User talk:Wilkja19

@EdJohnston: I thought the community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Wilkja19_marking_all_edits_as_minor was to do nothing about this? Especially given marking as minor is utterly useless and that software feature should be removed anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Failure to communicate' is often used as a reason for blocking. This editor just takes it to the extreme. They came to be noticed at ANI because of the minor edit issue, but it wasn't the most important reason. Any admin can unblock if they become convinced that the user will communicate in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What other failures to communicate have been given? Is there any actual problem with their editing aside from marking as minor, as in a consequential problem with their editing where another editor has tried to communicate to them about this? Given that by my reading the community discussion established that the marking as minor, and lack of response by this editor for marking as minor, was not worth blocking the editor over. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No edit summaries and no usage of talk pages. No response to an ANI or to a prior block. This editor might as well *be* an unapproved bot because we have no idea what they are doing or why. Evidently some number of their changes are reverted, but it makes no difference to them. If they do respond and file an unblock request, it will be their first ever communication. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their reverted rate seems to be incredibly low. Of their last 250 edits, 15 were reverted, and 9 of those reverted by just 2 edits, so really that's 8 independent reverts across 250 edits... For an editor who has edited for 3 years & has 3,368 edits. Seemingly nobody had "communication issues" with this editor until someone decided to raise their marking as minor - which, again, is a totally useless software feature and the only time I personally see it mentioned is when it's used to block editors for misusing the feature. Note, also, that

WP:EDITSUMMARY

, and plenty of admins actively fail to use them too.

Imo this block is contrary to the community discussion. And since they exclusively edit on the iOS app I'm pretty sure they won't get talk page notifications and they may not even see the block reason. Thank the WMF for that design oversight. So an unblock request seems unlikely. I request you reconsider this block if you can't point to a real issue with their editing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though it's not a policy page, I can link to

WP:RADAR discusses the general issue of non-responsive editors, and actually suggests a partial block from article space as one of the options. Do you think that would be better? The page ends with "If an editor refuses to communicate, they are rejecting the idea of collaboration, and that is incompatible with what Wikipedia is and how it works.EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

EdJohnston, I'm not sure I quite follow your logic here. If the editor edits via iOS (which they do, exclusively) and we know that iOS editors don't get any alerts, I'm not sure how you expect them to know issues have been raised? This isn't 'refusing to communicate', it's 'being penalised for using an app that WMF built with a critical inherent flaw'. Best, Darren-M talk 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Ed, my personal view is that this editor should be allowed to edit as they have for 3 years, barring a real issue raised about their editing. The ANI and the VPT in December 2020 had access to the user's talk page history yet every editor who addressed the nature of their block decided we shouldn't block, explicitly noting also the ideals of the 'communication issue'. By my skim, most of their editing in article space is non-problematic. It's not their fault they exclusively use a crappily designed iOS app. As Levivich said, the solution to that is for us to all vote for WMF trustees who will select an ED who will properly fund and staff a development team. If anyone was looking for an example of how amazingly out-of-touch WMF devs are with the project, look no further than an editing app that doesn't provide talk page message or ping notifications. and EEng raised a technical issue that may account for the minor edits discrepancy.

This editor edits and cleans up TV articles, and as far as I can see are a net plus to the project. Note also that many of the warnings above are for minor edits or edit summaries. If a day comes when their edits are actually disruptive, and they refuse to communicate on them, then perhaps a block will be necessary. But afaics the editor is currently making no more editing errors than the average established editor, from a review of their contribs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. They won't communicate but they don't make many errors, so that means that no communication is required for the future? Do you think that would make sense as a policy? Should the

WP:JUSTANESSAY. It's all about a case by case basis. You admins aren't robots :) -- this editor has individual circumstances, which were considered at the ANI, and hopefully you can consider them too. If future disruption occurs, it can be dealt with at that point? In the meantime, surely we can cut the editor some slack? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wait, admins aren't robots??? EEng 04:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saving this one! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty $10 per link. EEng 07:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this editor being tolerated and even encouraged? They change facts in articles without providing sources; they refuse to provide edit summaries; they falsely mark all their edits as minor; they refuse to communicate. This is obviously disruptive editing. I see no reason why they should not be blocked until at the absolute minimum they acknowledge that marking all their edits as minor is wrong. Andesitic (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a recent edit of theirs you undone at Félix Enríquez Alcalá - their edit seems to have been correct (the subject directed two episodes)? None of the entries in the list are sourced, which is pretty common for lists (for better or worse). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is a core policy. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Has this editor ever provided a source for their changes? Making edits which seem to be correct does not exempt one from providing edit summaries, or excuse falsely marking all edits as minor. Andesitic (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

It has to be noted that in all of the tables they're correctly updating the entries, there are no sources already (see

WP:HOUNDING. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a content dispute with their edits. As I already explained: they are not explaining what they are doing; they are not providing reliable sources; they are falsely marking all their edits as minor. What sources already exist or don't exist in the article is irrelevant. Their simple refusal to communicate has nothing to do with what software they are using; it is their own choice, and it is obviously disruptive. Andesitic (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read:

WP:HOUNDING. I encourage you to desist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

They are choosing not to communicate, and their edits are problematic. What is your interest in pretending otherwise? Andesitic (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend can you deal with this please? imo this is hounding and [1][2][3][4] equally problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obliged to provide sources; that is a

core policy. I am challenging what they are adding because their changes are always unexplained, unsourced and falsely marked as minor. No software prevents them from communicating, or providing sources, or leaving edit summaries, or forces them to mark edits as minor; that is their own disruptive choice. This editor has no exemption from core policies or community standards. Andesitic (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

User:EdJohnston blocked this user twice and may wish to opine. Andesitic (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block review: Wilkja19. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've done nothing wrong, I have unblocked your account. I'm also placing a notice at the top of this page telling others that your software makes communication difficult. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gabrielle Ruiz, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Better Things and Alone Together.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Clare Entertainment, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Crane and Alan Burns.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andesitic (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zetna Fuentes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bosch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to removing unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Twist, you may be blocked from editing. Frank6292010 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored their edit. It's verified by the existing source [5]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: that template needs a reword. Surely removing unsourced or poorly sourced content isn't sanctionable ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barry Bostwick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Goldbergs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tamra Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good Sam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael Cuesta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dopesick.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gina Rodriguez

added a link pointing to Good Sam

Randy Zisk

added a link pointing to Good Sam

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.215.173 (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Laff affiliates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KFMB.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 82.132.212.130 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Milena Govich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Good Sam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Azteca América affiliates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Telemax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of programs broadcast by Investigation Discovery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HLN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Max Winkler (director), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page School Spirits.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bounce TV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Family Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dennie Gordon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Last Night.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lacey Chabert, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Frndly TV, you may be blocked from editing. The addition of unsourced content by this user is a continual issue. BilCat (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Musical film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disenchanted.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States Christmas television episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Adventures of Paddington.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm Cat12zu3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Last Christmas, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilkja19! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Last Christmas that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far there is no citation beside that statement nor any citation in the article

WP:NOTMINOR. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Christian Convery, you may be blocked from editing. Waxworker (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilkja19! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Barry Fanaro that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Barry Fanaro, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ashley Newbrough. Waxworker (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Rob Hardy.

Vegantics (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]