Whereas their behavior is hardly exemplary, they have not edited after the warnings. Let us wait and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for your insight. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Ataxan azer advertising nickname of the Azerbaijani internal site. Subject to editing the nickname. ZokidinUZB (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't real really deal with username issues, but per WP:PROMONAME, I don't see how ataxan.az is a problem since it's not a registered domain name [21] Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 21:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

CIR concern with Sohail ariyan

New editor Sohail ariyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing in the area of Bengali films and actors for two months. In that time, their talk page has collected a significant number of warnings from 10 different editors. Sohail ariyan has not responded to any of the warnings or changed their behaviour.

Despite being warned multiple times, Sohail ariyan never uses an edit summary, and has marked all 200+ edits since 23 March as "minor", when they are nothing of the kind (for example, this, where unsourced information was added, and this, where reliable sources were removed).

They have created 24 pages, 5 of which have been moved to draft, and 11 of which have been proposed for some form of deletion (some were draftified articles recreated by the author in article space without meaningful improvement and without going through the Articles for Creation review process). The remainder of their creations, based on a small sample (Action Jasmine, Bahaduri (2017 film), Matir Pori, and Ojante Valobasha) are also problematic, being unreferenced and failing to demonstrate notability.

Their actions raise competence is required concerns. It is unclear whether they are wilfully turning a blind eye to feedback, or simply lack the fluency in English or the experience as an editor to understand the problems they are creating. Whatever the cause, the disruptiveness of their editing outweighs any beneficial edits.

A block is needed to, at a minimum, get their attention and make them realize that there are protocols and conventions to be followed in order to be a constructive contributor. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I originally tried to draftify the articles, such as Pure Jay Mon, explaining to Sohail ariyanthat he needs to add sources and encouraging him to work on the articles in the draftspace and then re-submit them once notability was established. Instead of doing so the editor simply just copy-pasted the same article, none of which are more than two sentencers and an infobox with absolutely no attempt to use sources, back into the main space. I have warned the editor three times now about adding unsourced articles and am now proposing them for deletion (I believe that A7 would be more appropriate but unfortunately films do not qualify). Sohail ariyan has made no attempts to communicate to other editors and has ignored every single warning that has been issued to him/her. Maybe a short block will force him/her to communicate but this is bordering on the editor having WP:CIR issues. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all of his/her articles including drafts. there is no point for 24 AfD nom. Looks editor doesn’t understand WP:GNG (or don't want to) & mass creating non notable film articles. I also think that a block is necessary to get user's attention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely [22] until they're willing to engage with concerns. The significant history of unsourced article creation, removal of sourced info, and complete failure to respond to others' concerns means that I think a short, definite block is more likely to just be ignored. I am expressly happy to have any other admin review this, and to unblock if they think the user is cooperating. ~ mazca ^talk 16:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mazca: Thank you for action. Regarding article created by the user, if those articles cannot be deleted under A7, at least drafty them please. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The ones I looked at briefly seem to mostly make rough assertions of notability based on having notable actors, etc, so they're not eligible under the deliberately restrictive requirements of WP:CSD#A7 even if it did apply to films - various editors seem to have marked most via WP:PROD, feel free to continue doing that to any others. I may do a mass AfD of any that continue to exist after that, but these are ultimately fairly harmless bad stubs that can stand to exist for a week or two while normal deletion processes occur. ~ mazca ^talk 18:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

More eyes please

At Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard there are a few concurrent discussions that are featuring (accusations of) personal attacks, IDHT and reverting the closing and unclosing of sections. I'm very much involved in the discussions so I'm not expressing any opinion of who is or is not right, and while things haven't boiled over into full blown edit warring or incivility the potential is clearly there. The attention of a couple of clearly uninvolved admins to ensure things don't escalate would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of a pain to read through all that drama. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Joelrosenblum

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

Not sure if this is an account sold on the black market or what, but right about now I think that a belligerent antivaxer is close to the last thing we need, so I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Guy (help!) 19:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good block. Their main talkpage post today was, in essence "I object to everyone citing reliable sources in writing this article, it isn't fair that there isn't a balanced view from these bullshit sources also". We need less of that around here. --Jayron32 19:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior/threats of reversion from IP editor

Over the last month, IP user 109.156.239.85/109.159.72.250 has been extremely abrasive to myself and anyone else not agreeing with them on the Star Citizen article and in threads related to article discussions, having threatened to weaponize WP:BRD to revert changes that they didn't agree with despite waiting for a WP:THIRDOPINION, and posted incredibly insulting responses accusing me of spinning sources and "obfuscating criticism". After continuing to berate me after I'd already said I'd disengage, I feel like I have no choice but to bring this to ANI since I'm not really sure what else to do since this is ongoing after a previous ANI dispute and topic thread that were both highly abrasive.

Disclosure: in the interest of transparency, in one of our first heated debates, I called the user a liar and accused them of a provocative tone after their initial accusation of me "spinning" a source; I apologized soon after. Recently, I accused the user of arguing a strawman and misrepresenting my argument in a way that could be considered aggressive.

This topic thread and this ANI thread may provide further background to this. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 00:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The IP editor should tone down the rhetoric. But this looks like it's a contentious content dispute. You can resolve that by going to WT:VG and asking them to comment on whatever the content issue is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There are content disputes, certainly. Disputes that have resulted from a new single-purpose editor deciding to take over an article on a controversial subject (a much-delayed and still very much unfinished crowdfunded video game which has attracted much commentary from well beyond the usual video gaming media), to make wholesale changes, and to then refuse to properly discuss their changes. I suggested reverting to the previous stable version, per WP:BRD, since we clearly weren't going to agree over the disputed content. I could, per WP:BRD have simply made the revert, but because I indicated that I thought this was appropriate before doing so - giving Seadoubleyoujay the opportunity to comment first - I am now accused of 'weaponizing' WP:BRD. Right from the start, Seadoubleyoujay has displayed WP:OWN behaviour, and a consistent pattern of basing their arguments regarding article content not on what the sources actually say, but instead on their own interpretation of them - an interpretation which seems to consistently tend towards promoting the subject, rather than reporting it neutrally in an encyclopaedic manner. I can of course provide evidence to support this if required, but I would hope that shouldn't be necessary. It needn't be, if Seadoubleyoujay is willing to accept that their edits are as subject to revision as anyone else's, that they need to actually respond to issues raised in a constructive manner rather than engaging in repetitive stonewalling, and that they need to accept that the purpose of an article is to describe the subject matter, rather than to promote it. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There are a few issues with your characterization of myself and your own actions.

1. I'm a relatively new editor who decided to work on some specific things, characterizing me as an SPA to discredit the work I'm doing is seriously offensive considering I've been working on other articles as I'm able. I don't have a long body of varied edits because two of those projects, (Armored Core and Star Citizen) have needed quite a bit of writing and research for sources. All my other edits are minor wording changes, reversions, or the first article I worked on.

2. Saying I refuse to discuss my changes is absolutely false. In this section, I clearly discuss a change, acknowledge the issue with wording, and even say I don't see an issue with changing the wording. One other change I reverted to retain an article link for clarification, another was the source of this discussion, during which I even conceded to one of your points early on.

3. In regards to WP:BRD, WP:BRDREVERT states, "first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit, and whether you would like to make that bold edit instead." A majority of the content you were planning on reverting was unrelated to our discussion, removing or changing the section in question is one thing, threatening to undo all of the additional ones is another. WP:BRD-NOT also states it "is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." and it "is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." Your use of WP:BRD came off as vindictive in the context of the conversation, and you were "weaponizing" it by stating you would remove a bunch of content that wasn't even involved in the discussion, especially when we were waiting for a WP:THIRDOPINION on the subject.

4. As for WP:OWN, from my first post until now you've consistently dismissed every piece of content, sourcing, and argument I've brought up and demeaned anyone who disagrees with you. Practically every change I've made has been argued against, even with a ton of sourcing. When I suggest incorporating my rewrites, you even told me how that was the wrong thing to do because it would make it difficult for you to "properly review" it. I've tried to adhere to community consensus on how to structure game articles, yet you argue that we shouldn't do that because you, and so far only you, think that the consensus should be subverted just because you think you're right. And saying I exhibited "WP:OWN" from the start is weird, considering my first post was geared towards starting a discussion about a split before you accused me of "spinning" something like seven posts into the discussion and your shouting down of myself and another editor, AND your attempt to get me sanctioned on ANI. Reading through WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, the only thing I see that I've done is ask for discussion prior to changes to a single section due to the recent edits in regards to the article structure, which is something you did as well.

5. "a consistent pattern of basing their arguments regarding article content not on what the sources actually say, but instead on their own interpretation of them" is an extremely weird statement considering you removed a source's quote and the related content because of your own interpretation of their argument despite the source saying nothing of the sort. When I brought up 33 articles to support my point in an earlier discussion, you not only dismissed the content by focusing a single highly specific passage from a few of the articles, but also wrote that they were cherry-picked and that they weren't good enough, despite all of them being considered reliable sources and discussing the topic at length.

6. "which seems to consistently tend towards promoting the subject" is also weird. I'm adding content from reliable sources. Much of it isn't even controversial (a majority of my gameplay and development content is from reliable sources directly and are just direct statements about what happened, when it happened, and/or what is available right now). The stuff that was controversial (legal issues and delays) was an expansion of existing content and entirely sourced. I acknowledged some issues with wording as noted above and currently acknowledge issues with delay structure, but you argued against some of them in a way that is aggressive, demeaning, and accusatory. It's your method of response that makes these discussions extremely difficult and pulls away from the content discussion. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 15:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments as to why you are always right and I'm always wrong might be more convincing if it were not for the fact that having asked for third-party input over the key issue in our latest dispute (i.e. whether a section on the ongoing delays endemic to the project should be entitled 'initial delays', and further content concerning later delays being buried amongst other content), you have now had to concede that doing it your way was inappropriate. As a new editor, you might do well to consider that other people may have more experience than you, and that dealing with content disputes involves more than endlessly repeating the same points.

And yes, I removed a CIG quote from the section on their legal dispute with CryTek, and then explained why I did it when asked [23] because as I stated, it was selective and incomplete, and gave an entirely misleading impression regarding what the case was actually about. Rather than ask for further explanation and/or sourcing at the time (which would surely have been appropriate if you had an issue with it) you have instead waited until now to bring it up as supposed 'evidence' for my misbehaviour. That, quite frankly, is ridiculous.

And on a more general point, you keep stressing how you are basing content on 'reliable sources'. That is clearly a requirement of Wikipedia policy. It is not however sufficient on its own to simply 'use' such sources. They have to be used in a manner which places them in context (i.e. to avoid representing partisan assertions as fact etc) and in a way that results in a balanced article. In the context of Star Citizen, this is sometimes difficult, in that the videogaming media (which after all has an interest in promoting video gaming) tends often to repeat more or less verbatim much of what game developers and publishers say. It would be entirely possible to create an article from such sources which consisted of nothing but recycled material from CIG's own publicity department. Sadly I've more than a few Wikipedia articles on other video games which seem to use sources in such a manner. I don't think, however, that it is in the best interest of our readership to do so. Particularly in the context of a project which has attracted interest from sources (BBC, NYT etc) well beyond the usual video-gaming publications. The article isn't just of interest to SciFi spaceship gaming fans, and needs, if it is to serve the best interests of a broader readership, to go into detail over the more controversial issues which have brought in the interests of such outsiders. And you won't do that by using 'reliable sources' just as a means to repeat CIG's preferred narrative. Writing an encyclopaedia is difficult, and can't be done without actually analysing the sources you cite, asking what it is they are reliable for, and then perhaps asking whether using them for what they say is going to serve the reader's best interests, or instead result in an unbalanced article. And if you disagree with someone over content, you need to also ask yourself whether you have understood what they are saying, and whether they may actually be right. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You are aware that my rewrite/concession was based on a suggestion I made early on in the discussion? "I think if we do end up moving Initial Delays out of the Kickstarter section, it should be rewritten to reflect a more comprehensive section rather than the specific period that the section currently covers." I've never said that I was always right, I've said that you shut down any suggestions/arguments I make and made implications as to my motives. Like I stated in the previous post, I've conceded to points previously.

The point I was making with the Crytek thing was that despite your claims that I "interpret" sources, you are doing that very thing by interpreting a source as being misleading. Your point about the "videogaming media tends often to repeat more or less verbatim much of what game developers and publishers say." is another example of interpreting and dismissing sources that you don't agree with because of your opinion that they are just "recycled material". You can't consistently accuse someone of interpreting sources to push a particular viewpoint while doing that very thing.

Finally, being "more experienced" doesn't give you carte blanche to demean someone who disagrees with you, whether it's policy related or not, or to accuse them of bad faith. I've shown to be willing to concede points in my discussions, even to you, yet somehow you claim that I "refuse to properly discuss [my] changes". — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 18:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Off you go again. I said the quote was misleading, because it was. It gave the entirely false impression that CryTek were unaware of, or hiding, the very wording of the contract they brought CIG to court over. The court was always going to see the contract. It didn't need CIG to 'share' with the court that it mentioned Squadron 42. That was never in dispute. People rarely bring contract disputes to court while hoping to hide what the contract says. What was in dispute though was whether CIG were entitled, per the terms of the contract, to sell Squadron 42 separately, rather than as part of Star Citizen as CryTek had understood when the contract was drawn up. If you had bothered to ask at the time I could have provided evidence for this, though I'd rather assumed that in writing the legal conflict section you were already aware of the fact. Only now do you decide to dispute the edit, despite it being made a week and a half ago, and with no further comment from you after I offered an explanation. I am not responsible for your failure to ask for an explanation of something you appear not to have done proper research on before writing an article.

And yes, I 'interpret' sources to see whether they are reliable for specific content. This is exactly what WP:RS requires us to do: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." I have nowhere 'dismissed' the videogaming media. I have however suggested that its use needs to be tempered with the sort of critical eye that WP:RS requires. Which requires that we need to be able to distinguish between the media stating fact, stating opinion, or merely repeating what they have been told by game developers and publishers. Sometimes we can use them as sources for all three, but when we do, we need to make clear to our readers what the source is giving us.

At this point though, I think it might be best if we stopped bickering amongst ourselves. It is clear no action is going to be taken here. If you want to discuss content with me, I'm fine with that, as long as you actually read what I write, and ask for explanations for anything you don't understand. At the time, not weeks later. And if we can't agree, we can ask for third opinions. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

109.156.239.85 and Seadoubleyoujay at its core this is a content dispute which ANI cannot resolve. Desist from any and all WP:PAs. If you are unable to reach an agreement on the talk page then you should seek WP:DR. Remember to focus on content in your talk page discussions. You were earlier advised to seek additional input on WT:VG I won't open a thread there for you, but it is sound advice. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we've probably resolved the major issues for now, though involvement of more contributors would of course be welcome. I suspect we'd have been less likely to have got into such a heated debate if it wasn't just a back-and-forth between the two of us. 109.156.239.85 (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

IP’s threat of violence

Could an admin take a look at User talk:166.62.213.248 and take action? I had reverted uncited material on Olivier Aubin-Mercier and responded to a request for help on the Talk page, since deleted. I haven't had one quite like this before. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for one week. El_C 04:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Watchlisting the Talk page. Jusdafax (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that edit should be redacted since he appears to be giving out a personal address in it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Никита-Родин-2002

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

---

Nikita-Rodin-2002 still continues to create accounts on my behalf ZOKIDIN2 ZOKIDIN3 ZOKIDIN4 ZOKIDIN5 Zokidindisney and so on. On my behalf, it still creates fakes and threatens the administrators of the English Wikipedia. I have no peace from his hand. How to deal with such vandals? He follows me everywhere. [REDACTED - Oshwah] ZokidinUZB (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

HHH Pedrigree

On the WWE Hall of Fame discussion on the talk page of the wrestling Wikiproject, I made one last comment to HHH Pedrigree as you can see and he responded by telling me to "fuck off" as you can see. He was very uncivil. I've never seen anyone swear at someone nor have I been sworn at or swore at some. If he had an issue with something said, he could messaged me on my talk and we could have worked it out . But he decided to respond the way he did. Never had a problem with him till this happened. This is serious and needs to be dealt with accordingly. Thank you. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You repeatedly said that he's not neutral. What did you expect him to say? That said, he shouldn't resort to insults. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I said so. First you made several changes on the Hall of Fame article. I explained since, from the beginin, there is a consensus: just the most notable titles, supported by several users for 10 years. However, you said there is no consensus even If I prove it. Then, a discussion, fine. Let's go to a new consensus. During the discussion, you disrespected me. I show several users, examples of other articles and gave sources, but in the end, you and JDC only relive my argments because I used the word I think, calling me No neutral (For years, people has complained because I sound to agressive English is not my first language), but is just a way to express. There is any difference between "I think this policy applies" and "this policy applies". Also, you insulted me. You told me "I'm wrong", "afraid of change", "a yes-man" and I told you these kind of comments aren't neccesary, but I don't see any apology. (In fact, JDC called me yesman one more time, again, an insult during a civil discussion). I have spent 10 years here, learning and reading several policies, but suddenly, I'm just a no-neutral yesman and users of the project insults me just because I don't agree with them. After 4 users said they prefer a new consensus, I agree, I don't change my mind about the issue, but I see more users want to change it. Then, Insult to injury. You told me that I should agree with you before and don't waste your time while you *Shake my head*. What do you expect? To smile at you? I felt very unrespected and insulted during the whole process and you joked on me even after the discussion ended. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My calling you a "yes-man" was based on your editorial behavior of seemingly only going with the status quo as opposed to actually forming solid arguments to support your position. It was not intended as an uncivil insult, but rather a flaw to work on. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• New rule. In any dispute infvolving wrestling,. all parties are blocked for 31h. Guy (help!) 10:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Absofuckinglutely. About time. Plus smash their keyboards with metal chairs. EEng 10:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cheating in a fake fight. A new low. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: You can't just make new rule without consulting other peopl just because you are am admin. That's not how that works. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, I'm 95% confident that JzG was being facetious. creffett (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Sometimes you can always tell in text. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The level of disrespect from the admins here is atrocious, regardless of how many ANI reports come from our particular project. --JDC808 ♫ 19:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JDC808, maybe because you take fake fighting waaaaaaaaay too seriously and Wikipedia core policy not half seriously enough. Guy (help!) 19:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you blatantly admitted to being disrespectful. And you guys were made admins how? It does not matter how seriously one takes a form of interest. I mean, are you all this disrespectful to those with interests in other forms of entertainment (a lot of which is also fake mind you). --JDC808 ♫ 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, would you like to test that hypothesis? Guy (help!) 19:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Saying "I think" is not neutral. A fundamental of Wikipedia is to have an NPOV. You can be for or against something while doing so in a neutral manner. If you were debating someone, you wouldn't say "I think." You present arguments for or against something while remaining neutrak with the language you use. He was also hoping that people who participated in the previous discussion about this particular WWE Hall of Fame issue would chime in. He miight have thought that if they did that their thinking would have remanied the and would have agreed with him. If he did think that, that's not neutral either. But that's not issue at hand though. The issue is as stated. He told me to "fuck off." Like I said, if there was problem with what was being, he should have came to me or JDC808 on our talk pages and it would have been worked out. If would have apologized and admitted what he said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on.

HHH Pedrigree You didn't like the fact that accolades WWE recognizes JBL for were added because you deemed them unimportant because that is "consensus" and you didn't like the fact that it was being challenged. The box is called "WWE recognized accolades" for a reason. It's not "WWE accolades we deem important are only added." You were going off a discussion that happened well over ten-years ago. You were dead set against against change. You said because consensus was established all those years ago, it shouldn't be changed or even in the very least discussed. You continually would find any reason to try and shut us down. You were hoping people involved the previous discussion would chime in because you were hoping you'd get people on your side because you are against changing the way something is done. That's not neutral. Just consensus was established all those years ago doesn't mean it will he like that forever and never discussed or changed. Ways of doing things can become outdated or not proper. You are allowed to challenge the "consensus," but you are dead set against that. You like the "status quo." You just want to keep doing it the way it was in the past because it's always been done that way. When the in wrestling sections were done away with, I didn't like that. I was against it. I have learned to accept and now think it is okay. Someone challenged consensus and it got changed. So yes, consensus is not set in stone. Also, you starting how long you've been on Wikipedia is irrelevant to that discussion. I have been on Wikipedia for 15-years, but I have never once brought that up. I've rambled and strayed from the original intent of coming to the notice board. If you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. But since you haven't bothered to do that, we will have to seen where this goes. Oh and I never once swore at you or anything like. Also, JDC calling you a yes man is something you have to talk to him about. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

What are you expecting? You're not going to convince me. I already gave up. The discussion is over. You insulted me the whole discussion and joked on me after that. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: I said you weren't being neutral. I explicitly said here, if something said in that discussion was a problem, you could have come to me on my talk page and it would have been resolved. Instead, you went as far as to tell me to "fuck off." I also said if you apologized and admitted what you said was wrong, I would have accepted and moved on. Before this, I never had an issue with you until you told me to "fuck off." There are insignificant things about you that are pet peeves. The main one was something someone already pointed out to you. Regardless of those things, I never had an issue with you. I want you to seriously answer these questions. Why are you against "consensus" being challenged? Are you afraid of change? Are you afraid that something won't be the way you know it? Are you afraid that you might be wrong? Are you afraid the correct way doing things would be established? Who are you to deem and pick and choose certain accolades WWE recognizes and has listed in Hall of Fame profiles on their site as not as important as other WWE recognized accolades? Do you not see that excluding those accolades is wrong? Answering these is not asking much. You never answered some of these things in the discussion. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Saying "I think" is not neutral. is one of the dumber things I've heard in a day full of dumb things. Grandpallama (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: It's not though. You say "I think" when you know.you aren't supposed to be neutral. You can say what you have to say without saying "I think." Plus what he thinks is not really what thinks. He wants to stick with the so-called "status quo" because that is what has been done for years based on an outdated "consensus." Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop poking HHH Pedrigree. Your interest in policing the phrase "I think" is getting a bit disruptive, and I suggest that you drop the issue. There is nothing wrong with using that phrase, and people don't have to be mindlessly neutral on talk pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fabrizio Cerina, NewsGateNY - COI/UPE/NLT

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

---

COI/UPE/NLT

• David T Cohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Cleanup

• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JavaHurricane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ThatMontrealIP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous SPAs

A borderline WP:NLT case which needs a unified public forum rather than vaguely ominous postings on several user talk pages.

DTC is a freelance journalist who was engaged by NewsGateNY. NewsGateNY carries no advertising other than a single banner for a relevant business on two themed pages, and a couple of author profiles which link to their businesses. Fabrizio Cerina and his bank Credit des Alpes get regular attention despite their status as a minor boutique bank. (Question: How does NewsGateNY generate the money to pay its bills despite minimal advertising and no subscription?)

DTC's edits to Fabrizio Cerina unwittingly flagged up the number of WP:SPAs (25) who have previously edited the article. The article was flagged to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Possible UPE by JavaHurricane and cleaned up by ThatMontrealIP.

Following that cleanup DTC was terminated by NewsGateNY and has been threatened by them with legal action. DTC now seeks to blams (and shift his legal problems?) onto me, JavaHurricane, and ThatMontrealIP.

The only plausible cause and effect thread I can draw from this is... DTC was paid by NewsGateNY to write a puff piece about Cerina whose bank regularly commissions NewsGateNY to promote the bank. DTC adds material to the wiki article which draws attention to the previous puffery resulting in its cleanup. Cerina blames NewsGateNY for the loss of his "advert", they in turn blame DTC and fire him. DTC doesn't see himself as a paid editor in regard to Wikipedia, even though payment (for the NewsGateNY) was his motivation in writing about Cerina in the first place.

NewsGateNY have suffered no reputational damage. Their only reason to fire and sue DTC is if they are getting grief from Cerina. It's only possible to quantify monetary damages in their case against DTC if the edits along the way were paid for. The position DTC now finds himself in points to Cerina having a longstanding interest in the promotional aspects of his bio.

As I'm now WP:INVOLVED, here we are. Cabayi (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Sums up perfectly what I think now. He had told me earlier that accusing him of UPE can land him in trouble, and he got fairly angry, and that, along with his continuous rejection of the accusation that he was a UPE, got me suspicious that sockpuppetry could also be possible, though I can't decide on a master. Further, those old SPAs are also stale, making it tough to find evidence of sockpuppetry. JavaHurricane 12:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, I am busy now but will return to this soon (about 14:00 UTC). Meanwhile, Cabayi gives a better reason, and I disagree that there are any sock puppetry. Quoting some earlier user, fans often look like socks, and this appears to be a similar case. More analysis required. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, I was actually concerned about the reply tone, but then, I'm fairly new to this, so I'm very likely to be wrong.

In any case, I would like to propose an indefinite block on David T Cohen for undisclosed paid editing. I'm not sure about the NLT part, and I'll leave it to more experienced editors to decide it. JavaHurricane 12:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, I must disagree (despite the similar amount of experience by us). If we AGF on DTC, what he says actually made sense. He stated that he was a freelance employee of NewsGateNY, but then he might not fully understand WP:UPE, hence failure to disclose. (I consider his declaration of employment as a disclosure.) Anyway if we trust him, it is just unkind to spread salt on his already deep wounds. All these made sense and a block is not a good solution, a greater discussion is needed. I am not sure about the legal stuff, and probably will never understand until I am old enough to vote. Cheers, Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You won't understand it then, either. Believe me. creffett (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Eumat114, well, looks like I'm in need of a wikibreak, accusing people of socking and forgetting AGF entirely! Perhaps I'm a bit stressed out. JavaHurricane 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, everyone is nowadays. DTC may be so upset as in this time of Covid-19 it is even harder to get a job. Stay safe! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 12:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the sockpuppetry claims, but I looked at DTC's contribution history following the original COIN report. My read is that this is yet another one of those suspicious "I'm an independent journalist who was just so interested in someone I wrote about that I had to write a Wikipedia page about them!" cases (which I generally interpret as "I'm an 'independent journalist' who was paid to write this page"). While they deny COI/UPE, the fact that DTC mentioned repeatedly that NewsGateNY had written an article on Cerina makes me really suspicious. Concur completely with Cabayi's cause-and-effect analysis above, though I also wouldn't be surprised if DTC had in fact been engaged to write about Cerina in some way. creffett (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's worth checking out the earliest captures of NewsGateNY on the internet archive - back then the only content they had was a series of nice articles about Cerina. Whatever kind of relationship there is, it has been going on for a while. - MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"We would like to add that it is a story we like, a stirring account of an entrepreneur who demonstrated that his name was more important to him than his purse and made it back through perseverance and strength of character." Yes... looks like these people have a long relationship, based on this line from their front page. JavaHurricane 13:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The Internet Archive gets more interesting. A NewsGateNY article on Cipriani (which contains a hat-tip to Credit des Alpes) was archived on 28 March with a byline of "Giovanni Luchetti", on 15 April the byline reads "International News". Material which NewsGateNY previously credited to DTC is now credited to "Domestic". Someone's sanitising their PR work. Cabayi (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, ohh, thanks for your insight. Seems to me that DTC has at least some truth to his claims: he apparently was a former reporter (don’t know about freelance) and there is a very real possibility that his sacking is why these work are getting cleansed. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 15:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

But what are we trying to achieve? Make NGNY hire DTC? Hard. Restore the promo and give in to NGNY? Impossible. The only way out is Uncyclopedia. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 15:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• The David T Cohen account admits to doing paid editing in this diff: "But if it can help: my employer newsgateny was writing last week about some 10 famous names (among which cerina and cipriani). I was doing a section of the job." I'm not sure why we would waste any more time om this editor: they are clearly here to do paid editing, per the diff, and their only efforts have been that and to waste the time of other editors with weird legalese notices about losing their job and lawyers. They are clearly WP:NOTHERE and blocking them would save lots of pointless discussion time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  ThatMontrealIP, precisely. But let us wait for DTC to respond to this thread. JavaHurricane 17:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Since when do we wait around to give undisclosed paid editors a chance? Big waste of time.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I found a book maybe worth checking out: Finance Reconsidered by B.Paranque & Perez where Cerina is portrayed [24] [25]. If the Financial Times article is true, quite touching of a story, have to say. I've no opinion about D Cohen but I did read articles of Newsgateny in the past. I know they have been around for years.Philcroix91 (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Philcroix91, given that you signed up shortly after DTC first got pushback on his paid editing, and you linked to a NewsGateNY story about Credit des Alpes five days ago, then of course you have to say, it's what you're paid to do. Would you like to declare your other sockpuppet accounts while you're here? Cabayi (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Am I paid to do what? I just said I found a reference. In fact I read about this case because of a link Newsgate. I think you are really overdoing and you believe that the entire planet is dishonest maybe because you are. I've no idea why you are so angry but you should relax and try to be more objective. We are not here to insult each other like you did first but to evaluate facts.Philcroix91 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Personal attacks

2A00:23C5:930B:B000:7D7D:5D4A:CD29:5CA0 (talk · contribs)

The first one was this edit summary (repeated four times), followed by this comment on my talk page, followed by this comment in response to a template for vandalism, followed by this comment in response to a PA template by another editor, and finally this edit summary after the other editor who templated the IP for PA tried to revert the PA. I think action is needed here. This is awfully petty lol. – ².O.^Boxing 14:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I’ve just now noticed as I was typing this out that they’ve been blocked for 31 hours, removing the message from the blocking admin with this edit summary. I think 31 hours does not reflect the odd level of disruption this user has caused, especially seeing as they’ve recently came off a block for disruptive editing. – ².O.^Boxing 14:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

And now this friendly addition lol – ².O.^Boxing 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Further reading" spam by User:MedievalSam1

The entire contribution history of MedievalSam1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been to add the book Cornwall, Connectivity and Identity to the further reading list of any article remotely related to Cornwall or Cornish history. Said book's author, one SJ Drake, appears to be a scholar of Cornish history of little impact (few citations of his few published works). This would appear to be a clear attempt to drive sales (or at least interest) in this book, which itself appears to have yet received no reviews from any major sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I came across this being added to articles on my watchlist. User:Cullen328 beat me to blocking him. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, all this editor has done is to add this book to many Cornwall related articles. Nothing else. So, I blocked the account for spamming/advertising. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

They were overzealous in adding it to further reading sections, but the book does seem relevant to some of those articles such as culture of Cornwall. The book is published by Boydell & Brewer so very likely to be good quality. They were asked to stop at 18:06 and haven't edited since so I'm not convinced that a block is needed at this stage. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: I did some checking into the book's author and publisher before posting this thread; I recognize they are a reputable publisher, but the book itself does not appear to be a significant volume, nor does the author appear to be a significant authority. Now, this may have to do with the fact that the material is rather specialized (medieval history of Cornwall), but between the unknown value of the book and the clearly promotional intentions of the editor, I can't recommend restoring the book as a further reading source, but I'll defer to others who may be more knowledgeable of this particular niche topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Your estimation of significance is based on the fact you couldn't find any reviews, which given the book was only published in November is hardly surprising. A browse of its pages shows that it contains lots of information about Cornish history. I wouldn't rely too strongly on Google Scholar, its coverage of history and archaeology is patchy at best and will not give the full picture. In future can we please look for healthier snacks than the newbies. Perhaps someone who took the time to think where the book was relevant could have been persuaded to add some text, but instead we all seem to be in a rush to see who can show them the door first. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It could be an enthusiastic new editor who happens to have picked up the book, or it could be someone sneakily promoting the book. There's no way to know with the available data. Personally, I'd err on the side of AGF and recommend unblock + discuss with the user. creffett (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction notices on Joe Biden articles

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

---

Due to the usual post-1932 U.S. politics concerns on Wikipedia, the Joe Biden article has a 1RR restriction notice in place (as seen at Template:Editnotices/Page/Joe Biden). The new spin-off article Joe Biden sexual assault allegation does not have such a restriction, but is unlikely to be any less contentious for the next six months leading up to the U.S. presidential election. Should it have the same 1RR restriction as the parent article, or should there be a wait-and-see approach? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction applies to that article the same as all others, the notice does not create the restriction, being about post-1932 US politics is what creates the restriction. The notice is a courtesy notifying people of the restriction. I will add it presently. --Jayron32 19:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Life on the edge...

...or life on the edge? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Or life on the edge?

-EEng

You are laboring under the misconception that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Every single step in the discretionary sanctions process is absolutely necessary, and I really hope you logged this action in the appropriate place. Otherwise, you're going to be getting a visit from the Arbcom Police. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you think I didn't log it? You didn't even check my contribs before you leveled that accusation. If you aren't going to speak from a place of knowledge, you would do well to just keep your mouth shut. --Jayron32 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow. That's some wild hostility. "Leveled that accusation"? Are you serious? I made a joke about how bureaucratic discretionary sanctions are. I think you need to calm down. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Jayron32, I think there's wire-crossing here - NRP's comment appears to have been very deadpan humor which was misinterpreted as a serious accusation. Would respectfully suggest that both of you chalk this up to a misunderstanding and leave it at that. creffett (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a good thing Covid is bringing out the best in people. Otherwise it'd be pistols at dawn for those two by now. EEng 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If we start doing that, I'll be writing Hamilton: The Wikipedia Musical creffett (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Fuck off"? Calm down!.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Jayron32 is absolutely correct on the procedure. Where an article subject is under restrictions, every subtopic spun out of that article is automatically under the same sanctions. If it was otherwise, any editor could evade those restrictions by forking from the article. BD2412 T 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Everyone is on edge lately, and minor misunderstandings blow up. Jayron, as Creffet says above, I think you misunderstood NRP's intended lighthearted tone. NRP, SS, please don't tell anyone who does not appear calm to "calm down". It never, ever, ever works. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I apologize for the edit summary. It was an overreaction. There was no excuse for it, and I should not have done so. Also, I thank NRP for clarifying their intended tone, and I apologize specifically to them for over-reacting to their joke. There was no fault in what you did, NRP, and the fault lies entirely with me for over-reacting. I am quite sorry for that. --Jayron32 20:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Whoa whoa, Floq, slow down on the wild accusations! "lighthearted tone" and "misunderstandings"? It's getting really intense in here! </s>--v/r - TP 20:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  And I didn't even include diffs. Surprised I'm not blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I would suggest that the nature and conduct of political activity in the U.S. also contributes to this edginess. We have, I note, a substantial uptick in relatively recently created low-activity accounts, with edits previously completely unrelated to anything political, suddenly going very aggressively into editing of political topics. BD2412 T 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  No, no, it was just me being a prick. Don't excuse my actions. I apologized for them, and the blame lies with no one but me. I needed to lighten up, and I thank everyone for calling me out. I needed to be set straight. Whatever you may have noticed in the zeitgeist has nothing to do with me being rude. I was rude, and I am sorry for it. --Jayron32 20:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  I patrolled the political articles during the 2012 elections. You'll notice I've never been back. I definitely understand where the edginess is coming from.--v/r - TP 20:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  And that was a relatively mild election. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  Maybe, with all of this political heat, it's time to move the goalposts to post-1936. That would ease it. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Legal threat made by IP

IP 92.251.224.116 made a legal threat in this misplaced edit request at Template talk:Edit extended-protected. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

lblocked. El_C 22:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)