Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 12 April 2020

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Southern Gospel Music Association and Misplaced Pages: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 ((, , ). 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 . Here he restored material which is simply not supported by the cited source. Then he did it again . 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)

Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforcement of RfC result at Republican Party (United States)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Thanks for weighing in, TomStar81. It was certainly foreseeable that those on the losing side of the RfC would have objections to any attempt to implement it, but the issue is that their objections so far, by their own admission, have been relitigating issues already raised and settled in the RfC, and if post-RfC discussions are allowed to do that, that pretty much makes RfC closes meaningless. Do you know of any way to facilitate discussion that also makes it clear that comments relitigating the definitively settled parts of the RfC are strictly out of bounds? (That's a genuine question; if that exists, it's exactly what's needed.)

  Any discussion without such guardrails is pretty much guaranteed to gridlock, requiring another RfC on "is this a valid way to enact the result of the previous RfC?" Given that the edit in question (changing the span of a wikilink to remedy an MOS:EGG issue) would have been marked as minor under the strictest definition of that term if the result of the RfC could only have been taken as the starting point, the subsequent RfC would inevitably break down exactly the same way as the just-closed one. That path seems like it would be a colossal waste of editors' energies. S Marshall, if you have any perspectives or advice, I would be curious to hear from you. I don't want to drag you into the mud, but for your closing to have any consequence, you may need to give it some teeth. {{u|Sdkb}}  02:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

US politics is so fraught that it's very hard to make progress. Given what others are saying here you probably do need a new RFC on what the specific wording should be. Make it clear in the RFC question what we've already decided and note that the "easter egg" link is the status quo. Editors will try to relitigate the previous question but you can safely disregard any such behaviour. Nobody who's got any business closing an RFC would give that any weight.—S Marshall T/C 09:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately by assuming bad faith and bringing a content dispute here vs to the talk page Sdkb has burned a lot of good will that might have made it easier to discuss a consensus text. As for the EGG, I agree it is in the default version but we should be careful about assuming it has consensus support. It's a misleading link and many, myself included, who read the sentence may not realize where it goes. I only knew it was in the article when an editor tried, unsuccessfully, to change the text to support the link. Additionally, my reading of the closing doesn't compel inclusion of a mention of or link to The Southern Strategy. As I've said, I'm OK with the plain text meaning of the sentence but neither the original nor Sdkb's altered blue support the link target. At this point I would suggest, if Sdkb wants to move forward that they make a good faith effort to use the talk page to propose lead changes that address current issues. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment on process only An admin closing an RfC doesn't become the arbitrator of content. Just because the closing admin doesn't feel the edit violates the close doesn't mean the edit is immune from WP:BRD. Process requires the editor proposing the change open a discussion.--v/r - TP 17:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• But again, this is irrelevant as nobody has actually challenged the edit ostensibly in question. The edit war was over a link that had already existed but which was then claimed to be Sdkb's edit (which it wasn't). This should be closed and discussed from the version I reverted to (before either Sdkb or Springee altered the status quo version). — Rhododendrites \\ 03:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• We should probably just move this discussion to the article talk page. I agree the deceptive link already existed but "correcting" it with a new, almost as deceptive link isn't the answer. Your reversion to the long standing version is a good place to start the discussion. We should close this and move on. Springee (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over template protection

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 Misplaced Pages: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 ( ). 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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~ 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~ 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~ 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~ 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyranny of New page reviewers: a cry for help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Phil Bridger, as with all of our volunteer efforts some volunteers for NPP (your discomfort is why I almost always refer to it that way) are better than other volunteers. This is true for any of our efforts - even in purely administrative realms. We certainly make efforts at reviewer quality. For instance I have added to NPP School a "graduate school" which we call NPP Mentorship for people to get help who have the NPP permission. I also tried a "peer review" cohort which didn't have great success. The people who enrolled were mostly those who were the ones who are generally considered to be doing the highest quality work. We also work to create a real sense of community at WT:NPR - if you go there now you can see reviewers ask for help from each other. The other way to ensure reviewer quality is to be selective in who we grant the permission to. Rosguill who is an active NPP is the primary person who has been handling WP:PERM/NPR but I can tell you that in general the approach Ros and I take is to give new reviewers a time limited grant of the PERM. In this way when they come back (hopefully) we can offer feedback at that time as well. But this speaks to an issue, just as we don't want to discourage content creators (who are at the heart of the encyclopedia in my estimation) we don't want to discourage NPP who are on the frontlines of protecting the reputation our content creators have built by keeping out non-notable people, limiting spam, and otherwise ensuring articles comply with policies and guidelines.Hopefully this shows you the ways that we're not sticking our heads in the sand (a comment, btw, that felt unnecessarily pointy). Please feel free to follow-up with other questions/concerns/ideas you have. And if you observe an issue with a reviewer one of the things I agreed to when becoming coordinator is having "difficult conversations" so you can feel free to let me know of concerns you might have either on my talk page or via email. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So those are my extended thoughts. Even though you are technically right on the parenthetical citations I really do hope you take Eeng's advice on how to use the more widely linked citations while still maintaining your basic citation style. It feels like a small change that could save you a lot of frustration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• The analysis provided by Barkeep49 is reasonable and objective: it also provides quite a bit of perspective from the viewpoint of new page reviewers/patrollers. I still think that being told "You also write in such an odd way" (Talk:Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology) is a bit over-personal and somewhat insulting. Then being told what wording that I should have used instead is also not helpful: why not copy edit the article instead of telling me to do it and how? The timeline between being notified that the page was being subject to a new page review and actually having material deleted was six days, and still seems to me unreasonably short (and no, I don't have JSTOR). The accusations of original research based on whether some idea is mythology, legend, or folklore seems to me to be unwarranted; although it is true that it wasn't clear (even to myself) what I was trying to do with the article, or how it would develop depending on what sources I could locate: really, the appropriate scope of the article would seem to be just about weapons and armor in Chinese culture that are not actual weapons and armor (there are existing articles about these). I did move "Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology" to Weapons and armor in Chinese mythology, legend, cultural symbology, and fiction (although apparently not allowed to move the accompanying editnotice as instructed, on account of a lack of privilege level). In retrospect, I see that I somewhat over-reacted to this new page review/patrol; still, this is the first time I have encountered such an intense level of article scrutiny outside of one or two GA reviews which I was slightly involved with. I sincerely hope everyone involved with this can learn something from it, I know I have (and I hope that we can make Misplaced Pages a better place together). Someday I'll try Eeng's advice on the referencing. I was unaware of this method, but it looks promising. And best wishes for the sysops and new page reviewers, these look like hard jobs and ones which require a special person. Dcattell (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

From my perspective (I have not looked at your experience) it will because I am looking at and and thinking "what the hell are they trying to say", and trying to say that politely. Often an article will be so badly written it almost impossible to determine what is being said. This is especially bad if its highly specialised, as they will not even know what more specialised terms might mean or how to use them in context. In one respect this is good, we are not writing for experts but for laymen and so our articles should be easy to understand without special or prior knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Crveni5

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

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

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

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

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

• DS. EEng 02:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

EEng, good point - as an unevolved uninvolved editor, I'll give everyone involved a DS-longevity notice as a friendly reminder. creffett (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Both parties have been notified - they both have received DS-longevity notices in the past, but it has been 3-4 years since their last notices (more than the minimum required year). creffett (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Meganr314 and edit summaries

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

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

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

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

A most unexpected block, and the correspondence that followed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Swarm: Reasonable people of good-will acting in good-faith toward the same goals can disagree, and I'm not saying you were necessarily in the wrong. The way things appeared to me when I looked was that you seemed to ask questions that had already been answered, which was met with fully comprehensible frustration. I guess what I was looking for earlier was for you to try to put the shoe on the other foot. Pretend the roles were reversed for a moment and provide the answer you would have given in those circumstances to the questions you asked. That is helpful because it facilitates better communication in the future and not just between the two of you. However, I understand that might be lengthy/time-consuming, and might also be more appropriate on a user talk page rather than here. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk page disruption by UserNumber

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

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

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

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

Aspersions by anonymous editor on record label article; no discussion

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

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

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

• • OK, TomStar81, I'll start. Is that 81 in your name a road, or maybe your birth year? I was in the second year of gymnasium in 1981. Maybe around that time I started getting interested in languages. OK your turn! Drmies (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I was still in the planning stages in 81, blueprints and construction on me didn't start until a few years later :) As for the 81, as noted on my talk page, I had a site registration that required a two digit number and 77 was taken so I picked 81 on the grounds that 8-1=7, and thats how I got my number ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threat at the Teahouse

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

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

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

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

I have informed the Arbitration Committee of this matter. I have also (finally) disabled talk page access due to the user's inability to communicate. El_C 10:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kingerikthesecond, I cannot read Cyrillic. (Creffett, it is only because of your comment that I now realize the name "Erik" is in there.) This is the English wiki. When I look over reports here, I am not going to hover over every link to see what links where. Please change that signature. I see you changed it now: good, thank you. As for evidence, you violated WP:OUTING. If you have private evidence, you can always email ArbCom, or contact an administrator. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I am terribly sorry for my mistakes, and will make sure to remember this for the future. I have also changed my signature. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I do not WP:HARASS user when I emailed account for suggesting coronavirus articles, then I asked for social media, when he only used Discord, while he's inactive on YouTube and Instagram. When I ask him to follow on Instagram, specifically do not. I'm so sorry about my incident while ago. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The social media accounts I use the most are Discord, Reddit and Youtube. I do have an Instagram account, but it's not very active. You did not give me a reason why you want my social media accounts. I do not know you, and I have never talked to you before. Why did you want to follow me on Intagram? --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SwissArmyGuy, we are not a social media site. I do not understand why you'd think it's OK to start hitting up someone you don't know, or barely know. If the user tells you they don't want to hear from you, and then they continue to hear from you, that's harassment, and that's also abuse of your email system. It's that simple. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thank you then, so I'll contact the Arbitration Committee, and see what I done. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

One last thing, I already emailed to the Arbitration Committee, and the Wikimedia's Trust and Safety. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where to take this thread right now. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel I entered the Twilight Zone: SwissArmyGuy, I don't know why you would contact ArbCom. What I need you to do is say something like "I understand that I messed up, I understand how I messed up, and I won't do it again." I also don't understand why you'd email Trust and Safety: you were the one falling foul of privacy policy. User:Kingerikthesecond, there is nothing you need to do. I saw the evidence and I am waiting on SwissArmyGuy to give some kind of coherent explanation. Or maybe ArbCom, if indeed they have received an email, will choose to step in. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the cooperation. --KingErikII (トークページ) 15:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I made my responsibility for contacting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal Team, who someone endanger minors and/or someone else. If you want to follow this guide, see Misplaced Pages:Guidance for younger editors. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand any of this post, SwissArmyGuy, it is not really coherent English. You say on your user page you are a native speaker of English. Is that actually accurate? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but unfortunately I'm multilingual. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm multilingual, but I fluently speaking English, you know. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

How does you being multilingual explain the gibberish above, did you learn English using a Hungarian phrase book?Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My noticeboard is full of eels! creffett (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll explain that tomorrow then. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking a precautionary block is in order the behavior is not ordinary and while AGF is one of our pillers the block only need last as long as it takes for them to explain themselves. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

If you mean SwissArmyGuy I agree, this reads like someone who has pointed themselves Misplaced Pages Holmes. Who having identified an problem will now pursue it both here and off wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I do, I just feel like it crosses the line. Disputes here should stay here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked SwissArmyGuy out of an abundance of caution. Sorry, but their explanation just do not make sense to me. The potential harassment of minors on the project is too serious to ignore, so I think the incident calls for this action at this time. El_C 16:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess this thread should be closed now. --KingErikII (Talk page) 16:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

HD 182681

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

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

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

This may explain it. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

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

I created the article about this real star and did the scientific research and citations December 4, 2019. The common name has been in use for almost 2 decades. If you don't want the content please delete the article in it's entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reskin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I have deleted the Yonmara stuff, reinstated the original redirect, and culled a bunch of spam links from Rise: The Vieneo Province. Rusken, you are this close to a WP:NOTHERE block, you understand? Please don't bring that BS in here, about having developed this or that. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

They think they do ].Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do, this is getting tedious and a waste of everyone's time now. Its clear they are just trying to establish this as the official name, even though no other source other than a page they wrote uses it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying I am rescinding the use of the information I submitted in December. Reskin (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You do not own the article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And edit Waring now ].Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• And, they are officially WP:NOTHERE. Jauerback/_dude. 15:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you Jauerback. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

36.82.120.76 and 118.136.116.158

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

Truthfully, I'm not sure if this belongs here or on WP:ANEW, but I have noticed that this IP has been reverting edits by others, especially those by the other IP, as seen here, here, and here, to name a few. In addition to using their all-caps edit summaries, 36.82 seems to pretend that this is not their problem, and that it is 118.136's problem, as they remove my warnings from their talk page and move them to 118.136's. I'm not even sure if they are breaking WP:3RR, but their edits nonetheless seem to be disruptive. SemiHypercube 15:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

SemiHypercube, I just came across one of their edit summaries while patrolling. The reverts seemed pointless - they seemed to be warring over which image to use - but they weren't over 3RR. The rude, shouty edit summaries seemed like the biggest issue here - if you've warned them, and they're ignoring and continuing with it, I'd suggest a short block with a note about CIV. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts are triggering the edit filter. For example, 38.82.120.76. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

They don't look like they're vandalising, I think it's some genuine content disputes between two people who don't quite know how things work yet. I've left them some non-templated messages, maybe that'll get their attention. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube and Girth Summit: FWIW, these things have being going on for months in Indonesia-related pages, and both IPs appear like familiar block evasions to me. 118.136 seems to be linked to sockmaster User:Muhammad Farrel D, whose sole ambition seems to be to add the word "Indonesia" to as many articles as possible, including by means of templates, categories and short descriptions. They usually focus on geography, heritage, martial arts and food stuff–plus changing pictures in pages about Indonesian provinces. 36.82 appears to be linked to sockmaster User:Deanarthurl, and behaves very similar to the sock User:Pierre Nguyen, who appears to loathe "traditional" images of Indonesia and prefers a more glamorous and modern image (which somehow goes along well with their love for actresses and beauty contests). I have many Indonesia-related pages on my watchlist, so after some time one can motice the pattern (and get utterly annoyed by it). –Austronesier (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment IP 36.82.120.76 clearly knows what a wiki admin is via their shouting edit summaries. I agree that the IP is possibly a sock, but I don’t know who. Jerm (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, socksniffing isn't really my area of expertise; both IPs appear to have stopped editing for now, but a trip to SPI might be warranted if you're confident about the masters (unless there are a checkuser wanders past who wants to investigate?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

CheckUsers will not, barring extreme abuse, peg IPs to user accounts in accordance with the priv-pol. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 20:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Side note, This IP seems to be another one of 36.82. SemiHypercube 20:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Troubling range

I don't really have time to investigate this at this time, but Special:Contributions/2601:204:E37F:FFF1:D5DE:7A76:A8A1:2C44/64 seems like it may be a potential problem. They came to my talk page and wrote this (their talk page), which I took as them playing games. But their many, many contributions elsewhere, range-wise, all seem to be somewhat similar. Not a single source added to any of their edits that I've encountered so far (from a cursory glance, mind you). El_C 23:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES at Genghis Khan

Qiufushang recently created an ethnic gallery at the Genghis Khan article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=950234466&oldid=950234342

This was his edit summary:

Undid revision 950234342 by Hunan201p (talk) if the subject is talking about red haired Mongols, it would make sense to have pictures of red haired Mongols - it seems facetious to say that it is not warranted in the article

I removed the gallery, which Qiufushang reinstated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genghis_Khan&oldid=950235576

Qiufushang gave the following edit summary. I have boldfaced the text where he plainly states he created an ethnic gallery:

after checking source, my position stands, if you are going to include a section on a controversial opinion on red haired Mongols, it is imperative that you give obvious existing images portraying them, otherwise why include that section at all? furthermore I do not see what is POV about this, it is simply offering more information to the reader - furthermore they are even images from the source of the controversial statement itself

I then informed him that this gallery was a violation of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, and removed it. However, he immediately reinstated it, but without the "gallery" section title:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genghis_Khan&oldid=950237845#Physical_appearance

I removed that gallery a second time and he reinstated it, suggesting that the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES rule "only" applies to ethnicity articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Genghis_Khan&diff=950240179&oldid=950239597

He may well be correct, although his removal of the "gallery" section title prior to stating that opinion indicates he previously didn't believe that.

I would like to get the insight from ANI whether or not Qiufushang's placement of ~100 Mongols as a gallery in the section of the Genghis Khan constitutes a violation of NOETHNICGALLERIES, as well as whether or not this constitutes excessive POV, as none of the images are of Genghis Khan. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that the while starting a discussion about me, Hunan201p did not notify me on my talk page as of this time. Qiushufang (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Now he has. Qiushufang (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Er, no, the date on your talk page clearly indicates that I notified you on 00:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC), three minutes before you left your first accusation and two minutes after I posted this report. I would like to note that Qiufushang has been excessively moody and difficult to work with over the last hour or so. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No need to argue about the gallery. Those pictures and Hunan201p edits should be removed. I suggest remove Hunan201p edits because he sourced Rashid-al-Din from a journal Lkhagvasuren (2016 study), the study people who made that study themselves admit they making many unsure assumptions.

May I ask where are the physical description ( a quote ?) for Genghis Khan by Rashid-al-Din in his “Jami’s al-tawarikh” written at the start of the 14th century?

The only real life physical description of Genghis Khan According to biographer Paul Rachtnevsky https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SQWW7QgUH4gC&pg=PA433&dq=Zhao+Hong+genghis+khan+Paul+Ratchnevsky+tall+long+beard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDi_Ge_dDoAhVRQEEAHYlvCQ8Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Zhao Hong genghis khan Paul Ratchnevsky tall long beard&f=false}}

The Chinese, Zhao Hong, writes: “The ruler of the Tatars , Temuchin, is of tall and majestic stature, his brow is broad and his beard is long. His courage and strength are extraordinary. :

" Juzjani comments that, according to the evidence of witnesses who saw him during the fighting Khorasan of witness who saw him during the fighting in Khorasan Genghis Khan was distinguished by his height, his powerful build, strong constition, his lack of grey hair and his cat's eyes. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not one to cast aspersions, but a newly-registered editor who happens to find this discussion does raise some red flags. --Kinu /_c 01:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kinu: A meatpuppetry investigation now exists for Qiufushang at SPI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang#11_April_2020 - Hunan201p (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, rather than a behavioral thing. The talk page and WP:DR are more suitable for this. If it’s edit-warring, then that is what is for. — MarkH₂₁ 02:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE DO CHECK. I'm completely new to wikipedia, I not a sockuppet or whatever. Hunan201p accuses me of being the same as Qiushufang. I suggested removal of the gallery edited by Qiushufang and removal of the description by Hunan201p. How am the same person as Qiushugang ? Both of them are wrong.

I've seen the physical appearance section of Genghis Khan and I'm wondering where is the descriptiption given for this nonsense like---> Persian historian Rashid al-Din stated in his Jami' al-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) that Genghis Khan and his male-line ancestors were tall, and red-haired. He also said that they had blue-green eyes, and that they had long beards. Where are the historical quotes for this ?

He used a 2016 study with full of asumptions.

Despription of Rashid Al Din of Genghis Khan is like this, nothing about red hair, blue eyes. “It so happened that two months prior to Mögä’s birth, Qubilai Qa’an was born, and when Genghis Khan’s gaze fell upon him he said, “Our sons are all of a ruddy complexion, but this boy is swarthy, just like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqaghtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be brought up by.”” -Rashid al-Din/Thackston translation, 415.

“It chanced that he was born 2 months before Möge, and when Chingiz-Khan’s eye fell upon him he said: “all our children are of a ruddy complexion, but this child is swarthy like his maternal uncles. Tell Sorqoqtani Beki to give him to a good nurse to be reared.”” -Rashid al-Din/Boyle translation, 241. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenplz (talk • contribs) 03:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

To facilitate the resolution of this editing dispute, I restored the pre-war state and fully protected the article for 3 days.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Best drop undue gallery of that nature WP:GALLERY , WP:DUE ...plus the gallery is just a problem on its own MOS:ACCIM.....need good reason to cause potential accessibility problems for some.--Moxy 🍁 08:57, 11 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 Misplaced Pages link.)

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

User:Eliboy258

• Eliboy258 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They created User:Eliboy258 (disambiguation) -- it's in User space I can't do anything but don't even know what it is so dropping a note here just in case. -- GreenC 16:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

They seem to be copy/pasting NBA articles into various places - see User:Eliboy258. They also messed with GreenCbot here. I don't know whether it is WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR but they bear watching. MarnetteD|Talk 17:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted the lot and warned them about the copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Jaywardhan009 reported by GargAvinash

Jaywardhan009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Mukesh Sahani:. User has the autopatrolled right. He is not creating articles with good styles and adding just external links as references. His created articles must be reviewed and fixed by reviewers. I have fixed many articles but there is a lot to fix and he is creating articles very frequently. GargAvinash (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Borivali - Surat MEMU had completely irrelevant sources; even the name of the subject was not mentioned in any sources. GargAvinash (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say they need to stop creating articles and attend to the issues that their (dozens of) existing ones have. An article that says, in total, "Jagdish Choudhary is an Indian politician. He was elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Darbhanga Rural in the 1977 and 1980 as a member of the Janata Party than in 1990 Bihar Legislative Assembly election as a member of the Janata Dal." is frankly incomprehensible even if they're notable. Black Kite (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite, and would argue that someone who literally creates a stub with the {{blp sources}} template already as a part of it should not be creating such stubs or have the autopatrolled flag. --Kinu /_c 21:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have left them a warning, though I am not convinced that they will engage considering that they've only edited the user_talk namespace 26 times in 29,000 edits. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Tendentious behaviour at Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019

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

The article Coronavirus disease 2019 and its talk page are subject to general sanctions. These have proven necessary to contain the rapid changes to content in articles related to COVID-19.

RTG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added content containing biomedical claims to the article, which was sourced to a YouTube video. The video is a self-published source and is well short of the standard required by WP:MEDRS for a biomedical claim. Not only that, but the author describes himself as "World's #1 Weight Loss Surgeon", and the text description for the video is a piece of naked advertising for his weight-loss practice. For a self-published source to meet even WP:RS (let alone MEDRS), it would have to meet the WP:SPS requirement as a minimum: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. There is absolutely no way that the YouTube's author meets that standard.

The content was removed by Moksha88 - edit summary: Youtube is not WP:RSMED.

It was restored soon after by RTG - edit summary: That is on a case by case basis. There is nothing on this in the article. This is the most valuable mode of information which can be added about this event at this time. Please do not remove it without replacing it. Please improve it...".

I removed it once more - edit summary: biomedical claims need a reliable source as required by WP:MEDRS as a clear violation of our sourcing guidelines. I then issued a general sanctions alert to RTG and warned them about their breaches of sourcing policies.

On the article talk page, Moksha88 had opened a discussion. In both that discussion and on his talk page, RTG has continued to argue: that their content is not a biomedical claim; that the YouTube video is a secondary source; that despite the lack of reliable sourcing, their content should be included; that YouTube should be usable (including the incredible assertion that "there is basically 3 type of sources. Primary, Secondary and external resource.); and that surgeons are more expert in the pathophysiology of a virus than virologists.

I have patiently explained and quoted our guidelines on WP:MEDRS and WP:SPS as clearly as I can, but I am met with tendentious repetition of the same untenable arguments, which has now spilled over to repeated personal attacks: twice telling me "You don't know what you are talking about."

Permalink to RTG's talk page

Permalink to article talk page discussion

The failure to observe sourcing requirements, edit-warring, and tendentious editing are significant breaches of the expected standards from editors on pages subject to general sanctions. If I hadn't been the target of personal attacks by RTG, I would have sanctioned them for the other offences, but I now feel too involved. I therefore request an uninvolved admin to apply sanctions to RTG to curb their present behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Use the general sanctions to enforce adherence to MEDRS, is what I would do. I've gone ahead and issued the user a warning. El_C 21:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That source would not be acceptable even if we were not talking about bio/health content. And … there is what seems to be a deceptive link to the CDC on the YouTube. It appears misleading, as if there is a claim that it is a CDC video, rather than his personal video. Perhaps I am reading that wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about is a personal attack? Catch yourself on. Even the main SARS article, once mistaken for a featured article, does not describe the activities of the virus and how they translate into disease. RexxS told me that I should have a source from a virologist, which is not true. That we are not going to rely on an expert in basic lung function to describe the pathology of this disease, which is exactly the expert of the field in question to describe that aspect of the disease. So I'd better apologise a second time if I said it twice, RexxS, you don't know what you are talking about as towards what constitutes an expert in that topic. Was there something else? Oh yes there was. An article with a severe deficiency. What is your input? Oh, that expert information is not expert enough for me... You've been editing Misplaced Pages since 12 years. I have made but two edits to the article, one edit and one revert. Stop trying to provoke me. You aren't collaborating on a way forward as all the others have in the discussion. If you aren't going to accept there isn't a problem with my suggestion, you are trying to create one, and this will be the appropriate place. ~ R.T.G 21:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

That is not helpful, RTG. Just make sure your sources comply with MEDRS standards. That's what this is really about. El_C 21:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"...edit warring"? It's not true. I agree the source is totally not high quality published resource, but there is a negative space on the internet where this should be. I'm not trying to force anything, but I am trying to argue that in the face of such a deficiency, it may be appropriate to use a source which is unlikely to be fanciful. There should be no hiding place from Misplaced Pages, is my view in this case. Where is this stuff, that should be common enough knowledge by now that it doesn't even require a source. Honestly, watch the video and learn what it means. It's simple stuff. ~ R.T.G 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No, thanks. You seem to be under the misapprehension that this is optional. It is not. You need to edit by the rules. Simple as that. El_C 21:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

"...In the face of such a deficiency, it may be appropriate to use a source which is unlikely to be fanciful." No, it is not, nor is it ever, appropriate to use such a source for medical information on Misplaced Pages. Find a source compliant with MEDRS or do not add the information. That is the problem with your suggestion. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 21:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, we can leave WP:MEDRS out of this; that source does not even rise to the level of WP:SPS for a plain 'ole RS. And the apparently deceptive link to the CDC is troubling, making viewers think it's a CDC video. When I first saw this post here, I assumed we were talking about a new editor mistake; sadly, we are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Seems to me the "deceptive link to the CDC" is added by Youtube; for me it's a "deceptive link" to Health Canada. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia as well as El C and Ivanvector. A youtube video by "Dr. Duc Vuong, World's #1 Weight Loss Surgeon, Author of 13 books, explains how coronavirus kills its victims." should not be used anywhere on Misplaced Pages. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There are plenty of decent source. We need to simple use them. Youtube is not a decent source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@RTG: Sources need to comply with policy ... all the rest is just ... sound and fury, signifying nothing. Paul August ☎ 22:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No Doc, none readily available, so if you can, please do. I for one will get what I want... ~ R.T.G 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, according to WP:MEDRS, which is not the same as WP:RS, a primary source is self published experience. That's not what this is. A secondary source is a summarisation of the topic, and overview of current understanding, etc. That is exactly what this is. This is not synthesised material. This is an overview of the current understanding of how coronavirus causes SARS, which Misplaced Pages otherwise lacks (along with the rest of the internet apparently). So if you are closed to being in error, because of some hangup about YouTube in general, well, what can be done. Let's not have an understanding of the virus coming from Misplaced Pages. Let's have an expert topic that is so expert that only experts can understand it. It will not require any new action on anybodies part to achieve that. ~ R.T.G 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:MountainTraveler

Has a history of adding unsourced content and original research.

Also has been changing content to what the source does not say. And when this was brought to their attention replied "I don't care. They're wrong."

As such I am not sure they can positively contribute to Misplaced Pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No I haven't. The ketamine one was the only example you have. The other times I referenced sources that were already there or added new ones. You can continue to misinform people about ketamine. I don't care because it's not a page that interests me anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainTraveler (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@MountainTraveler: Then you'll stop your disruptive editing on ketamine? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning issued on the user's talk page, but to reiterate it here — sources cannot be misrepresented. Failure to adhere to that rule, may result in sanctions. El_C 22:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue stretches beyond that page though. Here they are adding unreferenced details to nutmeg.

And here they refuse to use sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

MountainTraveler, any medical information that you add needs to have MEDRS-quality sources attached for attribution. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits simply will not do. El_C 22:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Since Casliber is the resident mushroom guru-FA writer/medical editor/physician, perhaps he will review all of this editor's history on mushroom articles and psychedelics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

You're all spending far too much time trying to help an editor that has just been blowing you off.--v/r - TP 22:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I am concerned that Cas might want to remove some edits to mushroom topics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's more about making sure they don't continue to add unsourced or poorly-sourced content in the future, as well as removing past additions where they already have. El_C 22:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Sunday morning here and have to do some chores, so might be a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

User:112.213.208.70

Anonymous user repeatedly violating WP:NOTFORUM on talk pages for articles concerning coronavirus in certain countries:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=947622142
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948120402
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948334331
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=948846455
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Australia&diff=prev&oldid=949231245
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=949255498
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_Algeria&diff=prev&oldid=950088931
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:2020_coronavirus_pandemic_in_North_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=950324555

Clearly, deleting these misplaced remarks has no effect. And I feel that warning this user on their talk page won't have any effect either.

Obviously it would be wrong for me to make any comment on this user's state of mind or background, but I'm pretty sure the same rules apply to them as they do to everyone else. Klondike53226 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like WP:DUCK block evasion of user User:Monster_Return; same level of communication, other socks of that user share an interest in Coronavirus counts. OhNoitsJamie 00:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon and civility

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Cullen 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 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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards