Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Repeated bogus OR accusations

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

---

IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

This editor has accused me of "original research" on multiple occasions, most recently here, but also here, here, here, here, here and here. I actually warned him that if he kept it up I would request he be blocked back in November, and had forgotten about it before he picked it up again last week -- after an admin had explicitly said (twice) that what he was talking about was not original research. (Indeed, I think I pointed it out to him, but can't seem to find where I did, that the first paragraph of WP:NOR actually explicitly clarifies the point.) I issued a second "final warning" before scrolling up on the page and noticing that it was the second time -- he responded by claiming that it was his "opinion" to which he is "entitled" that I was violating our NOR policy and claiming obstinately that Wugapodes hadn't explicitly said he was wrong, so here I am.

I'm not sure what there is to do at this point; he seems to be ignoring all attempts to explain the policy to him, either because he is incapable of understanding the difference between WP:EDITDISC and WP:OR, or because he already understands the difference but is pretending not to in order to have an excuse to keep needling me. Either one probably merits a block of some kind so that he is forced to get the message, but a further investigation of his activities elsewhere on the project might be warranted to see if he has done the same elsewhere.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - IvoryTower's points were not wrong. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page of the article, but he usually just gets angry when other people try to help him with his editing. It would be better if he would take fair criticism on board instead. This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Ahiroy (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ahiroy: IvoryTower's points were not wrong. Yes, they are. I wouldn't have come here if policy weren't explicitly on my side and every single impartial user on the talk page hadn't already agreed with me on that point. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page of the article, but he usually just gets angry when other people try to help him with his editing. Are you getting me confused with someone else? This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Umm... I have been accused, in bad faith, of violating one of our core content policies, well over a dozen times over the last four months. An admin finally stepped in and put it to a stop, and one editor has refused to stop. I also issued multiple warnings, and attempts to politely explain our policy, over said four months. How is any of this an overreaction.

I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, and have more than 30,000 edits to my name -- I know what "original research" means; the ones on the talk page who have accused me of OR are all either sockpuppets or extremely new users by comparison -- as, it might be pointed out, are you. If you also do not understand how our "No Original Research" policy works, then you really need to read it before weighing in on discussions like this one.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

In addition to IvoryTower123, four other editors have also argued that many of Hijiri88's edits in the article of mottainai are original research.[1][2][3][4] The fact that five editors have expressed the same concern means that it's obviously a legitimate content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page, not at ANI.

The above thread needs to be seen in the context of the intimidation tactics Hijiri88 is using to force through his edits. This is indicative of a battleground mentality, such as in this post where Hijiri88 argues that ALL six people who disagreed with him in the last RFC should be banned.[5] Just look at a few of the threats he has made against those who disagreed with him.

• Myself – "I could ask for you to be blocked for the blatant trolling", "I will be requesting that you be blocked"
• Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) - "I will be requesting that your previous one-year block be reinstated, this time indefinitely", "this affair will not end well for you"
• Krow750 (talk · contribs) - "I will have to request that you be blocked", "Doubling down could potentially subject you to other editors monitoring your behaviour"
• IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs) - "I will ask you to take this last chance to demonstrate your good faith by retracting your !vote", "I will ask that you be blocked"

Hijiri88 also canvassed for support with a non-neutral message on the reliable sources noticeboard.[6] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[7][8][9][10] and in edit summaries.[11][12]

Hijiri88 has also been bludgeoning the talk page. The edit history of the mottainai talk page shows that Hijiri88 has edited it 221 times in the last 4 months, far more than anyone else.

Much of this recent bludgeoning is just more personal attacks and threats. In the latest RFC, Hijiri88 has made these comments to 5 different editors: "The above is a bad-faith comment", "more likely, you came here because of the on-wiki agenda", "You have a history of showing poor judgement" "I will request that those making them be blocked", "you need to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia"

Therefore, I propose that Hijiri88 be page-banned from the article mottainai.

• Support as proposer.Martinthewriter (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Martinthewriter: What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just trying to derail this in order to get revenge on me or something? Are you saying that, despite what the closing admin said at the end of the first RFC, what I have been doing is OR and Ivorytower123 shouldn't be sanctioned for saying that it is? The fact that some other editors said as much before last week's RFC closure is irrelevant (if they also continued to do so, they would be here too); the fact that you have now done so here means that yes, perhaps whatever happens to Ivorytower123 should also happen to you.

New editors not understanding our editing policies is theoretically acceptable; new editors repeatedly harassing established editors and talking down to them about our editing policies when they themselves are the ones who are getting the policies wrong is a sanctionable issue.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would ask that you refrain from taking quotes out of context on ANI. Most admins and other experienced editors will know better than to block me or otherwise blindly support your proposal without actually clicking on the diffs and seeing what I actually said, but it is nevertheless unacceptable for you to do this again after having been told off for it back in December. The paragraph beginning Much of this recent bludgeoning... is, needless to say, very misleading on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I caught wind of this dispute when I closed a previous RfC, was asked to clarify the close, and asked about the appropriateness of a subsequent RfC that seems to have led to this current thread. I feel that additional comments from uninvolved administrators would be helpful in resolving this dispute. I don't know the full history among these editors, but Hijiri has raised concerns about wikihounding which should be taken seriously. The diffs that Martin provides should at least be read in that context. As for the original post, I don't really understand the hang-up on OR. Editors are routinely asked to evaluate the reliability of sources and determine due weight, so I don't see how OR plays much of a role in these discussions. Personally, I've struggled to resolve this issue, and would welcome help from others who are better at handling conduct disputes like this. Something should be done here, and wider input would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify two minor issues in case anyone thinks I was being deliberately misleading:

(i) I don't think Martin is technically "hounding" me. In November, he showed up on a page I had edited almost two years earlier, and reverted most of my work on it. His edits don't appear to show a good-faith interest in the topic (since any honest reading of the sources would lead to the opposite conclusion he has reached), and he appears to be more interested in haranguing me than in improving the article. It is not clear whether or not he would continue to follow me to other pages and try the same thing if he were page-banned. I can provide evidence of all of this in the form of diffs, but since I am not actively seeking any sanctions against him, I don't want to waste time doing so. (I have already wasted dozens if not hundreds of hours on what should have been a cut-and-dry issue.)

(ii) This ANI report, which has nothing directly to do with Martin, was not prompted by the recent RFC, but by one of the participants therein repeatedly accusing me of "original research". This problem (including my saying that I would seek administrative assistance in resolving it) also goes back to November, as the diffs I presented show.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I mean I oppose any sort of "page ban" on Hijiri. The page mottainai is a terrible mess, WP at its worst; most is a section nominally called "etymology etc", but actually a ragbag of argument-from-etymology claims of a distinctly nihonjinron flavour, and the latest spat relates to the inclusion of a scraping from a Jungian psychologist, who (not surprisingly, since it's an axiom of the Jungian quasi-religion) thinks that "mottainai" is "connected" (meaning unclear) to anima mundi, which looks like the Shinto animism idea. I think most Japan specialist editors will have given up on this page; apart from Hijiri's contributions, almost all input is formulaic, legalistic recitations of rules about "sources". While I think that a less confrontational approach from Hijiri himself would doubtless help, it is hard to see his critics as disinterested contributors to the content of WP. For example, the user IvoryTower123 mentined at the beginning seems to have made many edits, for which I see no reason not to assume good faith, but apart from a comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan (mostly procedural), has made just one other Japan-related edit, creating a user page containing a Japanese language level 3 claim, and no other content. This does seem bizarre. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've unarchived this thread. It clearly needs a proper (admin) closure this time, especially given the comments that were made my Martinthewriter and Ahiroy therein, essentially promising that the disruption will continue indefinitely until something is done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

This is now the second oldest thread on the page -- is no one going to look at it? I know it's not necessarily fair to suggest that problems like this one are not "sexy" enough to attract attention from uninvolved admins, but what other explanation is there? Back in December the problem was apparently that the first admin who came across the thread didn't want to weigh in on my "side" for "personal" reasons, but now...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Yawn Still waiting for someone to deal with this... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support temporary ban. The insults and threats by Hijiri88 (at the top of this section) are unacceptable. Something should be done to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, because they are vital pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@1292simon: "insults"? "threats"? Do you have evidence of these things? The diffs above clearly show me reacting in a fairly civil, reserved fashion to harassment and disruptive editing, if even that, unless you read only MTW's misquotations without clicking on the diffs to see the original context. If you do not present evidence, I would ask you to retract these unprovoked personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The diffs above show your bullying methods to intimidate other editors, similar to what you are trying on right now. 1292simon (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No, they show other editors making bogus accusations and the like, and me responding by telling them they are making bogus accusations (as is happeningI am "trying" now), and me notifying them of possible consequences (as is not happening now, since every time you edit ANI you see a big orange banner telling you to provide diffs). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88, this is not about other editors, it is about what YOU have said. It is quite simple, the diffs above show the threats and intimidation you have made. And, as John says below, WP:BLUDGEON also applies. 1292simon (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sometimes, people are their own worst enemy, Hijiri88. This has been pointed out to you before, at least once by me. (not recently). If you'd have left it alone, it would have died. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@John from Idegon: Did you mean to post that in a different ANI thread? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• No, I didn't. It was directed straight at you regarding this very thread. WP:BLUDGEON is possibly applicable. I am almost certain that I'm not alone on this. You didn't make your case above, and there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem. Someone opened a boomerang thread that wasn't going anywhere and would have archived soon, but you had to have a resolution and called attention to it again. Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn't make your case above I said I was being wrongly accused of OR and presented seven diffs in support of this claim. there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem ??? Are you saying that I was violating NOR? Are you willing to back up that claim? You would seem to be the first editor with more than 1,000 edits who agrees with that assertion... That said, Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? is exactly right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• • Your opinion on whether you made your case is irrelevant. If you had, it would have been actioned. I couldn't care less about the underlying articles. I haven't and won't look into it. I'm strictly commenting on your behavior in this very thread. As you've historically commented frequently at ANI, finding the diff where I discussed this with you previously is neigh on impossible. But I'm sure there are plenty of other editors here that are well aware of your tendency to not heed the advice given at WP:STICK. You are a vital editor here. There's a lot of ways to end a dispute. You can seek further DR assistance, and walking away is always an option. One thing for certain though. The community frowns on continuing disputes. If no one saw enough merit in your report to action it, that's your answer. The fact that you re-opened a dead thread, a thead where the only even vague indication of consensus is to sanction you, is, well, at best foolish. At worst, it's disruptive. We aren't playing poker here. Bluffs don't "win" the pot. John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your involvement in this thread is bordering on harassment at this point. We get it -- you don't like me and will take the side of whoever is against me, even if they are blatantly violating most of our content policies. I'd be happy with this thread being archived without result at this point -- the RFC will be closed shortly, almost certainly with a result not favourable to these two obvious sockpuppet accounts, and if they try any more disruptive editing after that point ... well, I'm sure the community and admin corps will do their job at that point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Ok. Because someone is critical of your actions says nothing about their "feelings" toward you. Your unnecessary personalization of this causes me pause. Consequently I'm withdrawing my request for closure, and I'm done. Advice isn't an attack and replying isn't harrassment. However, characterizing my actions as harassment is most definitely a personal attack. Best of luck. John from Idegon (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

So you admit you were "critical of my actions"? You also do not understand our NOR policy? Is there another explanation I'm not seeing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Being critical of your actions isn't a policy violation, so there's no need to admit anything. I agree with John that you made a poor choice in resurrecting this thread, and you should have taken John's sound and logical advice at face value and moved on instead of becoming combative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Being critical of my actions, when my actions constitute me requesting some admin action against one of two new editors who have been repeatedly violating policy by insisting that use of editorial discretion qualifies as an NOR-violation (and who are obviously both the same person, and probably also the same person as some long-sitebanned editor with a grudge against me), would indeed seem to be a policy violation. If you or John seriously think that IvoryTower/Martin had a point, then you need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR.

It's a somewhat prickly policy issue, but I would argue that AGF is on the side of assuming that a long-term contributor whose comments appear to indicate a poor understanding of basic policy is actually just arguing from a blindspot based on a personal bias and simply had not made an an attempt to understand the particular dispute because of said bias -- such human failings are far more likely to be forgiven than a long-term contributor actually not understanding the policy. This is why I went to the "you don't like me" well before the "are you seriously saying you agree with this blatant policy violation well"; the long-term consequences of the former are almost never as severe as the latter.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm just going to reiterate what John said above. Sometimes, you are your own worst enemy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

BTW, in case you didn't notice, I said a little above here that I'd be happy with this thread being archived without result at this point and have said elsewhere that I intend to take a wikibreak as soon as this and two other discussions are resolved. It's John (and now I guess you) who has insisted on dragging this on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Grudging support - Hijiri has good intentions, but the fact at least 5 editors have shown concern about this show how out of hand the user has gotten. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

​

• comment - I am not the same person as Martinthewriter. I only edit with this account and have no association with him. I don't feel I did anything wrong by pointing out Hijiri88's OR. Almost all of Hijiri88's commentary on the talk page were the ideas he developed on his own in direct contradiction to the sources that he was overanalyzing. However, this was already discussed in detail on the talk page, and most people there agreed that Hijiri88's edits were made on the basis of clear OR. IvoryTower123 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Examination and evaluation of sources, for example: to determine reliability (in the case of a single sources) or weight which should be accorded particular viewpoints (in the case of multiple sources) might well be research and might well be original. It is not, however, original research, in the sense of that Wikipedia term of art. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Would you mind blocking IvoryTower123 for the above continued IDHT/harassment? Someone actually doing something to help me might make me reconsider what I did last night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not a fan of comments about editors, rather than content. However, while there remain good faith, well founded content concerns such as those raised by Hijiri88, and while those concerns remain unaddressed by the editors who oppose his viewpoint, I think we're at the "advise" or "warn" stage rather than the ban stage. NOTE: I, like others above, am involved in the underlying content dispute. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any sort of page ban. This behaviour is about an editor, not a page. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• To which Hijiri's unsurpring reaction was: User talk:QEDK#A request describing the above comment opposing a page ban as an "unprovoked attack" and canvassing two admins to block me at Hijiri's demand.

This is a follow on from last week, when I raised Hijiri's AfD behaviour at AfD, also their persistent attempts to tell me what I may and may not edit. It wa summarily closed by QEDK with a smiley, and no comment or response to Hijiri's behaviour.

Hijiri: grow up. Many people here have a problem with your continuing behaviour. Do something about that or, as you keep hinting, leave. But running off to your friendliest admin whenever anything offends you is not acceptable. It is basically childish behaviour, and we're all sick of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Not again with Hijiri88, seriously? Please do not let this drag out either close it with a "lets no do anything to Hijiri88" and accept this will drag on until the inevitable melt down or intact a sanction (even if only a warning).Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Having said the above this Andy's post seems to violate this warning [[13]], and so he should be blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Why wasn't that warning placed on Andy's talk page? If an admin really wants two editors to stay away from each other, issuing a warning to both on one editor's talk page is a poor way of accomplishing that. I see Andy has been blocked on the basis of that warning and I think that's inappropriate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

It was bad form, but as he is obviously watching what Hijiri88 is up to he was aware of it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. If the admin issues this warning the same way that every other warning is issued, there isn't any question about it. Anyway, for the sake of consistency, Hijiri should be blocked for describing Andy's initial edit here as an attack. After all, there's no question that they saw the warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Valid point, it was not an attack and Hijiri88 (by the terms of the IBAN) should not have responded.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Which IBAN? Had a quick look over WP:Editing restrictions & WP:DSLOG, but couldn't see anything. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I don't think there's an IBAN in effect between the two editors. However, Hijiri's overreaction to Andy's initial post above, as well as Andy's response, suggest to me that maybe there should be. Andy may very well have been baiting Hijiri with his first post here, and Hijiri may well have been baiting Andy by going to an admin's talk page to complain about it. While New3400 noted below that Hijiri has apparently retired, I have my doubts about the permanence of this retirement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Not here at ANI, but an admin did issue a formal warning that if they continued to niggle each other they would be blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I think he just retired. So this is pointless now. New3400 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

He has retired before an come back as bad as ever (in fact I seem to recall pointing out this very fact the last time he was ANI and retired, in fact I seem to recall it was a self requested block he block evaded).Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I've also never seen an editor more inclined than Hijiri to claim that they are being harassed. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but it's impossible to take their word at face value. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

And this [[14]] was posted after his "retirement", its pretty much a PA (and a pretty egregious one at that), and this [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The above diffs cited by Slatersteven (1 and 2) are pretty clear personal attacks that warrant a block per the terms of the warning that was recently issued at Hijiri's talk page. That warning has already been used as a basis for blocking Andy Dingley for these edits (1 and 2), which are less egregious than Hijiri's latest edits. Note that in the second of the two Hijiri diffs, they named and shamed 18 different individuals while using the 'noping' template so that these people wouldn't see what was being said about them. I won't mention the names of these various individuals since I don't want to have to issue 18 talk page notifications, but you can see who they are for yourselves by clicking on the diff. I know that Hijiri claims they are leaving, but by their own admission they've left and come back before, so they should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of these clear personal attacks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Meh, doesn't this fall under the so-called "ragequit leeway" exception, i.e. if someone's farewell message is some variation of "fuck all y'all", we just let that go? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This was their farewell message [[16]], the rest was after they had said "As of this latest update, I will be logging out to avoid any more harassing pings and messages.)". As I said this is not a genuine retirement, any more than the last one (or however many) was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It might fall under that leeway, however tenuous the validity of this retirement, if not for the naming-and-shaming of one-and-a-half dozen editors. The 'no ping' part makes it even worse. Hijiri was deliberately trashing people behind their backs. That is not permissible even as part of a ragequit. Nor is a bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates an acceptable way to describe fellow editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not very tenuous its nonexistent, as they are still editing their talk page as an IP. So they are still watching what is going on, that is not retirement. They could not even wait until this ANI was closed before coming back, using an IP as they did the last time they tried to circumvent retirement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

It's beyond absurd that Hijiri is permitted to blatantly defy a warning like this even after a different editor was blocked based on the same warning for behavior that was far less problematic. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a massive difference between continuing to edit, watching what's going on, and not retiring, and what's happening here, which is a bunch of reprehensible grave-dancers showing up as soon as I posted a retirement notice to start slandering me on ANI and me making every feeble attempt I can to defend myself while (a) not directly commenting on the ANI thread itself in the hopes it will eventually just die (thank you for forcing me to break that now, by the way), (b) not logging in so I don't have to suffer the anguish of the ping notices and the like and (c) hoping, begging, pleading for someone to end this goddamn thread so I can move on with my life. What will make you people happy? Me being indeffed? Is that what's needed to end this!?

Fine, I'll give you what you want. The above comments are from the worst excuses for editors English Wikipedia has to offer, having targeted me for years in some cases, and now having deliberately come after me when I am at my lowest in the hopes that I would overreact and get indeffed rather than being allowed to quietly retire. They are reprehensible, slimey nobodies who derive perverse pleasure from causing pain and torment to those who came here to build an encyclopedia. They did it to MjolnirPants, apparently in response to his "No Nazis" essay, and now they are doing it to me, apparently as revenger for my having expressed similar sentiments at various points in the past. I fucking hate them and I hate all of you for letting them do it.

Now please: block me forever and let me move on with my life.

211.135.108.100 (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

If you're really gone, then just stop responding. But the bit where you throw out a bunch of red herrings and act like we're all evil gremlins because we think you should be held responsible for your actions... that's disruptive and it needs to stop. Your problem is that you put anyone who disagrees with you on your enemies list and it is almost impossible for them to ever get off that list. Therefore, you are very quick to interpret any form of disagreement as hounding or harassment and some of us have just gotten really tired of that. If you have actually been on the receiving end of legitimate harassment that has caused you distress, then that is certainly unfortunate. But I've learned from prior experience that I can't just take your word for it. If you are leaving, farewell and thank you for your important contributions to our encyclopedia. If you are eventually going to come back, it's probably best to not say anything more and just enjoy your break. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Fuck off! Everyone just fuck off and let me leave! I had every intent of not posting here after 02:08, 1 April, and indeed of leaving this whole mess behind as of shortly thereafter, but the more I tried to stay away the more you stalkers kept coming back and writing more and more bullshit lies about me! Someone, please, just block my account to satisfy the above commenters, close this grotesque discussion, and speedy-archive it so I can bring my skills elsewhere and the above commenters can move on to tormenting their next victim. 106.130.209.70 (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, as requested by the poor victim Hijiri (sarcasm), his/her account should be blocked. 1292simon (talk)

• All things considered, ANI may not be the best venue to discuss this controversy further. I'm interested in asking the Arbcom to create a full case on the matter instead. The Arbcom is more likely to give this matter a full investigation, and I can certainly submit a case myself when this ANI thread is archived.Martinthewriter (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please issue a range block for Hijiri88 as its clear they are using IP's to just be objectionable (and no, no one had forced them to respond, all that shows is the same attitude that caused them to block evade the last time, they must respond, they must fight their corner). I would also point out they posted this [[17]] at 11:35, 1 April 2020, sometime after their claim they had no intention of posting "here". This was posted [[18]] before anyone turned up to dance on their grave (as was this [[19]]). [[Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is assuming that the IP editor is Hijiri88 and not someone just trying to cause trouble - Hijiri has been subject to a fairly steady campaign of attacks (although not by Andy Dingley), and its quite possible that someone may be trying to pull a Joe Job. When we allow "open season" to attack editors, then we should not be surprised when they see everybody as their enemies, not just the people who actually are attacking them. We need to change the way that things like ANI works to be more consistent and more just or this will keep happening and we will keep allowing productive editors to be driven away from the project.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The 211 IP editor is definitely Hijiri, he's used it before, and the 106 IP geolocates to the same area. On that basis, given the persistent PAs and the self-request to block, I don't there is any other option than to block Hijiri indefinitely. So I have. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible Issues with Authordom

Hey, I've filled a report against Authordom at intervention against vandalism. He has been nominating notable Deobandi pages, possibly non-Barelwi pages for deletion, and recently the likes of Asad Madni and Darul Uloom Karachi, and thus misusing this feature. He has been spamming the Grand Mufti page also. He seems to look like owner of any Wikipedia page, who regards every verified edit by others as non-notable because the Mufti is not Barelwi possibly. Can someone block him from editing? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @AaqibAnjum: for the nomination. Can you put here any sources for your nomination. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 11:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Authordom:, I saw you nominating notable Deobandi pages recently for deletion, that's not right thing. You could've added more references tag rather, Mufti Rafi Usmani or Darul Uloom Karachi etc are internationally well-known, their notability can't be questioned. If we have articles in stub quality, isn't it better for us to improve them? You can ask others for improvements. I think that directly tagging any notable article for deletion is not right, until one makes proper research on the subject. You could've recently improved Asad Madni, but besides notability, you regarded him as non-notable. If those who had voted, have had not researched on the subject, the page would've been no more, because of your nomination. Right, you follow AfD rules and you've right to nominate any article for deletion. But before it, cleanup, improve tags may be concerned. Hope you get my points. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum If you made a report at AIV, then you don't need to make an additional report here. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The response at AIV was to suggest reporting here, so AaqibAnjum is only doing what he was told. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

AaqibAnjum, Authordom is doing nothing that requires administrator action by nominating articles for deletion. If you think they should be kept then simply make the case for keeping in the relevant discussion. Nobody's word should count for more than anyone else's in such discussions, which are closed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, thanks for your response. I've been working on the articles whatsoever nominated for deletion by him as I've joined the Wikipedia last year for the betterment of articles related to Deobandi school of thought. I just wanted to take a note of using cleanup, refimprove etc before nominating an article for deletion, mostly when the notability of the subject is widely known. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 12:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Authordom has nominated articles for deletion almost exclusively related to particular Islamic tendencies in India and Pakistan. As far as I can see, only one (possibly two) AfD out of 63 has been outside of this scope. Numerous nominations show no evidence of carrying out BEFORE which would have easily established the notability of the subject (eg Snow keep here, nomination of an elected politician here). Of the last 10 closed AfDs nominated by this editor, 8 have been closed as keep. Editor has been on Wikipedia for close to two years, so they should by now be expected to understand policy. With this AfD in January nominated under the editor's original user name of Kutyava, they subsequently !voted keep under their new username Authordom in the same AfD. Two blocks in January this year and a block in October last year for edit warring. The editor has been asked numerous times to carry out work appropriately. Seems to be ignoring reasonable requests and unable to apply NPOV to the work undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Authordom has been piling up deletion nominations for all religious groups within Sunni Islam – Deobandi, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (India), Tablighi Jamaat except for his own religious group in South India. Personally I have hundreds of hours of editing time invested in these articles over the last 4 years. He had me working my tail off, within last two months, to try to prevent damage and disruption by him. This is the first time in my 7 year history on Wikipedia that I am asking for help on ANI. He has pushed me over the edge and I can not keep up with his binges of deletion nominations on both AfD Pakistan and AfD India. My own conclusion is that he has developed his own clever way of nominating where he typically uses the minimum words like 'Non-notable person' for Grand Mufti, Mufti and longtime members of Indian parliament or Rajya Sabha. His nominating words were 'Non-notable Deobandi seminary' for a 69 year old largest Deobandi religious university and institution in the city of Karachi which is well-known all over the Muslim world, not only in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Personally I have never nominated for deletion anything on Wikipedia (not even a single one) because I try my best to show tolerance and respect to all other peoples' faiths. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah. IMHO any seminary with 4500 students meets the notability requirement, but I know embarrassingly little about Islam in general, I admit I'm an inclusionist, & WP:SCHOOLS doesn't explicitly cover institutions of higher education. The deletion nominations I looked at shared that quality: stubs or short start-class articles that appeared to be borderline cases, & apparently nominated in good faith, but were actually examples of an ongoing issue with Wikipedia. If this tendentious pattern can be confirmed, then we have good grounds to ban Authordom from nominating articles for deletion for an indefinite period. -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

llywrch Can you be explicit about the kind of evidence that would demonstrate this for you? The editor's history of nominations at AFD linked above shows a very clear pattern of nominating articles for deletion related to particular sects. Their article creation history shows a pattern almost exclusively related to a sect with origins in Kerela. At AfD the editor has only !voted keep 7 times (that includes the one where the editor nominated and !voted, writing a comment that was clearly intended to be for deletion, but for some reason wrote keep) almost all entirely in defense of the sect from Kerala or related to that; whereas the editor has made at least 64 AfD nominations and one single delete !vote. Most editors will not be balanced (we all veer one side of 50/50 keep/delete), but this editor's actions at AfD are completely skewed. What is of concern IMO is the rapid decline in the editor's number of successful AfD nominations since late February; a function of others (myself included) becoming aware of the ongoing pattern. Sadly, I suspect quite a few of the earlier AfDs closed as delete will need to be examined.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, the issue of which topics this user creates articles about is not relevant, & does not provide useful information concerning tendentious editing. (If you looked at the last dozen or so articles I created, they would all be on ancient Roman men; but I can assure you am not advocating some bias favoring ancient Roman POV: they had many cultural norms I find objectionable, such as condoning slavery.) What would be useful, IMHO but others may disagree, is to list a large number of articles nominated for deletion, but kept, & show clearly whether or not the only reasonable assumption for their nomination was based on suppressing information about other religions in India. I'll admit that I don't know if it can be done, let alone how to present it, but a careful analysis of their nominations for deletion is what I would want before agreeing to a ban. -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Llywrch - thanks for the reply. I agree that in general an editor's created articles might not be relevant, but here I think it is relevant to establishing a pattern of bias. SPAs are not per se a problem, especially if an editor seeks to operate within a comfort area while respecting policy. However, here what we have is an editor who only !votes keep at AfD on the articles created by themself, which almost all relate to the particular sect the editor promotes. The vast majority of their nominations at AfD target specific Islamic sects within India and Pakistan (Deobandi stands out, but there are others). I will try to put together further analysis as you have asked. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Authordom making nuisances in wikipedia, specially on deletion nominations, removing well cited contents, unwanted sockpuppet/vandal investigation request etc. Even I am new in english wikipedia, faced multiple attempt from him, only due to inclusionist edits on his delete nominations. It is habit to overtagging the articles which doesn't satisfy own interest. I can submit examples for all issues what I have raised here (If required).--Irshadpp (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Irshadpp: at least one example please. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has given this issue a good eye. The user is misusing the AfD and portraying bias through it. Reading all from Goldsztajn and Llywrch, I think it is enough time to block Authordom from nominating articles for deletion. -Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 14:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit premature to say this is a block just yet. We need to see the information requested first. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Llywrch: Yes, I agree. Can I start by copy/pasting links here from AfD India and AfD Pakistan archives where he was highly active nominating articles for deletion within the last couple months? If you prefer some other better way, I'll do that since this is my first time in presenting 'requested information', I'll need some directions from you so I don't end up violating any Wikipedia rules. Also, I don't want to burden @Goldsztajn: alone for it and would like to try to communicate with him, if possible? My thought is just to copy/paste ONLY the relevant TWO AfD Archive links (one each from India and Pakistan) here and then each individual (estimated 60 to 70 total) AfD Discussion Results can be picked up from there? Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ngrewal1: Please wait 30 minutes I'm just working on something.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• These are the 25 most recent nominations by Authordom at AfD. I have not analysed more due to time constraints. I have only done some precursory research on those closed as delete, but in my mind at least three are clearly in need of review. That said, we have 22 out of 25 articles which are Deobandi related. Furthermore, the nominations all lack any evidence of WP:BEFORE, only one refers to policy as justification for deletion (and this remains only WP:ASSERTION). Of the 25 below, 21 have been closed, with 10 closed as keep and 11 closed as delete. The editor's pattern of nominations at AfD suggests a strongly focused attention on articles related to this particular Islamic movement and carried out in a scatter-gun approach. The actions of the editor (and hte most recent results of their nominations) suggest a disregard for WP:NEXIST. The editor also refuses to respond to requests to correct actions made in error at AfD.

	Date	Article at AfD	Authordom's claim in full for deletion	Deobandi - related	Comment	Result	Review?
1	22.03	IslamOnline	"Non notable Muslim Brotherhood linked website."	No	Redirect to Yusuf al-Qaradawi would possibly be more appropriate action.	Not closed yet	—
2	18.03	Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah	"Non notable Islamist seminary in India."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	Not closed yet	—
3	18.03	Madrasatul Islah	"Non notable Islamic seminary."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE carried out. I !voted Keep, founded by notable scholars, produced notable scholars	Not closed yet	—
4	11.03	Asad Madni	"Non notable Islamist scholar and politician from India."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE carried out. Elected politician, easily verifiable.	KEEP*	No action
5	11.03	Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions	"The organization does not seem notable. But its founders are notable."	No	No evidence of BEFORE; notability easily verifiable	KEEP	No action
6	11.03	Union of Catholic Asian News	"I think it is a non notable news portal."	No	No evidence of BEFORE; notability easily verifiable	SNOW KEEP	No action
7	10.03	Muhammad Rafi Usmani	"Non notable Islamist from Pakistan."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE;notability easily verifiable	KEEP	No action
8	24.02	Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi	"Non notable Indian religious scholar."	Yes Deobandi off-shoot	No evidence of BEFORE;notability easily verifiable	KEEP	No action
9	24.02	Maulana Zubair ul Hassan	"Non notable Tablighi Jamaat worker"	Yes Deobandi off-shoot	No evidence of BEFORE; notability easily verifiable	KEEP	No action
10	24.02	Muhammad Talha Kandhlawi	"Nominating for speedy deletion, non notable."	Yes (presumed as following in father's organisation	No evidence of BEFORE carried out. A proposed merger with Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandhlawi would possibly be more appropriate	Not closed yet	—
11	24.02	Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi	"Non notable Indian Islamic scholar."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	KEEP	No action
12	24.02	Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi	"Non notable Muslim scholar from India."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	KEEP	No action
13	23.02	Madrasah Islamiah	"Non notable article about a Deobandi school."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
14	23.02	Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi	"Non notable Deobandi seminary."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	KEEP	No action
15	23.02	Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi	"Non notable Islamist seminary"	Yes Founder of school was Deobadi	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
16	23.02	Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi	"Non Notable seminary."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
17	23.02	Ahsan-Ul-Uloom	"Non notable Islamist seminary"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
18	19.02	Ideal Relief Wing Kerala	"Non notable charitable NGO managed by the Jamaat-e-Islami Kerala chapter."	Yes (if editor assertion is true).	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
19	18.02	Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah	"No scope to keep, because unable to pass even the WP:GNG."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	KEEP*	No action
20	18.02	Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris	"Non notable."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; academic study on history of the school.	DELETE	Yes
21	18.02	Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom	"I think no scope to keep the non notable article."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE.	DELETE	Possibly
22	18.02	Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia	Non notable Qawmi Madrasah	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
23	18.02	Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar	"Non notable Qawmi Madrasah located in Bangladesh"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
24	18.02	Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka	"Non notable Deobandi madrasa"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; one of the largest madrassas in Bangladesh.	DELETE	Yes
25	18.02	Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri	"Not notable Islamic religious institution"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; 100+ years old, third largest madrassa in Bangladesh	DELETE	Yes

*(closed inappropriately by Authordom, should have been speedy keep/nominator withdrawal.)

References

--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Goldsztajn. Here I have noticed his one more biased edit. Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi was Grand Mufti of India as I had referenced from (Mufti Azam Hind, Maulana Kifayatyullah Shahjahanpuri Thumma Dehlawi (2005 ed.). Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library.) and this. Here Authordom is regarding this as unsourced.See this edit on Kifayatullah Dehlawi. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Authordom is probably a paid editor. This user is one of the most biased editor on Wikipedia. Authordom is spamming all over these particular topics and nominating the topics he doesn't like for deletion. Me too had an experience that the user nominated me and an unrelated editor for sockpuppet investgation, just because I made a honest edit to one of his favourite topics. Please take relevant action.--SnehaRaphael1996 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [20]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [21] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The talk page post [22]:

Hey Sneha, I just noticed that you have faced some issues from Authordom, the biased editor I have ever seen on the Wikipedia. I have added a complaint about him on Administrators Noticeboard. I wish you to help me in getting him banned.

is clear inappropriate canvassing by AaqibAnjum. Don’t do that again, please. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: , already taken notice of that. The advice message of Goldsztajn is still there at my talk page. I had just tried to invite her to join this discussion only to discuss issues where Authordom has been accused of being biased. Anyways, this was my err. I shall take care in future. Continuing the analysis of Authordom's bias towards a particular Islamic sect. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have been concerned on the articles relating to the Indian Subcontinent of at least a handful of editors nominating sets of articles over a relatively short period of time at AfD over a relatively short time exhausting any significant scrutiny at AfD. That said the sourcing of many of the articles are of the poorest quality; online sources not linkrot protected, and the use of foreign language sources of the poorest quality. Authordom's nominations are often vaguewave; but I do note pre-tagging of Template:Notabilty for a period before AfD nominations which is of some respect. Unless the community increases the requirement for a specifically force non-vaguewave nominations, analyse and penalise accounts that swamp AfD or have unexplained high AfD nomination fail rates, or require those embarking on set of related article nominations to register for support at WikiProject level these issues will continue with multiple editors.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Closure-PIwA

Proposal: Close ANI with no action and no prejudice.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Support closing w/o action. Many of the AfD nominations were good and there are no actual conduct issues with  Authordom. Though the false allegations of "vandalism", "paid editing" levied on Authordom violate WP:NPA.  Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There is a pattern of bias at AfD along with a multitude of nominations carried out with disregard to expected practice (viz. BEFORE), a refusal to respond to reasonable requests, a history of edit warring. I don't actually support closure here given the admin who requested information has not had a chance to reply. I have deliberately not called for sanctions *so far* because the point of ANI is so an uninvolved admin can assess the material presented and make a judgement. Until that point is reached, perhaps we could be patient before jumping the gun. Thanks,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support closure anyway as per Goldsztajn. I have not accused Authordom of paid editing or anything such;, this comment of the concerned user may be enquired further. My invitation to that user to join this discussion, possibly does not violate any specific Wikipedia rules; agreed that it was not okay to invite Sneha via talk page. Anyways, nominating articles of notable institutions, scholars, politicians of specific group by tagging them as non-notable is clear cut bias. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 'Closing without Action' would be very unjust here. Just like we were, Authordom's supporters should also be asked for 'informatioin' or evidence for their 'simple assertions' above about Authordom, very similar to his typical style of nominating other religious sects' old established institutions, well-known all over the Muslim world, in his clever and sneaky way on AfD as 'non-notable'. So he would be free and clear to continue doing all that? Many of us, including me, have hundreds and hundreds of editing-time-hours invested in these articles. I am asking for justice here with due process of Wikipedia policy. Thanks ---Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Can't support closing without any action. AFDs nominations which resulted delete were aftermaths of our negligence regarding his biased behavior. Above there is a list of nominations which should be reviewed. Closing without action is clear injustice.--Irshadpp (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment While I have pragmatically proposed an action due to a stall which would in my view have likely ended up in a closure anyway; I am minded of the good faith effort Goldsztajn has put in. What I will do is place the Template:RfA toolbox here which might give a better quick analysis angle: (While it is usually used at WP:RFA's it might be convenient here; AfD votes it probably particularly useful but other tools might show something also. It admins feel this is inappropriate use of of the template then by all means I apologise and by all means remove and even revdel if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I just randomly picked one of Goldsztajn's table, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi, nominated with the reasoning "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar", state at nomination: Old revision of Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi. The article at that point was not tagged with a notability issue but was tagged with a "needs additional citations for verification" despite it being fairly well inline cited throughout and perhaps the "mkislamicworld" perhaps not being acceptable for the books. The fact most cites were Hindi and poorly embellished with details do make it easy for scrutiny on the English Wiki ... Use of translated titles, authors, language indicator, dates, publishers are all really needed for determination for Notability and rather than assisting in this matter the editors to this point are forcing scrutineers to search for the notability rather than pointing them towards it. So I am minded if this had been pre-tagged for notability and a request for cite embellishment had been in place for a while and ignored I would count that as a justifiable AfD nomination. But a WP:VAGUEWAVE "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar" nomination is not acceptable especially as proven by events the subject was judged notable. So a complaint on this nomination would have been in view justified.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: When a user is making a lot of delete nominations one would hope the success ratio would be high. In a couple of occasions of high swamps (e.g. 60+ noms over a few days) at AfD when I've done an analysis I recall about 1/3 were keeps, 1/3 were salvagable with some rescuing, and 1/3 were genuine deletes; and while Authordom hasn't done a massive swamp rate at AfD; the delete(nom) keep ratio is probably not great. There's also enough of a problem that we possibly should WP:REFUND all the delete's to draft to give them some scrutiny to check an overall picture.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The apparent possible focus bias against Deobandi and other possibly ideally requires a response from Authordom ... a TBAN may be appropriate or a warning of a TBAN might be appropriate. I think an Ds/alert (IP) was only given on 16 March 2020 however if the AfD nominations past that point an admin would be entitled to take immediate action to my understanding ... in fact Authordom might consider offering something like a "no-fault" voluntary self-ban from raising AfDs though some might not think it sufficent.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Please note these article have tagged by numerous editors (Over 10) they could not find sources after a normal search that is other than Authordom for notabilty and sources and some of the articles were tagged way back from 2012 almost all of them have been tagged atleast 6 months before they were brought to AFD the last one was tagged in June 2019 and the article at the time of nomination was in a poor state.Further here WP:BEFORE is tough for Deobandi pages as the sources are more likely be in Urdu language and Bengali language may be not be covered in the mainstream media atleast in India or Bangladesh hence WP:AGF to all the 10 who tagged the pages and those who nominate it.One is free to nomiate an article tagged for notablity or sources for years in the normal course of editing.WP:BURDEN applies here as well.

• IslamOnline tagged for primary sources since January 2015 Version at the time of Nomination
• Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah tagged for notabilty since December 2017 Version at the time of nomination
• Madrasatul Islah tagged for notabilty since December 2017 Version at the time of nomination
• Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions tagged for original research ,primary sources and additional citations for verification since February 2014 Version at the time of nomination
• Union of Catholic Asian News tagged for primary sources since February 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_Catholic_Asian_News&diff=944986951&oldid=944946910 Version at the time of nomination]
• Muhammad Rafi Usmani tagged since May 2014 for additional citations and notabilty since January 2019 Version at the time of nomination
• Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi tagged for additional sources since April 2019
• Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi section tagged since February 2013
• Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah tagged for sources since August 2012
• Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi tagged for additional citations since June 2019
• Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi tagged for notablity since January 2018
• Note voted Keep in 2 articles and delete in 5 others
• Asad Madni did have a clear claim of significance as it was mentioned that he was a member of parliament though unsourced. Version at the time of Nomination

Note added the Rajya Sabha Website and voted Keep .Based on this Authordom withdraw the AFD.

• Union of Catholic Asian News Note voted Keep.
• On the Deletions the articles were duly deleted after the going through the sources in the articles which were clearly in a poor state and many cases the WP:AFD was extended. Feel the 10 admins who closed it rightly but one feels otherwise one can go for Deletion review.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the forest for the trees. Prior tagging, for however long, does not excuse an editor from reasonably undertaking BEFORE; AfD is not clean up. Moreover, this analysis might be appropriate if all of the editor's nominations at AfD were *not* almost singularly focused on a particular Islamic sect. Finally, I simply do not accept the idea that Urdu or Bangla is a limitation to finding sources; an editor claiming that it is hard to operate in a language should not then be making judgments where use of that language is important (cf. WP:COMPETENCE). --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE Point 3 D1 "a minimum search that is expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects" and one would assume gold faith after that whether one is tagging or nominating for WP:AFD .Deobandi pages require extensive search as it is more specialised topic and with Urdu language and Bengali language skills and the mainstream media eg like the leading Bengali newspapers Prothom Alo or Anandabazar Patrika or Ei Samay Sangbadpatra do not give much coverage and a minimum search in foreign languages in this case is not sufficient .Further these were not deleted through WP:SPEEDY OR WP:PROD but after community discussion.Further the articles were nominated only after giving contributors time to develop the article.I disagree this a textbook WP:BEFORE failure.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am minded it would not be expected nor reasonable on the English Wikipedia on a WP:BEFORE to search for foreign language sources. I am also minded while foreign language sources can count towards notability I do not expect to sift through foreign language citations that are poorly embellished: there is little real excuse for such items such as date, trans-title, author, website, and even quote not to be given rather than expecting scrutineers having to click the link to find out. However this is where WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations are an issue: demonstration these things have been considered in the nomination gives confidence, omission of them means relying on good faith. While ensuring a article is tagged that is a good pre-req before going to AfD it is still incumbent to search for references on a WP:BEFORE. An indicator this is being done will be author improving an article rather than taking it to AfD, the recovery of rotted links and marking of dead links is another indicator. The three AfD's after the issueing of the Ds/Alert(ipa) are particularly open to scrutiny as diligence should have been taken to avoid any possibility of biasing beyond that point. While I had called for this to be closed due to an apparent stall I accept there have been reasonable calls for further analysis.... On a different angle is their evidence of improvement of articles in problem area of bias ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Article nom'd by for deletion requested to WP:REFUNDed to draft for analysis

Afd Draft Notes Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Draft:Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri Draft:Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia Draft:Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia Draft:Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia Darussalam Islamic Academy (2nd nomination) Draft:Darussalam Islamic Academy Girls Islamic Organisation of India (2nd nomination) Draft:Girls Islamic Organisation of India Ideal Relief Wing Kerala Draft:Ideal Relief Wing Kerala Jamaati Draft:Jamaati Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi Draft:Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar Draft:Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi Draft:Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy Draft:Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy K. A. Siddique Hassan (2nd nomination) Draft:K. A. Siddique Hassan K.P. Sasikala Draft:K.P. Sasikala Madrasah Islamiah Draft:Madrasah Islamiah Madrasa Kashiful Huda Draft:Madrasa Kashiful Huda Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom Draft:Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom Marunadan Malayali Draft:Marunadan Malayali MI Abdul Azeez Draft:MI Abdul Azeez Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (Afd-draftied, improved, and returned to mainspace) Mohammed Eeza Draft:Mohammed Eeza Muhammad Jafar Draft:Muhammad Jafar Mujtaba Farooq (2nd nomination) Draft:Mujtaba Farooq Outspoken Kerala Draft:Outspoken Kerala Poonthran Draft:Poonthran Prakash Babu Draft:Prakash Babu Shajan Skariah Draft:Shajan Skariah SQR Ilyas Draft:SQR Ilyas Sunni Council Draft:Sunni Council Syed Bande Ali Husaini Draft:Syed Bande Ali Husaini Syed Mohammad Husaini Draft:Syed Mohammad Husaini Yusuf Islahi Draft:Yusuf Islahi Draft:Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (Was already at draft)

I've requested refund to draft for all article nominated for deletion by Authordom, I'd generally recommend not trying to get these restored to mainspace via DRV as its likely any that could be require movement to mainspace would require improvement first. Most of these will likely left go G13 following 6 months elapse. In addition T. G. Mohandas has re-incarnated. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please note as I read this discussion there is no dispute with even a single close of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.Further I do not see Deletion Review overturning the close as over 10 Admins have closed correctly based on the state of the article and closed based on clear consensus. If someone wants to work with a particular article they can individually make a request. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I did not spend more than about 10 minutes assessing each item in the table above, but there were three cases (marked) which stood out immediately where a review IMO would be appropriate. If consensus is reached on incorrect information, consensus can change; especially where strong tendencies that conflate clean up with AfD are on display.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• If you feel the closure the wrong.Please go to Deletion Review after contacting the closing admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I owe you a 'thank you' for helping us on Asad Madni article by providing us a critical reference about Asad Madni being a longtime member of Indian parliament which I later used to expand the article. Ngrewal1 (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:, I had participated in the AfD discussion of Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi and then I was not possibly aware about how it works, it was only my comment there which saved this article as a draft and also it was my first AfD comment. I am working on the draft though at Draft:Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi. If I had not commented, I do not think that there would have been its draft still intact or that Authordom had not made its way to deletion -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@AaqibAnjum: Best wishes with your efforts. I'm more interested in the 34 I have requested refunds for. I have reFilled that article, try to fill out the foreign language ones more fully. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark Please note that WP:REFUND is only for "... Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions (G6) or rejected Articles for creation drafts (G13)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. Here there was participation in most of the debates have do not think Refund is applicable here in most cases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards ... You seem to have missed the follow-on bit where it says: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". Strictly I could be refused by requiring to goto closer's first: Some might refuse, some might email, some might end up at DRV (for refund purposes): and while the amount of time effort for me will be painful the failure to go a full refund the overall admin effort if the long way round will be far more considerable. But if that is the way it has to be then that is the way it will have to be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD forums being used as weapons

Frankly I feel this discussion is changing into a 'fog' of statistitical analysis and we are getting far away from the REAL problem of some people using AfD India and AfD Pakistan as 'weapons for clean-up' of their perceived opponents' articles and get their work of hundreds-of-hours-of-editing-time deleted or go to waste. I have mentioned this above before in this discussion and I hope that's not being ignored? On this, I agree with User:Goldsztajn that it's becoming a case of 'missing the forest for the trees'. We are getting off-track in this discussion and getting away from the root cause of the problem – which is AfDs being used as weapons and clean-up forums by some people with their own personal agendas. Some people might suggest that then keep going to those forums and keep voting Keep to save your work? Some results are in front of us and are shown above. When it's so super-easy to bring targeted opponent's article to AfD for deletion by some nominators without even bothering to do the required WP:Before properly, and they don't even get in trouble for ignoring it. Then why not? In this highly cynical day and age and people not having enough time, they end up the winners even if they have partial success in hurting the opponent. In my observation and experience, these deletion nominators at least have partial success due to SOME people with 'deletionist frame of mind' roaming around with their 'deletionist pens' to quickly vote Delete rather than waste or spend their time in looking at the article and then coming back and voting. Not all only some people vote like that, in my view. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I see you are very concerned about "winning" on Wikipedia. This is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, and I suggest that you avoid casting aspersions about your fellow voters at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, NinjaRobotPirate, in my 7 years of editing on Wikipedia, in retaliation I have never nominated for deletion not even a single article for deletion. My editing record on Wikipedia should show it. I was trying to point out a real existing problem on Wikipedia so we can all solve it together. I would like us to stop petty bickering back and forth during this real crisis of Corona-virus pandemic with the hope that it ends soon and we all can get back to 'normal'. None of us has seen this kind of deadly serious crisis in our lifetime. It's NOT really the time to battle with each other over small stuff, when we have a real health crisis lockdown all over the world. Hope Wikipedia administration soon can come to a decision on this discussion so we can move on. By the way, this is the first time I am seeing your name on Wikipedia. I don't remember ever communicating or dealing with you before on AfD or anywhere else. So let's leave it at that. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Honestly since I hadn't dealt with you before, I didn't even check to see that you were a Wikipedia administrator before writing my above reply to you . I just now looked at your User page. Nevertheless I meant no disrespect to you in my reply. I'll also be glad to cooperate with you or any other admin. to solve this general AfD problem that I mentioned above today. Like I said above in my earlier comments in this discussion that Authordom has been 'piling up' all these AfDs at both AfD India and AfD Pakistan which resulted in 10 'Keeps' and 11 'Deletes' after AfD discussions (taking a quick look at nominations table above). So he had me 'working my tail off' trying to save my own work within last few weeks. Why would I want to 'battle' with him or anybody else for that matter. That's not my previous history on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ngrewal1 I can understand your frustrations as feeling as having to spend too much time at (on defence) at AfD is mentally draining; and a five minute WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination could result in a multi-hour rescue. However the fact an article needs rescue often (not always) is because it is poorly sourced, cites poorly embellished (especially if non-English), and plain looks wrong, and not protected from link-rot. 90% of the time if it looks right and looks well sourced a WP:VAGUEWAVE nominator won't go near it. While I share your concern some people may be nominating articles relating to the Indian subcontinent on factional lines, and perhaps doing other stuff on the same basis, it is important not to cast allegations unless there is hard evidence. In the case of this ANI I see indicators that seem to me like they warrant further scrutiny. In all events I've just issued you with a Ds/alert reminder and quite frankly I'd pretty well possibly want to consider doing that for everyone in this discussion if I had time but I have to avoid incorrectly issuing any.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate: I've seen no evidence that Ngrewal1 has made comments with a battleground mentality here. My experience to date of that editor is that they are quite even-handed and respectful. That editor expressed frustration that evidence presented here has been ignored and the key issue raised regarding Authordom's behaviour at AfD is not being addressed. As far as I can see this is your first intervention in this discussion and by only remonstrating that editor it does appear to reinforce exactly the kind of issue with which they were frustrated. This incident was raised over a specific editor's actions at AfD, with at least four editors (myself included with AaqibAnjum, Ngrewal1 and Irshadpp) in clear concurrence. (I have not counted a fifth editor whose comments were the result of a CANVASS or the admin who indicated tentative concern). Two editors (Pharaoh of the Wizards and Aman.kumar.goel) dismissed the claims (although neither addressed the substantive evidence of bias), one editor (Djm-leighpark) has proposed a closure (although this lacked consensus), the editor who is the subject of concern here has not responded, other than with two single sentence demands. Llywrch, the admin who earlier engaged on this, wrote above: "...apparently nominated in good faith, but were actually examples of an ongoing issue with Wikipedia. If this tendentious pattern can be confirmed, then we have good grounds to ban Authordom from nominating articles for deletion for an indefinite period." It would be helpful if we could focus on following up on that. Thank you,--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Similarity with some blocked users

I have to raise another issue here. Nothing but about similarity of editing pattern of users MalayaliWoman, ArtsRescuer and Authordom. MalayaliWoman has been blocked on 20 April 2019 for sock puppetry. User ArtsRescuer too blocked for sock puppetry on 24 May 2016. Authordom registered on 09 July 2019, and started editing on 08 August 2019. Here I can list some similarities.

• K.A. Siddique Hassan
  • AFD request by MalayaliWoman (Reason: A Kerala based Islamist. I think the article not notable)
  • AFD request by Authordom (Reason: Non notable Indian Islamist. The subject has some coverage on internet but not qualify to keep it)
• Ansariya Public school
  • AFD request by MalayaliWoman (Reason: Non notable Islamic school) Compare the reason in most of AFDs raised by Authordom
• Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna
  • AFD request by ArtsRescuer (Reason: Notability)
  • AFD request by Authordom (Reason: Non notable Islamic seminary)
• Mujtaba Farooq
  • AFD request by ArtsRescuer (Reason: Notability, Autobiography)
  • AFD request by Authordom (Reason: A politician linked by a non notable Islamist political party)
• Mohiaddin Alwaye
  • AFD request MalayaliWoman (Reason: Promotional article)
• The Markaz
  • AFD request MalayaliWoman (Reason: Non notable cultural center, created by an user related to the organization, Alyssalevantinecenter, also read Alyssa Levantine Center)
• Darul Huda Islamic University
  • AFD request MalayaliWoman (Reason: Non-notable Islamic seminary based on Chemmad, led by Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. The seminary doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. But the seminary does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or CBSE or CISCE the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is a recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable)
  • This also will be useful to compare pattern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irshadpp (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
• Al Jamia Al Islamiya
  • AFD request by ArtsRescuer (Reason: Citation needed and Wikipedia:Notability)
• Thelitcham monthly
  • AFD request by ArtsRescuer(Reason: Notability)
  • by MalayaliWoman (Not clear)
• Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi
  • AFD request @MalayaliWoman: (Reason: I would like to nominate the article for deletion, because no notability. The man is the self declared vice chancellor of a unaccredited and degree mill institution name as Darul Huda Islamic University)

There are behavior of adding multiple issue template in same pattern found. This also to be verified and action to be taken.--Irshadpp (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn thanks for returning the discussion to what the discussion was meant for. Meanwhile Irshadpp has come up with a new issue. I've though checked out a few, these need to be analysed carefully so that we can come to any right decision regarding Authordom - another page P.K. Mohammed has been nominated for deletion by SHISHIR DUA claiming Nominating for speedy deletion, non notable - Authordom while commenting on the same writes, I think he is one of the missing persons in Kerala as per reliable sources. No more notability. Actually he is not listed in the official list of Missing Persons published by Kerala Police. - when I did a normal google search, there was very much independent content available about him and thus I voted Speedy Keep. The only thing I can assume about the comment of Authordom on this deletion is due to the point that P.K. Mohammed's wife had filled a petition against A.P. Aboobacker Musaliyar - the man who Authordom promotes a lot. These things be analysed. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 10:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Response from Authordon appreciated

@Authordom: Near the start of this discussion you requested sources be required to support the concern which evolved around good faith concerns of a non-neutral possible Ahle Sunnat wa Jama'at/Barelvi agenda. Such an agenda would I believe be a breach of Wikipedia:5P2, namely "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". Goldsztajn has presented a series of AfD nominations you have made that that seem to align with that concern. I hope you can understand the concerns and as you have asked for sources/supporting evidence I would appreciate, as might others, your response to such concerns. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A876

• A876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, A876 made this change to the main MOS page. Afterwards, three separate editors (not even myself, despite being the one who reverted the initial edit) brought this up on his talk page at User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes (again). The edit in question introduced a ton of changes, almost all of which were cosmetic, making it difficult to find what the substantive changes were (if there were any). And this has been an ongoing problem for years and years. And since those 3 editors all echoing the same concern, A876 made 3 more changes over the past couple days (diffs: again to the main MOS page, [23], and [24]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

• changing the capitalization of template names or changing them to bypass common shortcuts
• changing the capitalization of links that are piped
• changing the spacing around the equals signs in section headers
• removing the ignored blank line after a section header
• changing <br /> to <br/>
• removing extra, unrendered whitespace, especially after sentence-ending periods
• etc.

Normally, I'd bring this up with A876 first, but after seeing that this has been done many times by many different people already, I see no real point in doing so. So, I'm bringing it up here in the hopes that it will have an effect this time. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:A876 has been alerted to the MOS discretionary sanctions, a few hours ago. If they continue to edit the MOS while making no response to the concerns expressed here, an admin would have the option of banning them from editing the MOS under the WP:ARBATC sanctions. Before that step could be considered, we might need more background than what has been given above. For example, evidence for "an ongoing problem for years and years". EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that one of the edits was to the MOS was incidental; the core of the problem is that other editors have been complaining about these edits for years and that A876 refuses to heed these complaints. Their talk page is a good record of the problem. If they even bother to respond at all, it's of the "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not changing" variety, especially considering that they've continued to make these kinds of changes right after multiple editors brought these up with no response from A876. I'm just on my way to bed now; if you or others want more specific pointers to specific complaints and responses, I'll add those in the morning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I am tempted to simply "continue to edit the MOS while making no response to the concerns expressed here", thereby letting "an admin [have] the option of banning [me] from editing the MOS". (EdJohnston seems to acknowledge the abject pettiness of this complaint, in specifying a condition-for and a scope-of punishment. It would be annoying to be locked out of MoS for helping, but that might not meet the tarring and feathering that some of "the editors who actually write the encyclopedia", "content builders", and other "real" contributors (as they've condescendingly identified themselves to me) might demand.) I regard the reverts of my MoS edit by Deacon Vorbis as unnecessary and therefore inappropriate (didn't like?), and the unexplained reverts made since-then to two of my non-MoS edits as unjustified hostile retaliation to make a point and punish, detrimental to the Mission.

I don't know why some few reach out to disparage, wasting more of their time than they'll ever save, and wasting more of my time than I willingly give.

Afterward, only two "separate" (sic) editors commented. (Their surgical separation was successful?) Maybe I'll reply there. They raised little new. "The edit pattern is baffling." (Geekdiva) Funny. They don't have to understand; I don't have to explain. Nonetheless, I've already explained. If they figure it out, they'll learn something.

• "mostly inappropriate changes" (edit comment). None could be called "inappropriate". None broke anything. Many were unambiguous improvements. Many were explained in edit comments (q.v.).
• "... introduced a ton of changes ..." Some editors do a hundred edits on the same article, saving after every few words, few sentences, or few minutes. (Talk about wasting resources.) I prefer to do one big edit. Sometimes a touch-up. Sometimes a catch-up after editing a related page. Surely reviewing 50 same-day near-edits by the same editor is more tedious and more error-prone than reviewing one big edit.
• "almost all of which were cosmetic, ..." (Well, over half were "cosmetic".) I made "real" changes. "Cosmetic" edits do not disqualify an edit and do not justify compound-reverting reasonable work, unless the edit actually "hurts" the page by bloating it with irrational markup.
• "... making it difficult to find ..." It's not that hard. Once and it's over. No one will "fix" those things again.
• "... what the substantive changes were (if there were any)" That is devastatingly insincere. The "substantive changes" were described and obvious.
• "Some of the changes made are okay," Okay. "but they are filled with pointless ones..." Each one had a point. Some are substantial, some are cosmetic. Some are subtle. I expect clear markup, so I put clear markup. Moving the anchors up to where they are recommended to be helps people arriving from shortcuts. It is small but not trivial.
• Cosmetic-only edits are discouraged, but there is no mandate to revert even one of those (unless it does real damage). I've warned other editors who did a lot of these, but I have never reverted one, even when I didn't like what they did.
• "there were a couple [of] changes within that great clump that I did think were necessary" (Geekdiva) Correct! But some would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
• "Not broke", but "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." (essay) It helped a little.
• I expect legible and consistent markup when I do any editing. When markup is inconsistent, I change it. The important result of editing is good markup (secondary to good content). Diffs? Someone doesn't like my diffs? Diffs are tertiary. Still, I pay some attention to what the "diffs" look like. They are legible and comprehensible.
• The main MOS page recommends 1RR if not 0RR. You reverted two harmless beneficial edits.

- A876 (talk)

I've blocked A876 for 24 hours for pointedly continuing to restore contested copy edits while this ANI complaint was still being discussed, just as the above post threatened to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

To follow up a bit from last night, here are just some threads on A876's talk page which are relevant:

• User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes
• User talk:A876#Capitals
• User talk:A876#Leap second
• User talk:A876#Please don't make changes that don't affect the rendered text (re RS-232)

The pattern is clear. Many editors have repeatedly explained why these sorts of changes are problematic. But A876 simply responds with why they don't agree ... at length. The other editor(s) eventually give up or don't follow up. Wait 6 months, or a year, or a couple years. Repeat.

I think these exchanges confirm, as I said above, that A876's basic attitude is "I'm right; you're wrong; I'm going to just do what I want anyway." Their response here even echoes that. Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages (and which many people don't even agree with) is disruptive, even if substantive changes are made during the same edit. As others have pointed out, it wastes editors' time trying to sift through the changes to see if any of the substantive ones were problematic. And A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted, either. There are reasons why policies like WP:COSMETICBOT even exist in the first place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like NinjaRobotPirate will take action if the problem continues, and I would be happy to investigate and see if admin action would be appropriate if the problem continues. That is, I think this can be closed with an invitation to draw my attention to any ongoing concerns. @A876: Please note that irritating other editors is not compatible with a long-term future at Wikipedia. Perhaps they are wrong and your tweaks are great, but it would be still be better to find something else to do because a glance at your talk page shows that you are irritating other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Deacon Vorbis, and think that this is a bit more serious than "irritating" other editors. Just reading some of those talk page discussions in the past is more like infuriating other editors - making pointless changes, then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless? Really? Really? While "refuses to stop making pointless style changes that don't even render to users" is a really dumb reason to be disciplined, the message of "don't do this" clearly hasn't taken hold. A876, you are NOT improving Wikipedia with tons of pointless wikitext style format changes, you are wasting other editor's time and peeving editors who have a preferred style that you're overwriting. This message clearly has not broken through. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 2:

•NinjaRobotPirate imposed a 24-hour block on me "just as the above post threatened to do". (Objections: The original post "threatened" no such thing. The comment that followed "threatened" something else. The block does not say which edit triggered it. Deacon Vorbis and I had stopped "edit-warring" long before the block was imposed on (only) me. The block blocked me from commenting here.) The interesting word is "threatened". Maybe admins should simply order me what not to do, in order to save Wikipedia from me. I would be obliged to comply with an order. Maybe that's how Wikipedia needs to be "run", by a hierarchy using threats and orders.

•I think this has escalated from "I don't like it", "It annoys Me", and "Stop it stop it stop it!" (with the mighty added backing of "You're breaking the RUWELLS!") to "Mommy, make them stop!", and possibly "Daddy, hurt them now!" I sense an urgency to reign in my outrageous disrespect and bring me to heel, by adults who would "discipline" other adults.

•These cycles usually start after one of my edits, with a casual flick of the Undo button, and persistence. It has graduated this time to a flick of the Crucify button.

•Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages... For the class of improper capitalization immediately after "[[" but before "|", it's hard to discover the ones which do "affect the rendering of" the page (true miscapitalizations) without addressing the ones "which don't affect the rendering of" the page. Capitalizing consistently with the context of the word is always right, whether there is a "|" or not. Unnecessary capitalization immediately after "[[" makes reading harder, and using "the pipe trick" cannot even create that condition in a piped link.

•... (and which many people don't even agree with) ... Well, there certainly are a highly outspoken few. Almost every editor doesn't know what I did; most who know don't care; most who care agree; most who don't agree don't disagree; most who disagree aren't annoyed; most who are annoyed get over it; those who can't get over it compound-revert and/or complain. I never complain about their misdeeds except in edit summaries (e.g. "Don't re-break it. Don't compound-revert. Don't edit to make a point. Don't erase other editors.") and in replies to their objections. There are lots of things I "don't even agree with" that I don't mess with.

•... is disruptive, ... Maybe it is disruptive. And maybe compound-reverting is more disruptive. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing only talks about "content". However, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary says a lot about reverting, that fits quite closely: It says "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad..." "...your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit". "Even if you find [that] an article was slightly better before an edit, [don't revert]." "Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality..." "Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." It is quite clear to me that every revert done to my edits over "mostly unnecessary", etc. changes went against the spirit of Wikipedia in several ways, and deserves be dissuaded, loudly. Other editors who are annoyed by my "mostly unsubstantive", "mostly pointless", "mostly unnecessary" changes are entitled to [express their objections on my talk page] and [express their objections here on WP:ANI], and I am entitled to reply. I have replied, usually friendly, sometimes argumentative, and usually annoyed when they did reverts. Nothing mandates anyone to revert my changes; and several statements strongly urge editors never to do so. Does scanning a few dozen touch-ups hurt them that badly? Can't they "take one for the team" (as obliged) and allow "an editor [to] enjoy the fruits of his crimes", rather than grow indignant, ask me not to, tell me not to, belittle me, revert, persist in reverting, and complain? I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert. I make the markup as consistent as I can, at the expense of creating a one-time "annoying" diff.

•even if substantive changes are made during the same edit. However, WP:COSMETICBOT says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Okay, they "should not usually be done on their own" (doesn't say "must not", not even here), and I never do them "on their own". Even one "substantive change" puts an edit into the "may be allowed" category. (Sadly it uses weasel-words "may be" instead of "is".)

•... trying to sift through the changes to see [whether] any of the substantive ones were problematic is more of auditing, not editing. How many people "sift" and audit every change? How many watchers does each page have? Maybe I really am collapsing Wikipedia under the burden of all my "fiddling" if, for example, 100 people review each of my edits.

•A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted... First of all, it's a consistency thing. Most articles consistently use no-space; inconsistent articles mostly use no-space. I recently found something on Wikipedia urging no-space, to prevent line-breaks from awkwardly putting the closing "==" at the beginning of a line, when the line is made long by multiple {Anchor}s. (Do you actually prefer with-spaces, or are you lawyering for a silent majority that actually cares and "prefers" them?)

•I am irritating other editors. Oops, add infuriating other editors when I reply in defense my actions. I wish it wasn't that way. Let me try to rewrite that in E-Prime. Whenever someone edits a page, Wikipedia saves a new version. Anyone can examine a "difference" report between any two versions of any page. Some editors file standing orders that make Wikipedia tell them whenever someone edits specific pages. When I edit a page, I edit in markup-view. I make my changes. I like to fix as many details as possible in each edit. I also look at the markup. Because I have to edit through the markup. I find serious discomfort ignoring ugly markup and submitting ugly markup. I call "ugly" any markup that does not match other markup on the same page, markup on other pages, or my general concept of correct and current markup. I mostly reject unnecessary variations of some forms. I tolerate some variations of some forms. The final markup is freer of distracting, meaningless variations of form. I try to make the markup match, as close I (quickly) can, the markup that I would expect to find when I open the page for editing, free from randomness, accidents, and variations introduced by multiple editors. As a side-effect, the resulting "diff"s often include multiple changes that are not visible on the rendered page. Some editors carefully examine every edit of some pages. Some editors take annoyance at seeing multiple non-impactful edits. They correctly state that my edit makes [a little] more [one-time] work for them, when they examine the diff to make very sure that none of the non-rendering changes did any damage to the rendered contents. They dislike a lengthy "diff" despite it resulting from a better page.

•making pointless changes,... All are pointful, directly and indirectly. Calling them pointless does not make them pointless. I explained the points several times. Not agreeing with the points does not justify saying "pointless".

•[and] then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless[.] I only said "hypocrisy" in one context. I tell those who revert that they are wrong, because they are. I tell them they are wronger than they think I am, because they are. Reversion is not the way. (See above.) The entire edit is never pointless; it always includes "substantive" changes, so undoing them is a "compound revert". Undoing is not mandatory, is not recommended, and is strongly advised against.

•Really? Really? Really. Really. Even if the change actually was "pointless" (here taken to mean "did nothing substantive"), reverting it is just as pointless, plus it is more wrong, because it actually is wrong, for multiple reasons.

•Like everyone here, I don't set out to annoy people. But other people sometimes take annoyance with any of us. What I have been doing is sensible, at least to me and I don't know who else. I am surer now that it is allowable. I am surer now that one should revert such edits. I have tried to answer objections. I might go through and address the latest list of crimes. I refute arguments that apply the wrong rules, condescend, insult, attack, abuse, and repeat false arguments; are insincere (pretend not to see the obvious); claim that random variations of markup spacing somehow represent individuals' "preferences"; or claim that reducing randomness "has no benefit" (it improves readability to find real errors; it makes text-searches less likely to fail). The credible objections allege that my tidying is not worthy of their effort to review/verify/check/audit the one-time hairy edit – it annoys them so much they ask me to stop and/or argue me to stop; some deem it so worthless that they stop mid-review and revert the edit, and persist in that reversion, as if that helps and/or delivers deserved punishment. Perhaps I should not do things that "annoy" others – not make adjustments that some "don't like" and object to – especially not annoy outspoken and "important" editors by cleaning up "important" articles. I don't want to annoy anyone. I already pay significant attention to keep my diffs readable – they could be much worse. The prospect of never cleaning up the crap that so many pages "are comprised of" is quite painful. MediaWiki could (and arguably should) automatically apply a set of adjustments similar to mine. MediaWiki should fully understand its syntax, fully parse every page at edit-time, and replace most optional variations with the one preferred form, leaving minimal randomness and no undetected malformed pages. - A876 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was quite the wall of text. Let me try and be brief and hit the two major points.

"I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert."

A876, you're an editor just like everyone else. Your edits are not specially blessed. Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place) or take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). Claiming your edits are always fine but reverts are pointless is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. (That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) If you want to do this as a WikiGnome wander-by "helper", stop. WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless, invisible-to-readers, preferred Wikitext style imposition. And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@A876: That wall of text is unreadable. The situation is simple: if you continue to fiddle with wikilinks or spacing or anything at all that is inconsequential while making drive-by edits, you will be blocked indefinitely (until making a statement indicating an understanding of the problem, with a plausible commitment to avoid further problems in the future). Feel free to ask (in a brief question) why an editor is not free to edit articles to enforce their standards when they have not significantly created the content, but attempts to justify that activity will not be successful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 3

•... Your edits are not specially blessed. No one's are. Edits are one thing. However, reversions are specially cursed, so to speak.

•Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place)... My edits are neither random nor interference. Reversion is random interference. Multiple editors revert with impunity (anyone not criticizing that is at fault) and/or criticize (some abrasively), and one even complained.

•or [else] take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). False dichotomy. I never argued for anarchy. I do a grain of policing; I value the work of those who dedicate time to it. At-whim reversion is a free-for-all. Wikipedia is not Tinder.

•Claiming your edits are always fine... I made no such claim. I've learned from post-edits and reverts when someone reasonably felt that I had damaged an article or could have done better.

•but reverts are pointless... Correct summary in specific cases. Reversion of "mostly pointless" changes is worse than pointless.

•is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Not a newbie. Not a warrior. And I never made that re-cast "argument".

•Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. So editing markup is okay, if I do "a lot of" "real" editing? What is the quota?

•(That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) Is it? I was just told "A876 is not the arbiter...". WP:COSMETICBOT still says "in an edit that also includes a substantive change." ("a" is a very short, simple word.)

•If you want to do this as a WikiGnome... (thank you)

•wander-by "helper",... (insult, and scare-quoted sarcastic insult)

•stop. (Advice, or the command I have awaited.)

•WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes... (prejudicial)

•like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless,... (prejudicial)

•invisible-to-readers,... (again, not all. the process catches many improper capitalizations. every change is visible to editors. and beneficial if you value the markup over the "diff".)

•preferred Wikitext style imposition. I mostly impose uniformity, and not absolutely. I apply a small grain of preference, usually in the direction of the examples given in the documentation (casing of templates, etc.). "Wikitext style" is almost funny. Oh I'd be so hurt; I added a section "== NewSection ==", which means it shall be "== NewSection ==" forever; that is my style and my section; nobody shall ever dare disrespect me by changing it to "==NewSection=="; and I'm so validated and grateful when someone puts it back (sarcasm).

•And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. It's rarely one "real" change. What then is the quota? Two? Equal numbers?

•That wall of text is unreadable. I know, tl;dr. Of course. "That wall of text" refuted every point. (ps Should I add that expression under thought-terminating cliché?) Closing one's eyes preserves PoV.

•The situation is simple: if you continue to fiddle... (cheap insult)

•with wikilinks or spacing or anything at all that is inconsequential... (inaccurate and insult)

•while making drive-by edits,... (again insult - such condescension!) I always intend in principle to get back and possibly do more on any page I edit. I rarely get around to it, but that is another story. Sorry, I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. I edit to make real changes, and I chip away at cruft that is uncomfortable to see and embarrassing to save. Should I be sorry for not valuing diffs over the markup?

•you will be blocked indefinitely... (the threat, at long last.) (passive voice. try "an administrator will block you indefinitely.")

•... Feel free to ask (in a brief question) why an editor is not free to edit articles to enforce their standards... Well, editors are "free"; they are pre-warned that "all of [their] contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." (and criticized) and, as with any freedom (ps free moral agency), they should be prepared to face the consequences of any actual misdeeds and crimes (ps that it is possible for them to commit).

•when they have not significantly created the content,... This evokes a grain of sympathy. Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords, recasts, or reformats "their" work (even though these actions are virtually promised). (ps When 8 people have "significantly created" and 33 people have maintained an article using 11 to 25 different "styles" of markup, none of them should be lastingly irked if and when the 25 "styles" get constrained down to 4. But then someone looks at the diff, doesn't like it, reverts it or doesn't, and rationalizes why I am wrong and they are right.) I've never liked the notion that there are classes of editors, as if some have worth as a person and some do not. Some articles are built or elevated by minuscule edits, but most construction surely comes from people who are informed, skillful, concerned, and have the time. Like all who linger here, I have some of those four qualities, to some extent, some of the time. Even those who value "fun" above "substantial" contribution are tolerated.

•but attempts to justify that activity will not be successful. And I thank you for keeping an open mind. I've basically mentioned the rules. I'm waiting for someone impartial to advise those who revert like it's a right, do it when it is not needed, and then complain, all over something they "don't like", to tolerate and optionally criticize, but in most cases simply leave it alone. Or at least consider without deference to other admins or to the plaintiff(s), my outspoken "betters". Should I be in a race to say "get over it" before others tell me to "get over it"? To complain before others complain? Or just be faulted for persisting, by others who persist. – A876 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the above whether A876 has yet digested the message but I would like to comment on the second-last point with Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords.... That response to my when they have not significantly created the content misses the point, namely, that creators of content are welcome to set a style which others should not change without good reason. If someone creates an article using dmy date formats, others are not free to change it to mdy without good reason such as, that an article on a US topic would normally use mdy. That principle applies to all styles—someone copy editing an article is not free to change its existing style without good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A876, I've never interacted with you before this, and never reverted you. If you are "waiting for someone impartial", then congratulations, you have found one here. Unless by "impartial" you mean "agrees with you." Your interpretation of WP:COSMETICBOT is incorrect, and no amount of voluminous text is going to change that. 99.99% of editors don't need to be taken to this noticeboard on this issue, so hopefully you can understand that even if you think you're "right", in terms of actual community impact, you are stirring up trouble when others are not. You say above that you want to be told to stop, so... please stop. You are "fixing" a non-problem. Let the 25 clashing styles be. It doesn't matter. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

Under the discretionary sanctions for COVID-19 related pages, I propose a temporary block on User:Ythlev, who made a rapid, repeated series of major edits on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland and has not made a serious effort to participate in structured discussion of his/her proposed edit:

• First removal of a map (and replacement with an alternative map) without an edit comment and without seeking prior consensus;
• second removal;
• third removal; third removal;
• fourth removal;

This formally violates WP:3RR - four removals of major contributions by other editors on the same article within 24 hours. Independently, there are discretionary sanctions in place for all the COVID-19 related articles. Boud (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Boud, that's only three edits. The second and third edits in your list are the same diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

My error. Fixed. Now I see that the third "removal" was not actually a removal; it created hidden-by-default, viewable-with-a-click maps, but Ythlev didn't give an edit summary to explain. I'm not fully convinced that a block is necessary; it depends whether Ythlev intends to continue aggressive editing of a COVID-19 page without letting the active editors come to consensus. Edit summaries and using the talk page to concentrate on arguments for/against are what are needed. There's also a problem with others having to tidy up proper attribution for using ODbL data, but a block would not solve that. Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It would seem that if the issues are solely on COVID-19 pages then a topic ban would probably be more appropriate than a temporary block, I’m not sure thats necessary though from what I see here and in Ythlev’s edit history. Do you have any examples of disruptive behavior on pages other than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No; his/her edits (per capita maps) seem to have been accepted on several other COVID-19 pages with no obvious objections. I get the feeling that Ythlev has been involved in some edit conflicts on Taiwan/China issues, but that's a separate topic. Maybe if @Ythlev: joined in the discussion here the temperature might cool sufficiently... :) Boud (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: does not seem to be willing to apologise for making a personal attack "in front of" the other participants at the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page - the point is not so much for me personally, it's rather to make others feel willing to participate without fearing aggression. Nor does s/he seem willing to come here and discuss with uninvolved admins present: @Grandpallama and Horse Eye Jack: (I didn't actually check, but I'm guessing you're admins since you're watching this page), but s/he does seem to have accepted that there's a structured decision-making procedure ongoing. See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland#New map?. I think that if things remain constructive for another few days, then this incident should probably be closed. (I do admit being puzzled how someone can be unwilling to apologise for having made a personal attack.) Boud (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't think any admin has yet commented in this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a recidivism problem: Ythlev thinks that s/he can make a major edit that is contrary to a proposal presently under discussion, without waiting for consensus. So I think again that either a block, a topic ban, or a ban for Ythlev using this particular page is needed, so that s/he gets the message that Wikipedia is not about "the strongest and fastest wins". S/he still hasn't had the elementary politeness of apologising for saying that I had an "obsession" about orders of magnitude (the topic is pandemic-related, in which orders of magnitude are a key element of the whole crisis; otherwise it would have been just a minor local news story limited to Wuhan, not a pandemic.) Boud (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, 3RR has not been violated. There needs to be 4 reverts in 24 hours. Both Boud and Ythlev claim their changes represent consensus. I can't figure out which of them is right at this time. The best thing might be to go back to the status quo ante version while the content dispute is being resolved — if need be, through whatever dispute resolution request participants see fit. El_C 19:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:. Since there are active community-authorised discretionary sanctions, this doesn't have to require 3RR for sanctions: admins have quite some leeway. The ongoing discussion on the page is actually close to consensus, it's just not quite there yet. As long as Ythlev can be a bit more patient, chances are we'll get to consensus soon. The problem is if s/he again tries to force the issue. Boud (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, I am prepared to partially block both of you, if the edit war continues, so please stick to the status quo ante version in the meantime, whatever it is. El_C 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I'm glad you're staying neutral and not biased in my favour. :) I think it is clear what the status quo ante version is. Boud (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Some context here...I thought Ythlev would remain wholly productive in all COVID-19 matters not related to Greater China, as he has indeed created multiple cases per capita maps sub-nationally. But, he has engaged in disruptive conduct (to include blatant WP:FORUMSHOPing) in MOS matters, as I have mentioned previously, also re-instating MOS changes less than 12 hours ago. This is well after his being notified of DS application to MOS matters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Recurrence of serious vandalism on band articles by User:188.141.87.103

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

---

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

188.141.87.103 is prolifically vandalising band articles to add false information such as the band re-forming or its line-up changing. Examples are Skid Row (Irish band), 801 (band), The Power Station (band) and List of Thin Lizzy members. Looking at his/her block log you will see that the user was blocked for six months on 27 September 2019 – the same day that Skid Row (Irish band) was protected for six months because of 188.141.87.103's persistent vandalism there. The block and the protection expired a few days ago and the user is now making it clear that he/she is going to continue vandalising that and numerous other articles until somebody puts a stop to it. Scolaire (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This guy is simply making things up on a depressingly regular basis, and is clearly not going to stop. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year by Bbb23. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:ValequezBot

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

---

I don't know much about bots, but there is a two or three day old account that is purporting to make bot edits. They aren't that helpful, for example there is this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see an approval for this bot. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

​​Greetings, I’m the operator of the bot. I was running a few tests in order to see if any bugs were present. I’ve been developing the bot for some time now but something happened with the coding, Wikipedia was open in the background and the bot somehow gained acces to it. It made 4 unconstructive edits and I wasn’t able to shut it down, I tried to delete the code which resulted in my computer crashing. I’m sorry about all the inconvenience which was caused by my bot. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Bot blocked. The explanation sounds strange to me, but it might just be the phrasing of the explanation that makes an understandable mistake sound strange. A bot does not "somehow gain access". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez: You might want to go over to WP:BRFA to get a bot approved. Thanks! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

​You may as well block the bot, I’ve already deleted it’s code. I just want to state that I don’t know much about bots myself. I only wrote a small portion of the code, I’m not that good of a programmer. That’s probably what caused the bot to make the unconstructive edits. I replaced some of the code and tried to make it clear that “helo” was meant to be “hello” during a test, then the bot started to change every word with “hello”. I wasn’t intending to vandalize anything. Sorry for the inconvenience, Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Puddleglum2.0:, the code wasn’t complete yet. Rodrigo Valequez^(🗣) 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Esme frost – persistent addition of unsourced content to WP:BLPs

Report kicked from WP:AIV. Esme frost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is guilty of repeated persistent addition of unsourced, WP:CRYSTAL-contra and MOS-contra content to WP:BLPs, pretty much for over a year now, contrary to both WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP (as well as WP:FILMOGRAPHY). I have issued multiple warnings (both through edit summaries and to their Talk page), and pleaded for them to stop, to no avail. In addition, this editor has never once posted to a Talk page or User talk page – WP:Communication is required. At this point, I think only a block will to stop the disruption and get their attention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Legality of bestiality by country or territory: Germany

There's a dispute about the legal status of bestiality in Germany that has already run for two months now (29 January to 28 March on talk page). I had contacted WP:DRN in the middle of it, which didn't help resolve the issue (quickly closed, re-opened following my request, discussion began, automatically archived away after moderator disappeared into nowhere, re-surrected following mine and other requests, no one new volunteered to moderate it, hence declared as failed by me, re-opened by someone else to at least prepare an RfC) [25]. The following WP:RfC brought hardly input from editors who had not been involved already anyway; it didn't resolve the dispute. [26] The article was reset to the pre-dispute state by so. else [27] but User:Delderd would not accept it and an edit war (which I had avoided whenever my edits had been reverted before) occurred between him and me.

The underlying issue is that the law in question is worded ambigously and there is conflicting news coverage about the legal situation in Germany, with superficial English news sources mostly suggesting that it would be illegal, whereas the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany explained in a rejection of an appeal against the law that the prohibition only applies when the animal is forced with physical violence or similarily. Both the German primary source and multiple German secondary sources are available, including a nation-wide news paper and multiple sources specializing in law. Additionally available is German news coverage of a verdict where someone was not convicted of bestiality although proven to have committed it, which clearly stated that there is no law against this (person was fined, but only for trespassing). Sources with quotations for convenience in this diff: [28]. There is no single source that would show that anyone has been convicted for bestiality without injuring or forcing an animal violently.

Two users who obviously do not understand German and apparently have no connection to Germany are only (User:Shiloh6555, edits) or mainly (User:Delderd, edits) here at Wikipedia to fight about this, either do not accept or misreperesent the German sources and don't accept going back to the pre-dispute situation either.

My suggestion for a sad compromise – mark the situation in Germany as disputed in the article – was said to be impossible at WP:DRN.

How to solve this quickly and finally?

(Sorry that this report is so long, but this thing already went on for two months. The issue is long.) – Ocolon (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany.

in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.

time

bbc•

Thelocal.de

meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal.

Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal.

furthermore, their old edits on the zoophilia article (“not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality“), and their recent statement about it being "original research" that animals can't consent to sex with humans, has me questioning their objectivity on the subject. Delderd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No original research. I provided numerous sources, including quotations [29]. There has never ever been a dispute that the Federal Constitutional Court rejected an appeal against the law! This is a total distraction. Why did it reject the appeal though? Because the law only bans forced bestiality and that is justified. The Federal Constitutional Court explains this in their press release for example [30] and it is also in the secondary sources I provided. Here is hoping that someone at this noticeboard can read German, because this is about German law and the German Federal Constitutional Court.

Side note concerning Delderd's links – The AP quotes the law as to be about forcing the animal and that protecting animals from sexual assaults is legitimate. No dispute there. The same in the BBC article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. The same in the TIME article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. Nevertheless I do recognize that the overall impression of these superficial, short, English articles may be misleading. This is why it is important to look at the thorough German sources I provided.

Delderd getting personal instead of staying on topic is inappropriate. – Ocolon (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

how is it off topic when the subject is bestiality? you're trying to sound impartial here when your previous comments suggest a bias towards the issue. Delderd (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue is still part of an active "request for comments" dispute process. The page has been locked until April 9th. I suggest we allow the RFC to continue until then. I also feel this should then be settled on "wikipedia policy." The issue should come down to best verifiable news sources that support either claim. As opposed to trying to reach a consensus based on our own interpretations. So what would be the next stage? Shiloh6555 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• The long-standing version of the table should be used if the outcome of the RfC was no consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be based on the best available sources as per wikipedia's content policies. I think an outside editor(s) should decide which version best fits with Wikipedia's policies. Shiloh6555 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What's an "outside editor"? There is no version that will be allowed after the RfC gets closed with the no consensus except the version that was before the dispute. The status quo ante version.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

aka the version you voted for even though it has less votes. Delderd (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the version that was before the RfC. Before the dispute see WP:STATUSQUO. Also, the amount of !votes don't count.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Delderd: I'm uninvolved here, so I'll just note that both statements by SharabSalam are correct. You can review WP:NOCON for the controlling policy on the outcomes of no consensus discussions. RFCs are !votes so it is strength of argument and not headcount that is important. Otherwise I have no opinion either as to the underlying dispute or as how closer should currently assess consensus. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the above, this is a content dispute and hence fundamentally not an WP:ANI matter. It looks as though this discussion would benefit from a formal WP:CLOSE; which you can in the future request at WP:ANRFC instead, as repeatedly making request for closure here will be viewed as disruptively seeking to jump to the front of the line. Hopefully the attention the RFC receives as a result of this will allow a clearer consensus to develop. Aside from that do not edit war, edit warring is inherently disruptive. Wait until the discussion is closed and abide by the consensus. Even if you disagree with the result drop the stick, and work on something else. Now, WP:CCC but even following poorly attended no consensus RFCs it's usually best to avoid disruption by waiting at least a few months before starting a new RFC to make a similar change unless there is a very good reason for doing so. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Unless any administrator objects, I am happy to review and close the RfC; and will attempt to do so in the next 24 hours. (Non-administrator comment) - Ryk72 ^talk 04:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note. I was not part of this editwar. Six days ago there was an editwar between two editors and I decided to revert to the stable version before the dispute happened but I was reverted and I didn't make any revert after I was reverted. I noticed a technical error in that article and went to WP:TVP and reported it (see here and here for more details). After that, in WP:TVP they suggested that I replace flag icons with emojis. I went to the article and replaced the image icons with emojis and I got reverted by Shiloh6555 without even an explanation here so I reverted back and asked for explanation for this revert. I am not part of this editwar. I just made my opinion in that RfC based on discussion of the RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mein Liebchen

-EEng

I started the RFC at the request of some of the parties, after no one mediated the dispute at DRN. My main thought is that any claim that any particular German has been engaged in bestiality is probably a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I for one would welcome a Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I believe this whole matter should be solved using existing Wikipedia policies regarding Verifiability and reliable sources. In every other case in this Wikipedia article. A single citation to a reliable news source is enough.Yet in Germany's case, reliable news sources are being openly disputed! So again I'd welcome having a neutral editor versed in Wikipedia's guidelines to perhaps close the rfc and issue a statement regarding what edit should prevail. I just don't want to see a constant edit edit war over this. As Ocolon has already threatened to do in his own talk page on this matter. Shiloh6555 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections to my comment above, where I indicated an intent to close, I am now drafting a closing statement. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the RfC; including an extended rationale. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Even having read your rationale, which is a serious attempt, I do not understand how you could come to the conclusion that there would be a consensus in the RfC. The discussion is clearly split. Your rationale would be very fine as a founded opinion in the RfC, Ryk72, but it is failure for a closure in my humble opinion. I recognize and thank you for your effort though. I am glad this is finally over. Bye – Ocolon (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen the comment above; and the comment at the article Talk page. If a clarification on the points raised there is requested, I am happy to provide one. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Fight CoE" registered for litigation and soliciting - WP:NOTHERE

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

This brand-new user seems to have created an account simply for utilizing the page Chronicles of Elyria for advertising a class-action lawsuit against the now-defunct developer's owner, Jeromy Walsh. This is an overt demonstration of flouting the rules and utilizing the site for litigation and advertising. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to try something different. I'll do a soft block that says the account has been blocked to having a username that gives the impression of not being here to contribute constructively. That allows the editor to instantly create a new account. If the new account becomes a constructive editor, that's good. If this person comes back with a new account named something like "CoE sucks and you'll never stop me from editing", we can do a hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Very well; I suppose that works, as I highly doubt they'll be coming back for anything other than soliciting for their lawsuit. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You mean like this? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 01:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's probably an LTA vandal. Dunno who it is, though, because I haven't run a check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And another one suggests that it is indeed an LTA vandal, and that we need to start blocking these accordingly as such. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced edits, and possibly hatching multiple hoaxes in draft space

• 173.61.56.158 (talk · contribs)

You get it from the header. A lot of this looks like WP:NOTHERE. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted several of the hoax drafts per WP:CSD#G3 and left a warning. I feel like this might be sufficient to curtail this behavior, but if another admin feels a block is justified (e.g., if this is related to a long-term abuse case of which I am not directly aware), feel free to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a one-month block. This user put a lot of effort into the hoax articles that have now been deleted. Which pretty much rules out any excuse based on carelessness or newbie mistakes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Hi - can someone with a better understanding of rangeblocks than me take a look something quickly please? Following some harassment from Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F03:156C:2:4:F3C5:CBA9 and a few other IPs on that range (see Serial Number 54129's recent contribs for more examples), Bishonen blocked the 2001:8f8:1f04:4270:2:1:f3d8:9d07/64 range. The user appears to have carried on here on a different /64 range - they will probably continue in the same vein, more blocking may be required. Thanks in advance. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Bish has blocked that /64 as well. Let us know if it continues - I've got a wider rangeblock that'll hit all the ones that have vandalised so far, with a very small amount of collateral. It depends how wide the range is that they've access to (the full range of that ISP is huge). Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks - I'll keep an eye out. Serial Number 54129, Amaury, Ad Orientem, Davey2010 - courtesy ping, since you seem to be the user's favorite targets. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: This is an LTA sockpuppet we've been dealing with since late September 2016, and it's possible it was going on long before that. That's just when I got involved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen and User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. IJBall can probably give you some more details in that regard as he is the one who came to me for assistance after he noticed I ran into the sock around that time over on Legendary Dudas. See User talk:Amaury/2016#Need some assistance. And if you do a CTRL + F for "Orchomen," you'll notice plenty of other discussions on the matter, not only in my 2016 archive, but in my archives for 2017 through 2019 as well. Note also that these are only the discussions on my talk page about the matter, it's been discussed elsewhere, too. Amaury • 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Amaury, thanks, I saw some of that stuff. If they resurface and I'm around, feel free to ping me for a quick block - although, as noted above, someone with better rangeblock skills that me would probably be a better bet. Black Kite - don't suppose you could point me at a Rangeblock 101 primer so I can up my game? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I generally use this. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, obviously can't help with the rangeblocks themselves, but feel free to ping me/give me a shout if you need a hand interpreting IP ranges - I've got some network engineering experience and am pretty familiar with them. creffett (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, thanks - I appreciate the offer. Black Kite has given me some more reading, but I'll come to you if I get stuck. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Violation of Manual of Style and WP:NPOV

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

---

• September 11 attacks

Main discussion Talk:September_11_attacks#Questioning_"Islamic"_and_"terrorist"?_(A_religion_has_nothing_to_do_with_"Extremist_ideology"_of_terrorism)

"Islamic terrorist" in the term on lead paragraph according to some media, which is disagreeable and offensive especially for Muslims. It's about generalization of 19 suicide hijackers action with extreme Salafi Al-Qaeda ideology background that is distorted to wider range to blame and to discriminate a religion (Islam) as whole.

This is obviously not Neutral POV and do not follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Contentious_labels. Yet, my efforts to give my reasons to several editors to alternative suggestion replacing the term with more neutral tone, in Talk page and my own talk page, are rejected, by simply saying no consensus, while at the same time, Wikipedia policies and Manual of Style are being violated. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(Uninvolved) The only behavioural concerns on display here, MusenInvincible, are regarding your editing. Thanks for pointing us to the recent RfC which went against your rather niche interpretation of WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and was closed only last week—wholly correctly and in observance of the consensus against you—by an uninvolved administrator. It was unwise, though, to continue to re-insert the same material that that RfC had decided against including in the article...and filing here half an hour later. ——SN54129 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly the point I made on their talk page [[31]] long term edit war, ignoring consensus and bludgeoning. Clearly fighting the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Check. "You can't do that, cause I already report it" sounds like this is getting a retaliation in first. And I note the warning on bludgeoning from Bishonen and that Doug Weller applied the relevant DS notices. The question, then, seems to be not whether there's disruption, but how widespread it is; and, concomitantly, whether a block from the page or the subject itself is required. ——SN54129 16:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you think It was wise, though, about behavioral concern of several editors who violate NPOV with Manual of Style, and remove well-sourced addition from a professor [32]??? — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out [[33]] MOS does not have a blanket ban on the use of the word terrorist. So we also have cheery picking wikilaywering.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, perhaps this sort of argument would be best initiated over at the Islamic terrorism article. We have an article with that title for a reason, much the same as we have one for Christian terrorism, etc.--MONGO (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

MusenInvincible, Please just accept consensus. This has already been discussed in detail and the thread closed. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your addition was not sourced. No competent source would write "19 suicide aircraft hijackers", as it's a nonsensical statement. Boeing 757s do not commit suicide, and cannot be described as "suicide aircraft", nor then could someone hijack a "suicide aircraft" which is what that phrase would describe. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I just blocked them for 1 month for "edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT." No more coddling a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep, fair enough. It was rather a litany... ——SN54129 16:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Patapsco913

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

---

A possible case of WP:Canvassing and meatpuppetry, soliciting other editors with likely same views [34] [35] to jump into a couple of articles I A7ed to circumvent the editorial process and remove the tags since Patapsco913 was the creator of those articles. I have nominated all 3 articles for deletion. Maurice Kremer, Milton H. Biow, and Joy Silverman. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

IP, those were, in my view, very poor CSD nominations. I removed some of them. Kremer is known as one of the first seven Jews to settle in Los Angeles and held multiple political offices in that city – which is now one of the largest cities in the world. He is also one of the founders of the largest Jewish congregation in California (population: 40 million). He is mentioned in multiple books. The article is now at AFD, and it may or may not be kept, but it definitely made a claim of significance or importance and was not an A7 candidate.

Blow is commonly referred to as an advertising "legend". The New York Times wrote his obituary, in which they called him "an originator of the modern school of advertising". This is very, very far from an A7 candidate. It's at AFD and it may or may not be kept, but it's not A7.

Silverman's article had like 18 sources, including several that are entirely about her. Having a significant role in a significant event not only gets past WP:BLP1E, but certainly is disqualifying for A7. This one is also at AFD.

I admit that I became suspicious when I saw an IP improperly tagging articles about Jews as A7. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for a second set of eyes at WP Judaism or another editor's talk page. I don't see that as canvassing.

I'm surprised that you have prodded, CSD'd, AFD'd the articles, and taken the author of those articles to ANI. That seems like quite the full-court press. It makes me wonder who you are and what your issue is with Patapsco and these articles. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

None of those are A7s, any admin would have reached the same conclusion and removed them. Finish setting up the AFDs and let them play out without launching into wild accusations of meatpuppettry which is a WP:PA BTW. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised an IP editor with so few edits until the most recent CSD tagging even knows what A7 is, and knows how to tag, how to AFD, how to bring to ANI, what meatpuppetry is, what canvassing is, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: It's hard to say, IPs hop, sometimes within a matter of hours depending on DHCP settings. The familiarity with canvassing, AFD, etc indicates at least some experience, or at the bare minimum someone who has a ton of free time to browse project pages. I don't think the user is that experienced because if they were they would have known those were not A7s. Knowledge of ANI indicates very little as it is frequently the first noticeboard newcomers find because it's advertised in the warning templates. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Could be, but the IP used is most likely a static IP, not dynamic. But that could just be to the ISP, not to the user, so it's not 100%. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: It's very likely, that it is just static to the ISP, and not to the end-user. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't stick around for a while, see here for more details. I can speak from experience in stating that what the geolocate button tells me about my IP does not always accurately reflect my experience as an end-user. There are some IPs, and no not IPV6s, that I've edited from that despite being listed as static were changing far to fast for me to hold a conversation. The worst was actually a satellite connection, my IP was changing with every single edit! I nearly gave up and made an account. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Not so quick follow-up, dealing with some IRL stuff. Even looking at the assigned /22 doesn't bring up anything additional. For that matter there is no recent activity on the entire /16. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, could've switched ISPs or be returning from a long wikibreak. I think it's almost certain they're not new however. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see I'm reporting a case of canvassing and possible meatpuppetry (don't have tangible evidence so won't judge) and you are moving the discussion in some other direction, discussing my expertise on the matter and how I'm here. Same club? And it's true I have a lot of time and read multiple discussions where each one of you were taking Patapsco913's side. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to explain your AFD of Maurice Kremer and how you think one of the first Jews of Los Angeles is the same person as a senator from Nebraska? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 217.150.87.242 By reporting here you open up the conduct of all parties to scrutiny including your own. Making baseless accusations of meatpuppetry is disruptive and a WP:PA so please desist. As for the discussion of expertise, it is at this point only informational, you are of course free to grant or withhold as much information about yourself as you would like to help speed things along. I try to tailor my replies to the knowledge level of people I interact with by feeling things out as the conversation goes, whether or not they have an account. Informing knowledgeable users of things they already know comes across as condescending. Burying newcomers in jargon drives them away from the project. Finally, I have yet to take Patapsco913's side in anything except to note, correctly, that those were not A7s, I have yet to examine any of the articles in depth and have no opinion on what the outcome of the AFDs should be. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To make things clear, the analysis of the situation is straightforward. There is no evidence of WP:MEAT; WP:CANVASS really only applies to discussions and so alerting others to the CSDs does not fall within it's ambit, further any admin whose time would've been wasted examining those would've come to the same conclusion so there was no effect on the outcome. Finally, even if this had been done for a discussion it wouldn't have run afoul of Canvass, which states that notifications can be freely placed on The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. and later On the user talk pages of concerned editors, there isn't even a case for posting only on the user talk page of one specific editor as it's unclear if there was anyone else who should've been notified to keep things neutral under the criteria. In sum nothing to see here, articles are currently at WP:AFD let the discussions play out and don't WP:Bludgeon them. If there is no consensus wait at least two months before renoming, if they close as keep wait at least six. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will have a substantively different analysis but I doubt it, if you have further questions about appropriate procedure you can always ask at the help desk. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Not much, but...

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

---

According to this edit summary, Blozier2006 claims that my name is Nick, but he has provided no evidence. I request that the edit summary be struck through and the user be given a warning. DawgDeputy (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary has been removed. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

YouTube can be reliable sometimes

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

YouTube is not always unreliable. It is reliable in cases where YouTube is its actual proof of existing, or the fact is related to YouTube. I want to hear other people's concerns. Pikachu6686 (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, Pikachu6686, but this is not a matter for this noticeboard. The official YouTube channel for a reliable news source is as reliable as the print edition. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Promotional, copyright problems at a BLP, and meeting resistance from multiple editors

• Yungchen Lhamo

I opened a thread at BLP, but have now seen unacceptable content restored by two different users; forget about the templates I've tried to post. Would appreciate more eyes on this article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please see [36], for example. My edits have been characterized as disruptive, unconstructive, and I'm accused of harassment. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This IP editor is habitually harassing multiple other editors with groundless warnings and repeatedly behaving in a highly disruptive manner. There may be some problems with this particular article which need attention but nothing which obviously requires such extremist behaviour by this IP. Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing. Afterwriting (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I welcome that. Perhaps Afterwriting could cite my apparently numerous disruptions, and administrators could proceed with the sanctions. In the meantime, this is the passage, a possible copyright violation, twice restored:

Lhamo established the One Drop of Kindness Foundation (formerly known as the Yungchen Lhamo Charitable Foundation) in 2004. The foundation's aim is helping all sentient beings through direct action, multicultural programs, community services and charitable giving. In particular, the foundation is dedicated to the preservation of Tibetan culture, whether in Tibet, Nepal, India, the US or elsewhere, through offering multicultural educational programs, projects, lectures and workshops that integrate music, mindfulness, and art to help facilitate in people a more positive outlook on life. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It either is or isn't a copyright violation. Show us any evidence you have for your claim of it being a "possible" copyright violation. If you can't do this then you cannot remove information simply because you think it may be a "possible" violation. Afterwriting (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe I noted this in an edit summary, the foundation's website [37]. Much of the article also mirrors [38], which is why I'd requested more eyes--if the article is composed largely of copied content, it is a problem. Any content that's unsourced and promotional may, and ought to be removed. You must know that, but for some reason you've decided to take aim at me. Very well. Make sure you're right, given the certainty of 'Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The vague edit summary only said that this information "may have been copied verbatim from foundations' website". Lots of things "may" be factual, or otherwise, but you provided no evidence in support of your comment. Had you done so then you would have avoided being reverted. It seemed that you were just being disruptive for the sake of it with this article. I withdraw my accusations of harassment of other editors, but it is my observation that you need to be much more careful (as do we all) in how you interact with other editors in future if you don't want to be accused of such things. Afterwriting (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: the community takes copyvios very seriously, possibly you felt the edit summary was inadequate, but in that case the best thing to do would've been to open a talk page discussion rather than risk being responsible for edit-warring a copyvio back into the article. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In a word, no. Afterwriting is still attempting to frame this as me being disruptive. Let's remove the copyright issue altogether--the content was still unsourced and promotional, in a WP:BLP--how many times have I made that observation. The problem was never my editing. It was an abusive reaction by an editor who was very much in the wrong, hasn't come around on that yet, and is still lecturing me. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You are only demonstrating why other editors might accuse you of harassment. Your editing was not adequate and should have been reverted without any evidence to support it. So get over portraying yourself as some kind of "victim". Afterwriting (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: do you understand that you're not supposed to restore unsourced content in a biography of a living person? Because it seems to me that you think this is perfectly fine. I also don't understand where these random accusations of harassment are coming from. And you have also accused the IP of "extremist behaviour" without posting any diffs. I suggest you stop doing these things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Afterwriting: I won't pretend to be entirely uninvolved here, but here goes anyway. There was no harrassment, earlier you withdrew that complaint, you would do well not to repeat it. Adding maintenance templates is not disruptive nor is removing unsourced content. It is neither required nor expected that full evidence for copyvios will be provided in an edit summary, e.g. removing copyvio material is perfectly adequate. If you disagree with either the addition of maintenance templates or the copyvio removal then discuss it on the talk page, follow WP:FOC, and try to WP:AGF. Had you just opened a thread asking why the changes were made I am confident you would've recieved a full explanation, but since you did not we are here. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the long standing graph against consensus

User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly replace the long standing graph with newly created one against the community consensus.

1. 08:24, 1 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 360,477 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams

03:00, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,267 bytes -30‎ →‎Diagrams: restored to a long standing chart. Please get consensus on the talk page

2. 04:07, 2 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 367,286 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams: Replacing graph with a simpler version

04:27, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,396 bytes -30‎ Undid revision 948637281 by Givingbacktosociety (talk) please get consensus on the talk page

3. 03:57, 4 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 361,475 bytes -4‎ Replacing graph with a simpler version - To use the previous graph update it to show less information. There are graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Replaced graphs as comments are not addressed. Remove redundant information which are shown in other graphs and keep this graph simple making it more readable.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Givingbacktosociety: The graph you are inserting is inferior and less readable than the one you are replacing. You should stop doing that.--Jorm (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Givingbacktosociety, please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring and refusal to engage in discussion

I am considering placing a one-week block of Kagoikunai and removing or extending that depending on the result it produces. That user has been serially altering a key item in the Filipino Americans article against existing support cited there, without providing properly cited support for his changes, and refusing to engage in discussion about his changes. His latest change can be seen here, and a talk page section I opened for discussion can be seen at Talk:Filipino Americans#Number: 4M or 2.8M. I will place a notice of this discussion on his user talk page. What do other admins think?

Naughty behaviour

• 2A00:23C5:930B:B000:1856:2F60:30A4:3B78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP made an offensive comment directed towards me in an edit summary [39]. This was after this person received a one week block for disruptive editing. There is also this this, after I left a final warning for their disruptive editing/vandalism. And these edit summaries, each repeated four times [40] [41]. I have seen action taken on people for far less egregious comments. – ².O.^Boxing 19:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Lol", eh... [42] ——SN54129 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol indeed. Any relevance here? No? Didn't think so. Thanks for your input. – ².O.^Boxing 19:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You poor chap, being insulted like that on the internetz. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Those that troll, get trolled. One of life's constants. ——SN54129 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I know!!! It hurt my feewlings :-( I may cry, rage quit, and keep coming back lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. El_C 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And now the individual is evading the block with this [43]. Oh so terribly naughty!! Lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the ins and outs are of your original complaint, but must say that you have just destroyed an argument that I have used against those who take professional wrestling too seriously, i.e. that we see loads of complaints brought here about that "sport" but never about boxing. I'll have to think of something else to say now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Patapsco913 (2)

I'm not sure this is just finished as I expected to get an Administrator's opinion on this. This is a follow up of the original discussion named 'User:Patapsco913'. I'm pinging @Coffee:, @Awilley:, @L235:,@Oshwah:,@L235:, @JzG: and @TheSandDoctor: for their independent opinion on this and for their participation in recent OTRS complaints (the Joy Silverman piece is defamatory at best. Am I to expect there are normal people who are willing to read at such a perosnal level of details?) and an AE discussion. I also have reasons to believe that editors have been canvassed into the 3 AFDs I created in what appears to be an attempt to influence consensus. An article like Maurice Kremer, which shouldn't be kept imo and yet its afd has 3 keep votes from 3 people, who happen to have voted in at least one of the other 2 AFDs. Looking at their weak arguments in favor of the articles, mostly hand-waving instead of providing reliable sources to indicate the subject's notability, you get a sense of might be happening. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D:: This is just your interpretation of the diffs which, imo, holds no basis. This is not simply concerned editors or people who might have interest in the topic. It's much more than that. The "There isn't even a case for posting only on the user talk page of one specific editor" piece particurlary stood out to me tbh. Maybe you need to recheck the diffs. And ah that same editor is now in 2 of the 3 AFDs. You might also be interesed in reading about their participation in the recent OTRS and AE discussions. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)