Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J. Johnson (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 21 March 2020 (→‎Incivility (continued): Changing non-neutral, prejudicial header to "Discussion of ..."). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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

    IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

    IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 21 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[1] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[2][3][4]

    In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[5] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[6] so they may be using more IPs than these 21 listed below.

    IPs:

    Diffs:

    Zoolver (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I have looked through the diffs and the links in your statement. I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing a formatting issue. Regarding removing sourced material, you link to one instance - that is a content issue which should be discussed on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Zoolver: If you want any action taken here, you're going to have to present this in a simpler way. First, create ranges of IPs, not singles, and make sure that those ranges are all doing similar activity, meaning no collateral damage if the range is blocked. Second, at least some of the IPs in a range must have edited recently. I don't care about edits that occurred last month, let alone last year, but I'm willing to consider blocking a range for longer if the activity is recent and has been going on for some period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What else is necessary for you people to consider something as vandalism and block several IPs from the same editor doing the same thing for months after being warned several times by different editors and refusing to stop? First I reported it for sockpuppetry but you guys said that there was no sockpuppetry and suggested that I should take it here, now there's no vandalism, so what should I try next? @Bbb23: Did you even check the damn diffs and 15 IPs listed here? there are diffs from this week on that list. If that wasn't clear, the first diffs showed how it started last year and were followed by the most recent edits from this week showing the same pattern. No wonder Wikipedia is this mess when the admins aren't willing to resolve such an obvious vandalism and expect regular editors to be experts and do their job for them. @Lightburst: nobody is checking those talk pages, let alone the IP editor who started it all and got warned to stop it several times. They won't stop, that's why I took it straight to ANI instead of taking it to 50 talk pages and wait for an admin to check it someday when they feel like it, but now I see that it was useless anyway. Zoolver (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey EEng, I can't find what MOS says about the desirability of "2007–present" vs. "2007–" (diff). Wasn't that talked about recently ... somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:TOPRESENT. I don't recall any recent discussion on this and a lazy look at MOS and MOSNUM archives didn't find anything either. EEng 02:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, that confirms that the IP is wrong and style is "2007–present" while omitting "present" is wrong. Persistently unhelpful edits waste good editor's time. I'll try to have a look later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The 2020 contributions of the IPs listed above are covered by Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:119:0:0:0:0:0/48 and it looks like it's one person. Their last edit was 08:23, 5 March 2020 which is a bit long ago for a block. @Zoolver: Please monitor the /48 link and let me know if it continues. An attempt should be made to engage them on their talk (not a warning but a friendly 'please stop removing "present" from infoboxes because the manual of style (MOS:TOPRESENT) requires "present"') but there's no point doing that unless using the talk page of a recently active IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not clear that "2007-present" is a good thing to have in an article. It would certainly not do for a person's lifespan, for example. It also implies that if the qualified item expires it will be updated immediately, whereas "2007-" is clearer that it's a time of writing statement. In prose it could be cast "Foo started in 2007,, and was coninuting as of 2020" (wiht or without {{As of}}.
    Having said that if there is consensus that this is vandalism, or even just undesireable, the place to look for help may be WP:Edit filters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
    The IP's edits are strongly opposed by MOS:TOPRESENT. I requested a temporary filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#MOS:TOPRESENT but blocking the IP might be needed if that doesn't work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated bogus OR accusations

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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.[16][17][18][19] 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.[20] Just look at a few of the threats he has made against those who disagreed with him.

    Hijiri88 also canvassed for support with a non-neutral message on the reliable sources noticeboard.[21] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[22][23][24][25] and in edit summaries.[26][27]

    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.

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

    J. Johnson using WP:INCIVIL language despite repeated requests to stop

    J. Johnson has been warned several times for escalatory incivil language and has been told to comment on content instead of contributors, both recently and in the past.

    Here is the most recent incident at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#"Ceased to exist" and Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#RfC on "Ceased to exist" over the course of the past two weeks.

    Please note that all of the bolding below is what MarkH21 has added to show the passages he complains of. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Please do not delete my comment, which was in place before you added the following line. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The note about bolding was in the post from the beginning above your comment before you made it, and now you’ve moved it below. Redundant. — MarkH21talk 23:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not redundant, as your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content.

    Initial comments on contributors

    The second half of this comment by J. Johnson's is very strange, but their reaction in the discussion afterwards demonstrates that they have a very narrow definition of commenting on contributors:

    I don't what you mean by "more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree.

    — 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    My initial reaction to the comment:

    It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. — MH21 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    J. Johnson's response about me characterizing it as bizarre:

    Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "cheap idiom"... The concept of WP:I just don't like it is where you have opinions, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    My explanation that both are comments on contributors and first warning:

    What is "bizarre" was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic... That, plus your quip "Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?" are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop. — (MH21 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

    J. Johnson's's denial that it is a comment about the contributor and tries to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question:

    I made no "inferral" of your beliefs; I only questioned whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history), which might in turn explain your view. If you don't have such a belief, fine, just say so (a simple "no" would suffice). My "quip" is a straight-forward question of why we don't seem to be on the same wave-length; it is your "inferral" that this is a comment about the contributor (distinct from the contributor's behavior).}} — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    My response and second warning:

    Your comment about "whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)" is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate. — JJ 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Continuation in RfC

    In the RfC, J. Johnson continues to comment on contributors instead of on the content:

    But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary I suppose we could replace it with "city". Is that clearer? — JJ 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

    I followed this with the third warning:

    Your inclination to comment on contributors, what you think they like, what you think they find boring, and what you think is in their vocabulary is grossly inappropriate. Cut it out, you’ve been warned multiple times now. — MH21 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

    J. Johnson's response mocks the earlier protest about commenting on contributors instead of content, tries again to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question, and is dismissive of any complaints as petty squabbling:

    In the second instance ("Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling? — JJ 22:43, 5 March 2020

    I respond with the fourth warning:

    Your comment Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do! It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful. — MH21 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

    Final warning and continued incivility

    J. Johnson has described me several times in the discussion as disputatious several times. At first, I did not react to avoid making it more heated than it already is, but I found it particularly insulting when combined with obtusely / obtuse:

    1. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful. — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    2. Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    3. All very disputatious — JJ 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    4. Since you are so obtusely disputatious — JJ 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
      • My last warning: Again, tone down your aggressive language. "Obtusely disputatious" is language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me. — MH21 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

    I called for a cessation of incivility several times and gave five warnings to J. Johnson over the course of two weeks. However, after I pointed out that J. Johnson previously said that I am rather neutral, so any continued heated debate is an unproductive use of both your time and my time (21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)). But J. Johnson continued and doubled-down by calling all of the unproductiveness a result of me being disputatious and obtuse.

    5. I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation... Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse — JJ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

    General trend of incivility

    J. Johnson has made far too many incivil comments about me over the course of two weeks despite five explicitly worded requests to stop. This isn't the first time that J. Johnson has been brought to ANI over incivility over articles relating to earthquake prediction (JJ was nearly topic banned twice in 2014, and had another incident in 2013, all of which were for WP:INCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and WP:OWNERSHIP) or otherwise warned for incivility (trouted just last month by Femkemilene for escalating another discussion by calling RCraig09's comments here as your weasely bitching), twice warned by NewsAndEventsGuy in September 2019 and August 2019, and warned by Dmcq for making threats in June 2019). To my awareness, J. Johnson has not accepted that they have overstepped boundaries, apologized, nor retracted the offending statements in any of the non-ANI warnings linked above, which are only just scratching the surface.

    The latest incidents at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake do not really rise to the level of personal attacks, but demonstrates a clear tendency to speculatively comment on contributors and dismiss requests to stop even after 5 warnings there alone.

    Despite J. Johnson's portfolio of positive contributions to the project, it's overwhelmingly clear that there is a greater long-term trend of J. Johnson not being aware when they're stepping over boundaries of WP:CIVIL and reacting negatively, dismissively, or with greater fervor when confronted about it. — MarkH21talk 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC); penultimate paragraph added 05:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC); link third old ANI discussion in third-to-last paragraph 05:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • This complaint seems ridiculously overblown. I see no substantive incivility on J. Johnson's part. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because calling someone's comments your weasely bitching or saying that another editor is so obtusely disputatious is civil language?
        How about the threat And you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.?
        Maybe why are you being such a jerk? here followed by yes, you are a jerk here is civil?
        There are so many examples from JJ over the past several months, like the above and Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read. (here), that are rude, offensive, belittling, etc. and have no place here. — MarkH21talk 05:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with Carrite here. J. Johnson's odd hostility and excessive markup thatbolds and emphasizes words to be LOUD is rather disruptive and uncivil. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL: Please note that all that bolding in the comments MarkH21 provided are his augmentations, and do not correctly reflect the tenor of my original comments. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @J. Johnson: [Thank you for the ping] I'm referring to comments like the one in the diff I provided.
    No offense to MarkH21, but I skipped over most of the report and just looked at the talk page sections in question myself.
    To your credit though, you didn't begin the discussion with WP:SHOUTing, but you started to only after you lost your temper but to the detriment of following that talk. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I lost my temper, but I was venting some over-pressure. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) MJL was clearly talking about JJ's markup in the diff that he they linked, wherein you italicized/emphasized 8 words and bolded 11 words. — MarkH21talk 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkH21: I use they/them pronouns btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: Sorry! Slip of the mind. — MarkH21talk 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of the plural "they" and "them" is confusing. I am okay with the male pronoun. For other single individuals where gender is unknown I would suggest something like "s/he". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Singular "they" is at least as old as Shakespeare. That is a perfectly acceptable choice when an individual's gender is not known and, in this case, it is their preferred pronoun. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with MarkH21 that many of JJ's contributions are useful and appreciated. Unfortunatly, I also echo the perception of incivility. While most of the incidents are not grave, I do think they form a consistent pattern that may make it less attractive for other editors to participate in discussions. I find that very worrisome especially in the article space I'm most active, climate change, where neutrality and quality are best achieved with a larger set of contributors. Some smaller examples spring to mind; [28] In this diff J. Johnson alleged that other people are unwilling to consider their proposal, after three people had given an argumented response already, while not responding to the arguments. Here J. Johnson accuses me and quite a big group of editors of bad faith, claiming that we had changed global warming in scope (instead of merely thouroughly updated). And here JJ dismisses a newer user by saying they should 'start a blog', because JJ assumes they are activist. Each of the incidents smaller than MarkH21's examples, but pointing to the same problem; JJ asserting things about the editor which deteriorates the atmosphere. As such, I think the editing would improve if J. Johnson wasn't allowed to comment on other people's behaviour or beliefs any more, but only on content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "quite a big group of editors" would be, what, five? At any rate, the "bad faith" point is a red herring, which I will comment on below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not comment if the worst occurrences were mere breaches of etiquette. However, J Johnson's perennial hair-trigger incivility reflects deeper problematic attitudes and habits that frustrate others' attempts at amicable collaboration in a complex subject area. I concur with MarkH's characterizations and Femke Nijsse's observations, but I think the underlying problem can't be solved merely by improvements in language and etiquette. Some history:
    ¶1 → JJ "introduced" himself to me by sending me straight to ANI—without prior discussion—asking someone else to investigate his suspicions re supposed "linkspamming" in the then-new Warming stripes article. (diff of closer, 2 July 2019)
    ¶2 → After I had spent an hour or two trying to understand one of his suggestions and I cited references and asked for clarification/confirmation of what he meant, JJ responded with "Get a better grip". (diff of 22 Jan 2020) (His suggestion was not adopted.)
    ¶3 → Even a cursory review of Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request (which followed a now-archived month-long Preliminary Discussion,) will show numerous of JJ's needlessly verbose tangential lectures. These discussions followed his claim that the Move/Renaming discussion for Talk:Climate change (general concept) (implemented Oct 2019 after ten full days and 14 laptop-screenfuls of discussion, and after extensive preliminary discussions there), were supposedly closed "prematurely": see Femke Nijsse's link, above, re JJ's claim that the year's-long trajectory of this family of articles was made in "bad faith".
    ¶4 → JJ's comments show a difficulty grasping the context of others' arguments. Example: when I cited references (a NASA page, and the vice-president of Associated Press Media Relations) to prove that "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably by the public and press, JJ responded, with typical sarcasm "AP Stylebook applies to AP staff, and (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff" (italics added re sarcasm, boldface in original). (diff of 19 Jan 2020) — Same post as JJ's "weasely bitching" retort that MarkH quotes above.
    ¶5 → Similarly, JJ went to great length (citing five references saying "global warming" and "climate change" are scientifically distinct terms—which no one had disputed), in his refutation of an argument that was never made (classic strawman argument). He later sarcastically refers to his five references "did you perhaps miss that big, grey box just above?".
    ¶6 → Likewise, JJ posted a claim that "This entire debate on name and naming criteria" was based on {an argument JJ manufactured: See diff of 7 Jan 2020} for which he has provided zero examples—a classic strawman. Yet he has accused me of not WP:HEARing: 13 Jan 2020 diff: "do you have a hearing problem?"
    In summary, whereas JJ has contributed to low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram, his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view, will not likely improve though admonishment over his use of language. Any corrective action should deal with deeper issues that energize JJ's incivility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to RCraig09's "his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments ...", which is an outright slur, and false. I also object to his characterization of my work at Global warming as being "low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram." The block diagram was actually his, where I (and others) made various suggestions for improvement. The "low-level" work I have done is foundational, being the basis of verifiability, and some of it has been on working out some difficult issues of citation (see WP:IPCC citation).
    I also object to his (and Femke's) statement that I alleged bad-faith. The "year's-long trajectory" refers to the planning to rename and refocus Global warming, much of which was arranged on personal talk pages. My comment was not that there was bad-faith, only that their process smacked – that is, gave some appearances – of bad faith. Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety.
    He falsely states that I sent him "straight to ANI". I saw possibly questionable editing, which I did not feel informed enough to judge, so I asked if anyone else thought it warranted looking into. Nothing came of that, and that was (for me) the end of the matter.
    I dispute these other points, but unless someone wants to explore them I'd rather not spend time on them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another example of JJ making an uncivil comment about other editors in this very discussion: saying that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety in reference to RCraig09 and Femkemilene just adds further hostility. The points that you haven't covered — I dispute these other points... I'd rather not spend time on them — are your actual comments of incivility from across various discussions. Continued abstention from addressing the fact that these are escalatory and uncivil demonstrates a serious problem here. — MarkH21talk 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MarkH21 is correct. Hopefully it will be apparent to any admin/closer that JJ's replies here embody the very behaviors of which he is accused. His unrepentant attitude and his deflections endure. What he calls a slur (23:17, 11 Mar) are observations that I supported with three gross examples (¶4, ¶5, ¶6). He admits that it was "possibly questionable editing" that motivated him to send me without prior discussion to ANI—which is supposed to be "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". And he appears unwilling or unable to recognize that, in this context, saying other editors' "process smacked...of bad faith" does not differ from accusing those editors of bad faith. etc. etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be your interpretation. I have tried to be clear on the point, but it seems you reject any possibility of good-faith on my part. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JJ: you state that we reject the possibility of good faith, among other things, because we don't interpret the phrase smacking of bad faith to mean gave some appearances of. But that's significantly weaker, with The free dictionary giving a definition of the former as to give a strong indication or implication of something. As such, I don't think RCraig09's interpretation is completely off here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Femke: In that case, I regret that the word I chose came across much stronger than I intended. I also regret that you did not explain that much earlier (was there something I missed?), so we could have sorted this out much sooner. Will you allow that, despite the mis-impression, no imputation of actual bad-faith was intended? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The objectionable term is not "smacks of" but the explicit use or direct implication "bad faith"—not just in "This proposal smacks of bad faith" (01:50, 17 Dec), but also, minutes later, by more definitively claiming "To stuff this article with CC material, then complain that the title no longer matches the content, is not in good-faith" (02:17, 17 Dec; noting the ongoing use of insulting language: stuff ... complain...). So it is not a matter of merely "sorting out" a nuanced meaning of "smacks of"; the meaning is clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good sample of what is going on here. In a strict and narrow sense, yes, MarkH did own-up to the bolding. But buried in text, not set out very visibly in stand-alone text as he has done here, and outside of the box where he repeatedly quotes me. And in no way as prominent as the bolding itself, thus failing to prevent misperception as to who did the bolding. I call that misrepresentation. I added a more prominent note, inside the box, to clarify the matter. Mark then removed my note on the grounds of being redundant. If he had any issue with that a more civil approach would have been something on the lines of: 1) He asks why I added the note, 2) I explain, 3) if he demurs we discuss it, 4) he shows that no harm was intended by immediately replacing the bolding with something less, well, bold, and then 5) we move on. But no, he wants to argue that I made a false statement re misrepresentation. Not unlike the beginning of this little affray, where, having different interpretations of a phrase, he must argue why his interpretation is right, and mine is not. All of which has gone well beyond the original issue with the article. His complaint of incivility quite overlooks his tendency to battle. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase Mark has misrepresented my comments is a claim of misconduct. I clearly wrote that the bolding was mine in the third sentence of the thread, immediately above the auto-collapsed box. My subsequent response was to to dispel the suggestion that I acted inappropriately, not to argue about the linguistic interpretation of the phrase misrepresented my comments (which you have now explained means that you found the disclaimer at the top of the thread wasn’t prominent enough, not that it was absent). — MarkH21talk 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not just "now" explain that the disclaimer was not prominent, I said that four days ago (22:54, 11 Mar., "comment re bolding"): "your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception." (Even for me: I had to go back and check whether the bolding was mine.) The effect, in fact, amounted to misrepresentation. I have not complained, nor made any claim, that you did so with any deliberate intent to misrepresent. Even if you did, I think that posting an effective notice is a sufficient remedy. If you wanted to further "dispel" any suggestion of inappropriate intent you could have simply said that any seeming misrepresentation was inadvertent. But no, your "subsequent response" was to delete my notice (diff), a clear violation, per WP:TPG#Editing others' comments, of "The basic rule [...] is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." (Bolding added.) I don't know whether you did so out of bad intent, or the basic disputatiousness that you have shown all along, or perhaps some other reason, but your deletion was NOT inadvertent. Even so, I would consider that matter closed, but it seems that on every point you have to prove that you are right and I am wrong. I believe that constitutes battleground conduct. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s a difference between directly editing another editor’s comments, and removing one that is inserted into my own post. There’s a difference between explaining my actions in the face of an editor labeling my actions as misrepresentation, and arguing that I am right and you are wrong. There’s a difference between explaining actions, and continuing to labeling other editors as disputatious. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "basic rule" is as stated. And I have not labelled your actions as misrepresentation, only the result. Which, as I just explained, was remedied very simply, and it is a wonder that you continue to dispute the matter. As for explaining anything to you: that is what go us going here, when I tried to explain why I thought you might not have read the source, and you insisted on arguing the rather petty issue of whose linguistic interpretation was right. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply

    It should be noted right off that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution.

    I have previously been reproached (by Femke) that I could speak more gently, and I allow there is something to that. But in the present case I think the more significant factor is that MarkH21 tends to misinterpret things. In particular he has been quicker to take offense based on his understanding of my language than to inquire whether the offense is in my language, or in his understanding if it. In that respect he has failed to assume good-faith. And I would note that his own comments are not without fault.

    A problem with Mark's complaint is that he has not provided the full story. E.g., what he complains of actually arose on 28 Feb., where I said:

    Your view of continued existence seems to be based on having some fragment of the city's physical fabric surving intact, while Dr. Housner's view was that it no longer existed as a functional, living entity. This would be clearer if you would read the source (your "even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services.

    He replied: "I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the Housner & He source..." (02:45, 29 Feb.), to which I replied that his use of "even if" came across to me "as questioning whether Housner wrote that" (which I view as entirely indubitable). My comment was not intended to be uncivil, but to clarify whether we were (literally) "on the same page". I then suggested that perhaps "despite" better resolved what he meant to say with my understanding, and at that point I thought the matter was resolved. Even on a parallel issue (regarding "ceased to exist"), where I proposed a way of dealing with a concern of his, I thought we were close to a resolution. But in his following comment (00:50, 1 Mar.) he wants to argue that he is right regarding his use of "even if" (which I regard as immaterial). At that point the situation goes down hill, especially when he states (threatens?) that "If you refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives, we can just go to RfC", when I had not refused to consider any proposals or alternatives, and which I consider a very uncivil insinuation. This is where I deem him to be warrantably disputatious.

    The rest of the affair is pretty much on similar lines. I will elaborate if anyone has questions. My take on this complaint is that MarkH21's broad reach and canvassing of other editors shows how weak his own complaints are. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • J. Johnson clearly favors the passive-aggressive approach to talk page editing, which isn't particularly conducive to cooperation. I completely agree that all comments should be required to be content-based. His belligerent personal attacks don't serve him or anyone else well.Ames86 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Your accusation that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution is plainly false. From the very first posting here:

      The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content.

      — MarkH21 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Your accusation of canvassing is plainly false.This ANI is about your general long-term incivility. The editors to whom I gave ANI notices are editors who have given you warnings about your incivility over the past several months and were mentioned in the subsection on your long history of incivility; therefore they are user[s] mentioned in the discussion and editors who have participated in discussions on the same topic both of which fall under appropriate notifications.
    Your only response to the demonstrated long-term incivility issues is to 1) deflect onto the issue of whether it was appropriate to open an RfC after you said Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you and 2) state that you thought the issue was resolved by your comment ending with That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.
    You have nothing to say on whether these are inappropriate?
    • your weasely bitching
    • you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
    • why are you being such a jerk?
    • yes, you are a jerk
    • you are so obtusely disputatious
    • Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
    • Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
    • I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
    • But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
    • Get a better grip
    • (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
    • do you have a hearing problem?
    Even after being told that you use incivil language and create an atmosphere of hostility by at least five different editors at least nine times over only the last nine months, do you still only want to deflect the question and focus on others? — MarkH21talk 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that your quote is another example of you focusing on the other editor; here you repeatedly assert and speculate that I haven't read the source, e.g. This would be clearer if you would read the source as above on 28 Feb & Another reason why I sometimes wonder if you have read any more of the source than the Overview (or perhaps just the Prologue to the Overview) 10 March, to which I have to repeatedly respond that I have read the source. — MarkH21talk 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the editors he notified (as he lists below) except EdwardLane, who would have been advised if Mark had put an ANI notification in the Talk page (which still has not been done). Note that I am not making this an issue (Femke has some pertinent comments, and I allow that RCraig09 feels agrieved); but it does show that Mark is trying to broaden the issue and involve editors beyond his specific complaint. Mark has linked to WP:APPNOTE, but I don't see (I'm blind?!) that any of the criteria listed there apply. It does say that the "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", and Mark does seem to be angling for editors that might have complaints. (There is also something about neutral titles – see also WP:TPG – which the title here is not, but I don't know what can or should be done about that.) I do see Nil's point that someone mentioned should be notified, but, as he says, that just pushes the issue of selection into the discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:APPNOTE says (not including all bullet points):

    An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

    • On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion
    • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
    All of the editors in question satisfy one of those two criteria. In fact, only EdwardLane does not satisfy both simultaneously. I am not angling for editors that might have complaints. Some of them might have complaints because they previously warned you for the exact issue brought up here, i.e. precisely what qualified them for the second bullet.
    I'm also not aware of any requirement or standard of posting ANI notifications on article talk pages. I have never seen that done before and Nil Einne's point about pings (similarly, informal notifications elsewhere) being insufficient for ANI still stands. — MarkH21talk 00:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MJL: Here are all of the editors that I notified about this ANI discussion: J. Johnson, Femkemilene, RCraig09, NewsAndEventsGuy, Dmcq, and EdwardLane. I mentioned all of the editors in this list in the original report except EdwardLane, whom I notified because they commented and suggested arbitration at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake in an attempt to find mediation. — MarkH21talk 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MarkH21: That's a few too many tbh. Imo a ping for any editors you mention in a report is all that's needed (either in the report itself, or in a subsequent comment with an explanation as to why they are being pinged). Otherwise, most editors when they see a notice like that will assume the report is about them. I know that's how I'd feel at least. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @MJL: Perhaps I take a discussion about an editor and an issue with which you may have been involved (Template:ANI-notice) too literally then, in that they were involved in the same issue recently and are mentioned in the discussion. At least I've seen the notice applied that way sometimes. I'll be happy to adjust this for the future.
            But either way, it's still not canvassing by virtue of WP:APPNOTE with them having given warnings / been involved recently regarding the same issues. — MarkH21talk 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @MJL: I strongly disagree. If you're going to specifically mention someone in your ANI thread, you should notify them even if your thread is not mainly about them. Pings are not sufficient, the same as always at ANI. Just because you were not criticising their actions doesn't mean someone else won't in the thread. And that person may reasonably assume that the person they are criticising was already notified since their actions were already being discussed. It's hardly uncommon that this happens after all. If you feel editors may misunderstand why they are being notified, there's no harm in offering a clarification as part of the notice. I've done it on occasion. Note also that pinging and notifying people equally raise canvassing concerns, so there's no differences in that regards. If the only reason you mentioned someone seems to be to canvas them, then yes it's a concern whether you pinged or properly notified. If there is a reasonable reason why you mentioned them, then it's fine. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an otherwise uninvolved witness, and presumably neutral, so your observations and assessments are possibly of great value. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough - if I had power I'd probably archive the talk page squabbles, block the two of you from editing the page(s) in question for 3 months, get someone to rewrite the section so that this wouldn't be left as either one of you wanted it (if it got left one way or the other it would remain as a bone of contention), the idea being that the two of you could take a time out - and probably would not then be grumpy after 3 months had passed (and so wouldn't go straight back to an edit/talk page war) Also to get the two of you to agree somewhere in writing to try and act in a more civil manner toward each other in future, and recommend that both of you 'let it go' a bit more. Incidentally I'm not the person who has the skill/knowledge/understanding of the subject enough to do that particular rewrite, but an opinion could probably be acquired in a couple of hours of reading. Apologies if this is out of line or seems harsh, it is just how I would try to handle it in real world rather than in the virtual world which is obviously a trickier situation as people frequently misinterpret even the slightest error in punctuation/sentence construction to read more into a phrase than may originally be intended. Best of luck to the admins - I am sure they have a difficult time of itEdwardLane (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdwardLane: The issue at hand here is JJ's several incidents of incivility across multiple discussions on different articles (as attested by the multiple warnings from different editors and the quotes above) and JJ's failure to acknowledge any of them; this ANI thread is not about the content dispute itself. I opened an RfC on the actual content dispute so that it could be resolved by uninvolved editors, and any other issues raised were my protests at JJ's repeated inappropriate personal comments. Honestly, civility and DR (like the RfC) were all that were needed from the start. — MarkH21talk 12:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of ManoHacker's allegations of incivility re "VAN"

    Info about VAN controversiality
    Breaking this out into its own section. "VAN" refers to a method its proponents claim can be used to predict earthquakes. This has been very controversial, and after 1996 largely ignored by mainstream seismologists. See Earthquake prediction#VAN seismic electric signals, Earthquake prediction#1983–1995: Greece (VAN), and VAN method for details and source. See also Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 8#Ask a seismologist for the views of a prominent seismologist – Dr. John Vidale, currently the Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center – re the mainstream assessment of VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    From the nutshell of WP:FRINGE: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". Earthquake prediction controversity does not apply as fringe inside Earthquake prediction article but it is treated as such in an uncivil manner by JJ.   ManosHacker talk 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

    Have a look here, too, by JJ: I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature.".   ManosHacker talk 02:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also have a look at JJ's distortion of a Wikipedia article: These statements, that have been tagged, make a false claim of sources that do not directly support the content, and are part of a slow edit warring.   ManosHacker talk 02:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I dropped by ANI to check on another editor's situation and saw the section heading. My immediate, unfiltered thought was, "So what's new?" J. Johnson used to be much less abrasive (evidence, just in case anyone doubts it) and more interested in collaboration. I do sometimes wish we had the old editor back. JJ, maybe it's time to re-calibrate your approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, W., good to hear from you again.
    User:ManosHacker is a relatively new user who seems to be channeling a WP:SPA user that has been try to promote a fringe theory at VAN method, the latter having added an unreliable source, and removed two "fringe theory" tags added by another editor. The details were discussed at Talk:VAN_method#Current_work_(2020). The other comment probably refers to the same long-running problem we're having at Earthquake prediction; see Talk:Earthquake prediction#Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SPAs and the tenure of ManosHacker aside, the quote I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature" is fairly confrontational and hostile language in response to a mildly worded talk page post. Whether or not the other editor uses potentially unreliable sources or disproportionately represents fringe theories, WP:CIVIL still applies. Inflammatory language is not useful to anyone. — MarkH21talk 05:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does 10 years of editing and 800 hours of teaching Wikipedia count as relatively new nowadays? — MarkH21talk 08:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes people count the number of edits in that account (1,932 in this case), rather than the number of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Although my thought was more that he is largely unknown in the involved topic areas. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem discussed here is JJ's manners in order to keep the articles the way he wants and the cost of this behavior to Wikipedia (retain of editors and content credibility). It is easy to attack people using Wikipedia policy, there is an argument given for any case of another's edit if you act in bad faith and JJ seems to be unable to set limits to himself (building a case on me here is another example yet). JJ had the last word after JerryRussell announced he was leaving Wikipedia in October 19, 2017. In November 25, 2017 an article (in which JJ has great interest)'s balance built on consensus thanks to Jerry's presence in Wikipedia was ruined by JJ. Add the persistive distortion of the sources by JJ, reflecting to bad Wikipedia content as shown above, and the lack of recognizing his way is inappropriate for colaboration, to get a wider picture.   ManosHacker talk 05:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The slow edit war ManosHacker refers to is the long term issue of certain VAN WP:SPA partisans to promote a discredited topic at VAN method and Earthquake prediction, which MH seems to favor. (His "distortion of the sources by JJ" is from one of those SPAs.) His "JJ had the last word" diff, and the insinuation that I ran Jerry off, is misleading, a rank misrepresentation, and I suggest that anyone inclined to give that any credence should read the entire discussion at User_talk:JerryRussell#Going_on_Wikibreak. MH's "ruined by JJ" diff (which is a merge of two edits) is a bit baffling. In the first edit I removed a paragraph about a supposed technique from VAN ("natural time") that simply is not notable (other than for its promotion). In the second edit, I removed a paragraph about a 2008 earthquake VAN claims to have predicted (including a criticism of the claim of prediction) on the basis (as stated in my edit summary) of failing a criterion that had been previously applied to mention of other claimed EQ predictions. It is difficult to find any "incivility" in this, other than certain SPA parties partial to VAN not liking my edits.
    To be continued. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what matters in this ANI discussion I see no apology for violation of the community established consensus without any talk from JJ.   ManosHacker talk 07:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't see that your alleged "violation of the community established consensus" involved any kind of incivility, or anything to do with this discussion except you trying to heap the fuel higher.
    But perhaps you have a personal involvement? Perhaps you would clarify whether you are the "M. Kefalas" that has published several times with Varotsos and Nomicos? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Breaking community consensus without talking is disregard and discredit of editors' tons of efforts and thus incivility when it comes from an involved editor. Asking for more on this, your incivil wording regarding well reputated scientists: "In this regard I have come around to the view that VAN exhibits aspects of pathological science" in public is easy behind anonymity, but here we are now discussing on your behavior. I sign with my real identity in Wikipedia and I declare no COI as we speak, proven by the dates of my publications along my career.   ManosHacker talk 09:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The uncivil behavior can be art. One can characterize someone by stating that (unnamed!) others call him things and get away with it. JJ says to JerryRussel: "I have said that vague predictions are a hallmark of charlatanism (6 Aug., 15 Aug.) and I have commented that others have called VAN charlatans (16 Aug.), and I stated that VAN "reject the principal means of distinguishing scientists from charlatans" (20 Aug.). But you should note: I have NOT called VAN charlatans, and I do hesitate to do so. (In part because I think doing so serves no purpose, and in part because slackness on their part, and even hubris, is, in my view, insufficient to warrant that term.)". Does JJ insist on this kind of behavior, i.e. defamation through Wikipedia?   ManosHacker talk 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be so kind as to provide a diff, so we can better see the context? And perhaps explain how stating that VAN should not be called charlatans is defamation?
    As to possible COI: would you specifically confirm that:
    1) You have never published with P. Varotsos?
    2) You have never published with K. Nomicos?
    3) That you are not personally connected with Varotsos, Sarlis, or Skordas?
    4) That you are not connected with the Solid State Physics Dept at the Univ. of Athens?
    That would be greatly appreciated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the diff. My detailed personal info are at the disposal of an admin, in case I am asked to for a reason, by email.   ManosHacker talk 00:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me hard to tell if JJ's attitude towards groups of scientists is more WP:BLPGROUP or WP:INCIVIL, as JJ tends to address thematically related editors as SPA or COI. I would like the opinion of the admins on it.   ManosHacker talk 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were not conflicted it would be easy enough to say so. As there is some evidence suggesting a possible conflict of interest this should be looked into.
    By the way, please strike those statements of yours where you accused me of driving off JerryRussell.
    You still have not explained how my saying that the VAN group should not be called charlatans constitutes defamation, let alone any kind if incivility. Perhaps you object to my comment that "others have called VAN charlatans"? That came from an extensive discussion we had on that in 2016 (see Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#Libel on VAN 1983-1995), and if you want a source on that you should ask for it, not raise a stink about something just for the sake raising a stink.
    Now you have segued to accusing me of BLP violation, which is totally off-topic, and that I "address thematically related editors as SPA or COI". "Thematically related" is cute, but, well "nonsense" suffices as a description. The fact is that over the years there have been several episodes of editing with a common "theme" of promoting VAN and reducing criticism of VAN, and in every case the editors were, in fact, entirely WP:SPA. And in a couple of cases their IP addresses were at the University of Athens, which where VAN is based. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ι declare no COI".   ManosHacker talk 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And presumably no COI because you are not connected with Varotsos or Nomicos, and are not the "M. Kefalas" that has co-authored with them. Thank you for the clarification. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to ManosHacker's edit of 09:52, 17 Mar. where, without edit summary or other comment, he has renamed this section from the neutral 'Discussion re "VAN"' to 'Τrend of incivility re "VAN"', which is a very non-neutral assertion of his opinion. This violates the WP:TPG guidance to Keep headings neutral (bolding in the original). I am restoring the original header. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    After looking for the reason JJ did not edit or talk for some days on articles as expected, I noticed JJ was brought to ANI. As the "reply" section had already been created, I added the example of JJ's most recent incivility at the end of the talk. The comments that followed regarded JJ's incivility. The first section's title on JJ's incivility is titled 'General trend of incivility'. The examples regarding JJ's incivility were focused in the case of earthquake prediction and VAN method but had no title. JJ deployed a distract strategy instead of answering on the incivility examples given. Top of this is the put of a title that removes the incivility attribute, changes the focus and puts a big box that blocks the user from directly viewing JJ's incivility examples and editor responses. This section in fact becomes a case focused on content instead of JJ's manners discussed in this ANI (see section's tile ('Discussion re "VAN"') and block of text following immediately). This maneuvering is disruptive. Having to answer in this section one would be addressing a "VAN case" in ANI, seen by all editors & viewers of Wikipedia in the recent changes, so I am changing the title to a neutral one: 'Incivility (continued)'.   ManosHacker talk 07:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed sanction

    It has been more than three days since this ANI thread was opened. During this time, a clear consensus has emerged that J. Johnson has repeatedly crossed the line of WP:CIVIL and created unpleasant hostile environments for multiple editors in multiple discussions. Femkemilene and Ames86 suggested above to impose a limited community ban on J. Johnson from commenting on the behavior and beliefs of other editors, but this may be difficult to implement in practice.

    So far, J. Johnson has still not acknowledged the incivility in any of the recent incidents quoted/diffed above despite several opportunities to do so across the multiple recent warnings, relevant discussions, and the thread above. Additionally, J. Johnson has continued this behavior within this ANI thread itself, remarking that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety and deflected the issues of J. Johnson's incivil language onto the editors raising the objections.

    In light of these facts, a community ban consisting of a three month block, during which time J. Johnson is encouraged to review the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, will serve to prevent further escalation and hostility in the near future. This will enforce a cooling off period for J. Johnson, after which we will hopefully see the editor whose non-abrasive collaborative spirit appeared so prominently in the 2009 diffs posted by WhatamIdoing above. — MarkH21talk 05:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (proposer): The separate incidents of incivility by JJ have been brought up by several editors in several different discussions. JJ has failed to acknowledge the incivility and has failed to stop the regular occurrences of hostile tone.
      Such a sanction would prevent further occurrences in the near future while also providing a cooling off period. — MarkH21talk 06:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support? (involved editor): I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to comment here as involved editor. Also, I'm also not familiar with precedent here. J. Johnson is an experienced editor, who should know better than using incivil language, even if fellow editors are clearly wrong in his/her/their eyes. For the sake of having the lowest sanction possible to remedy the behaviour, a shorter block in combination with a prohibition to comment on other people's behaviour and beliefs may be more effective and less impactfull. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    J. Johnson. What do you think not commenting on people's behaviours and beliefs anymore? I think this would mean you have more time to do wonderful content-related stuff, as this has proven to be quite the time-drain for you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved editor). As proposed. JJ's uncivil behavior is not new 1, 2. Failure to address all previous incidents has escalated his uncivil behavior.   ManosHacker talk 08:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (involved editor). The fact that JJ's behavior and unrepentant attitude endure—even within this very discussion (see diff)—warrants strong action. Given his long history, I'm not optimistic that a "kinder, gentler" prohibition from commenting on other editors' behavior and beliefs, would be effective. We would likely end up spending hours at ANI, again. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (uninvolved editor) - I hadn't meant to come to AN/I and got here on a misclick. Don't know this editor at all, and am glad because the quotes I'm reading and the utter lack of contrition are over the line of decency and civility I need in a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Three months off will preventatively protect users from abuse, and give this manners-challenged editor some time to reflect on the the reality that actions have consequences, sooner or later, even here. Jusdafax (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      got here on a misclick – I'm tempted to add a phab ticket urging that an Are you sure? dialog box be inserted as a firewall to protect people from inadvertently ending up at ANI. EEng 00:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose JJ has a wealth of knowledge about earthquakes. His lack of civility is sort of refreshing actually. There's never any doubt what he thinks of you. Unlike so many other editors here, who hide their feelings behind a veil. So all you fragile flowers out there, get used to it. I don't always agree with JJ. But, I feel it would be a big loss to the encyclopedia if he's forced to take a long break. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Antipocalypse (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [29], [30], [31], [32])[reply]
    I was only kidding about fragile flowers. Please don't be insulted, anyone. And I know that you're supposed to hide your feelings behind a veil at this site. Has never been easy for me. My point is still the same: JJ is a great asset to the project. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You were not kidding. You came in ANI. And you continue. Are you thinking of striking out "refreshing" or "flowers"?   ManosHacker talk 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Antipocalypse: You may find a lack of civility to be refreshing, but civility is one of Wikipedia’s five pillars and breaches of the policy are not refreshing for others. — MarkH21talk 06:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Antipocalypse: one of the reasons why civility is a pillar, is that other editors with a wealth of knowledge may leave the project because they don't enjoy editing in a hostile environment. Making good contributions doesn't shield you from having to follow policy. You can make it abundantly but politely clear what you think about other edits, without commenting on the editors, no veil needed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    unsure Is there a way to do a suspended sentence for these things? If not then just taking a 'gradualist' approach - the encyclopedia will get the benefit of JJ's knowledge eventually - and I think the examples in this Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith might be useful for the people reading back through the conversations they have had with JJ - which may take some of the emotional tone out of the threads (people make mistakes about intentions all the time - and I'm not convinced JJ intends to end up in conflict with other editors, but it does seem to have happened, and once it starts then obviously that naturally escalates to a stage where JJ does sound a bit harsh/unyielding). EdwardLane (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your wise words, and the essay you linked to. In terms of a 'gradualist' approach; I'm all for that. But I do think we should consider how far we've already come into that, with multiple people covering different editing areas have issues request to stop this behaviour multiple times. I immediately believe that JJ isn't intending to end up in conflict, nor has any malicious intent while editing. Still, they do end up in conflicts easily and repeatedly.
    Given the fact that JJ has not apologized to any of the involved editors, even if they make a momentary lapse of judgement (for instance, not recognizing how stressful it is to bring a new editor to ANI instead of first talking to them), gives me little confidence in a suspended sentence (if such a thing exists). My preferred solution would be something in the direction of a short ban + some further prohibition of commenting on beliefs and motivations. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unfortunate that I was delayed this morning by some pressing matters, as I just offered you an apology. See somewhere above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the apology to me. However, I don't think I was the one you directed most incivility against, as I've tried to withdraw myself from discussions with you before things got too heated. Could you extend specific apologies to more of the involved editors? Even if they themselves have not always behaved like angels? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably you refer to RCraig. I am not especially inclined to give him any apologies until he retracts (strikes) his "inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view" and "low-level tasks" comments of 22:31, 10 Mar. If wants to condemn me for the "Repeated abuse" comments that Mark complains of he should not himself be committing even greater incivilities. If backs off from that then we can talk, though I think ANI is not the appropriate venue. BTW, I don't expect people to angel-like. But I am not immune to exasperation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I presume it will be obvious to a closer/admin: the editor who has inspired a ~15 laptop-screenful, >10,000 word discussion at ANI—not his first visit here—listing numerous distributed incivilities, now indicates he is the one who is exasperated.
    - But to respond: I too do countless "low-level tasks" here and don't find it insulting that they are called such. Also, I provided above, three specific instances (¶4, ¶5, ¶6) in which (I am assuming good faith) he simply does not grasp those higher-level arguments or contexts (a level of understanding that may actually underlie his exasperation). Simply put: he has persistently damaged collegial discourse in GW and apparently other projects—damage that this ANI and I simply seek to curtail; however, his enduring remorselessness, deflection, and attempted whattaboutism, make it unlikely that damage will abate without an enforced sanction. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral – I really don't like these parts of the encyclopedia. Yes, I have been brought here several times and have used it to bring problems to the attention of the masses, but I just don't like talking out problems with text like this. Too many problems with being misinterpreted. We really need to work on getting some sort of voice communication going. Anyway, I think that JJ is an immense asset to the project. His knowledge and skillset(s) are intimidating enough; I don't think the snarkiness is necessary or helpful. Now keep in mind that one or more of the times that I've been brought here may have been for the same—being rude or abrupt with someone. I think that I've grown since then and my hope is that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same. Dawnseeker2000 18:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no evidence (sincere apology & promise not to repeat) so far that JJ is on the way to improve in Wikipedia collaboration. JJ has a reputation on this[33][34]. JJ's knowledge and skillset do not serve Wikipedia. JJ is shown to persistingly (reverts) insert false misleading information in the articles, that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with, apart from removing strongly notable & verifiable content that addreses JJ's POV, in the way described by the links provided.   ManosHacker talk 22:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Dawnseeker2000: I agree with your principles, but disagree that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same without a sanction.
      JJ has been given years since the ANI incidents over their incivility and battleground behavior (one in 2013, two in 2014). More recently, JJ has received at least nine warnings from five different editors for the same issues in the course of the last nine months.
      How much sanction-free time is supposed to be given to JJ to stop the hostility? — MarkH21talk 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: could a decision be made as soon as admins have time? A continuation of this discussion will probably only lead to more sour feeling between editors. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That was a misunderstanding of the process, sorry. Instead, could administrators / uninvolved editors weigh in on the complaints. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I notice that MarkH21 and ManosHacker both seem very unhappy with their interactions with JJ - but I do wonder if as a result of having reached this state of unhappiness they are now running the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend. So I also think that resolving this swiftly would be best EdwardLane (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, it doesn't work like that; unless a situation is genuinely urgent we don't just supervote. Thus far I count a grand total of one comment from an uninvolved editor in the above, which is nowhere near enough to establish a consensus. If the people agitating for JJ to be blocked are genuinely so hair-trigger that they run the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend, then possibly it's not JJ who's the problem here. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the clarification of the process. The fact that a few of the complainants are not as civil as should be, doesn't mean that JJ's behaviour is not a (big part of) the problem I don't think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not intend to edit any article regarding the disputes shown here and I do not urge to a decision. I believe in building consensus through the talk page and then make additions and changes to the articles on dispute. I stepped in only to show this process cannot work when JJ is involved in content discussion, the way JJ (until now) treats editors with different perspectives than JJ's.   ManosHacker talk 10:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I didn't intend to jump the gun - I think I'm technically a non involved editor with no clear preference on whether there should be a sanction for JJ EdwardLane (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Iridescent: Both EdwardLane and Dawnseeker20000 are uninvolved to my knowledge, as well as MJL and Ames86 in the preceding subsections who acknowledge JJ’s incivility. I don’t think there’s much risk in losing my temper; at this point, I’m only responding to JJ where an explanation of my own conduct (particularly if misconduct is claimed) is necessary. — MarkH21talk 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      You forget WhatamIdoing.   ManosHacker talk 21:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Why the rush? In the first three days we heard from those whose minds were already made up, or have been swayed by Mark's superficial gloss of events. Since then some of the allegations made against me have already been shown to be false, and as the details continue to unfold more thorough readers might come to a different conslusion. Besides, we haven't even had a proper discussion of Mark's complaints, which are so insipid that he is trying to hang me on the basis that I have said worse to other people. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Another reason for not being hasty: a range of accusations were made against me, which I think should be carefully examined. But various circumstances have constricted my Internet access and my available time, so I am not able to proceed as quickly some folks like, and have not yet presented a full reply. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No-brainer, really; a source of a shit - ton of unacknowledged incivility must stop; to not stop it is to shoot at a pillar of (our) CIVILization. WP:CIVIL. The actions of the "triggering" parties often don't even nearly justify it. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please refine your wording, user:50.201.195.170 as it (in fact) justifies JJ to act in a non civil manner.   ManosHacker talk 10:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    comment @MJL: are you sure? those that are 'involved' seem to be supporting the sanction (which is unsurprising), those of us that are 'uninvolved' seem to be much more neutral (I think I count 1 support and 2 neutrals(edit conflict means that foxnpichu below brings it to 2)), I don't think this is done as a vote counting exercise anyway, but whilst a sanction may be in order, I dislike the idea of issuing a sanction just because 'everyone else seems to agree', so if you are voting on this which might actually be significant as an uninvolved editor, would it be impolite of me to ask for more detail on your rationale EdwardLane (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JJ canvassing

    This is blatant canvassing by JJ: JJ’s recent user talk page post linked to this ANI thread called Hi, and I could use your help and stating I could use your help here. Such wording is clearly non-neutral and prohibited by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification.

    That post was immediately followed by Antipocalypse’s !vote and reference to that message, and the connection between the two accounts is only confirmed by the dating of the former account retirement and the new account statement.

    Sorry to connect a clean start user with their former account, but canvassing is a serious issue. — MarkH21talk 07:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-issue. ManosHacker made a claim, JJ requested the editor in question to address it. It's within reason for JJ to do so. You're really fishing here. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that I could use your help is non-neutral in a notification to a centralized discussion, unlike a post that would hypothetically say something like There is an ANI thread with competing claims about why you left WP. Could you clarify?
    This is not the main issue in the thread but it is something to note. — MarkH21talk 07:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JerryRussel is a polite editor who chose to leave Wikipedia. I doubt he connects to Antipocalypse. The connection here is only the time.   ManosHacker talk 07:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @ManosHacker: The connection is also through Antipocalypse mentioning JJ’s greetings and heads-up while JJ’s only recent user talk page post is the one made on JerryRussell’s page a few one hours before Antipocalypse commented here. I’m not claiming misconduct by JerryRussell nor commenting on their editing history; I have had no interactions with them before. — MarkH21talk 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC); correction on number of hours 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User's contributions speak for themselves on the case here.   ManosHacker talk 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's me, the editor formerly known as user:JerryRussell. Since you all are so smart at following breadcrumbs, maybe you also can realize that Swiss Propaganda Research is entirely correct when they say that Wikipedia administration and editorial policy is now completely dominated by paid editors who are working for giant corporations and governments. I have tremendous respect for the many, many true volunteer editors here, but you've been out-maneuvered.
    If you all want to waste your time trying to block an honest, valuable editor like JJ; or for that matter, tracking down former editors with new names; I think your priorities are misdirected. But, that's for you to decide.
    I can assure you that JJ was not responsible for my departure from Wikipedia. I too would appreciate it if JJ would tone down his comments about other editors and about their contributions. But he's done great work with his contributions to earthquake-related articles, making sure that they correctly articulate mainstream views, while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views.
    The Wikipedia policy against canvassing has never made any sense at all to me. What is wrong with JJ asking me to reply to false claims made here, that he was the cause of my departure? Why wouldn't it be OK for him to ask me, a long term collaborator, to stand up for him at this ANI? For that matter, why shouldn't he be able to ask my opinion about the lede to the Tangshan earthquake article?
    I registered this account so as to make hopefully non-controversial, fact-based contributions to the knowledge base here, and with no intention of getting involved in any administrative drama. But before I left, I promised JJ that I would be available if he needed me. So when I received his request, I then studied the rules at wp:validalt and regarding fresh starts in general, and determined that I could not answer using my old name. So now that I've been unmasked, I will open another new account in good time.
    Best wishes to you all.... Antipocalypse (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Antipocalypse:, JJ can speak for himself here (ANI) regarding incivility consequences:

    • For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

    You wish for a different treatment on JJ, while JerryRussel wrote:

    • Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The consensus is completely obvious, JJ is the only one who disagrees. But he won't let us close it as involved editors, except on his terms. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

    As JerryRussel you should know how this action of JJ is in conflict with your saying "while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views".    ManosHacker talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At WP:Canvassing the "Appropriate notification" section (WP:APPNOTE) explicitly allows notification of "Editors who have asked to be kept informed". Which Jerry did ask, as he has said. The guideline goes on to say that an "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Which should not be an issue here, as on the very point where all this started Jerry's opinion is actually opposite of mine. Unlike Mark's canvassing of editors he identifies as having complaints about me, but not those of a different opinion.
    This entire subsection ought to be noted – as a fine example of MarkH21 making a mountain of complaint out of a nothing, where his basis of complaint is simply wrong. And ManosHacker's "ruined by JJ" statement is shown to be utterly false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notifying editors who have asked to be informed is permitted, but only when all of the other conditions are also met. Non-neutral notification of an editor, regardless of whether they asked to be informed, are always inappropriate by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. — MarkH21talk 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely how is "I could use your help" non-neutral? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By specifically asking him to help you, the subject of the complaints and proposed community ban, as opposed to asking for his general input. There’s an inherent bias in wording it as a request for him to help you. — MarkH21talk 07:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @MarkH21:, JJ should have asked JerryRussel to step in, to make things clear, as he left Wikipedia saying half words. I achnowledge, on the other hand, JJ's emotional wording on the call for help. I also believe that JerryRussel does not blame anyone for leaving Wikipedia.   ManosHacker talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that asking JR to comment was appropriate. It is however clear that the note was not neutral, as there was an expection of help for one side. I regard this as a minor breach of etiquette. JJ, with a small apology this issue will become a non-issue to me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact JJ's apology has to be sincere. JerryRussel has mentioned JJ's canvassing tactic in the past, in the middle of a try for consensus in the article he seems mostly interested in.   ManosHacker talk 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @MarkH21: and @ManosHacker:, it's interesting to come back to some of these heated dialogs with JJ from 3 years ago. You need to understand that in general, I felt that my job at Wikipedia was to stand for fair treatment of 'fringe' positions. While JJ stands for the mainstream. This often placed us at odds.
    But in retrospect I see that JJ was often correct in applying Wikipedia policies, and that I was often in the wrong. The linked deletion of "Natural Time" from the EQ prediction article, is a case in point. It was undue weight, and I was wrong to have argued in favor.
    At three years distance, I feel nothing but respect for JJ.
    Even compared to many of the issues JJ and I debated about, this question of whether the encyclopedia should say that Tangshan "ceased to exist" seems a bit trivial. The quote is hyperbole to be sure, and I side with those who wouldn't use it. But shouldn't it be obvious to any reader, that the city and its millions of people didn't literally disappear into thin air? It amazes me that anyone would spend so much time disputing this. And that includes JJ too!! As my wife would say: "children, children, can't you just get along"?? Hmm... I also remember how important things seemed, when I was in the middle of a dispute.
    Ask yourself, will this seem important to you a few years from now? Antipocalypse (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Along with "natural time" deletion in the link, there is also the deletion of 2008 Athens earthquake prediction, which "ceased to exist" as well from the article. There is also the insertion of false misleading information that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with. Can you make a small edit in JerryRussel's page as JerryRussel?   ManosHacker talk 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. User_talk:JerryRussell#Hi,_and_could_use_some_help.
    JJ argued at the time that the 2008 prediction was only notable for its use of natural time. All the information is still readily available in the VAN method article, it didn't "cease to exist" from the encyclopedia. But I can't find the "false misleading" aspect of that diff? What am I missing? Antipocalypse (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @ManosHacker:, I see above that JJ has accused you of being an SPA editor with a bias in favor of VAN. I want to add that I also have the highest respect for VAN and their efforts! And for SPA editors, who are often great contributors to the encyclopedia. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: I have not accused ManosHacker of anything, and certainly not being an SPA. I am suggesting that there are indications that he has a personal connection with VAN, and therefore an undeclared possible conflict of interest. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And I note that (further above) ManosHacker has declared no COI. The indications of possible COI are presumably co-incidental, not arising from any personal connection with the VAN principals. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To recap, JJ said that ManosHacker is a relatively new user who seems to be channeling a WP:SPA user and also that he is largely unknown in the involved topic areas. And, as JJ mentions here, he said he suspected an undeclared COI.
    Therefore, I stand corrected. JJ did not use the word "accuse" nor did he specifically identify ManosHacker himself as an SPA. This is why I respect JJ: he demands precision! Antipocalypse (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Antipocalypse. This is the diff you have been missing. The strikeouts are the JJ's false claims. As for 2008 prediction, it is notable by itself and does not have to be deleted as an outcome of natural time analysis "fringe process" (sic). The newspapers announced the major earthquake 4 days before it occurred, while its prediction (or "prediction" depending on acceptable criteria or vagueness) had been posted 2 weeks ago on scientific media. I apologize for using ANI space for article content talk, this should continue in proper space.   ManosHacker talk 01:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Akira CA / Ythlev (two sections merged)

    A while ago there was an RfC on maps of China, which concluded that using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. A few users apparently do not agree with the consensus and have been constantly finding ways to circumvent it.

    The first is by CaradhrasAiguo, who tried to hide the RfC and make it harder to reference it in the future. The user repeatedly removed the reference from the relevant MOS even though it is fully within scope and most users agreed to add it.

    The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus.

    The third is by Akira CA and others, who disregard the consensus by finding excuses on why the RfC results do not apply elsewhere. They've tried to make a distinction between world maps and maps specifically about China. They've argued how such separating Taiwan only makes sense for that map because of the difference in severity. They disregard the core of the issue that including Taiwan on maps of China violates NPOV.

    Finally, after an agreement that maps can include Taiwan if a distinction from the mainland is made, Akira CA attempted to circumvent the NPOV policy altogether. Many maps on the site have Taiwan lumped with China without distinction. I have removed Taiwan from such maps accordingly, but Akira CA reverted my edits on the grounds that Commons files do not need to be neutral. With no clear reason, the user wanted me to upload separate versions instead of replacing the existing maps. However the user then replaced the existing maps themselves with a version they agree with. The user also obstructed the removal of non-neutral maps as the MOS describes (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Violation). Clearly the lack of NPOV requirement on Commons is this user's way of pushing their POV on Wikipedia. They selectively reverted a version they do not agree with.

    The core issue is these users do not agree with consensus. If they wish to challenge the consensus, they should start new discussions, do close reviews, if all else fails take it to arbitration. They should not disrupt Wikipedia like this. Ythlev (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm Akira CA, the above user utilized canvassing and cherry-picked other user's comments to promote his preferred MoS version over others and the consensus. In the original RfC, the consensus was to replace the Greater China map wtih a mainland China and that a map that lumps the People's Republic of China and Taiwan together violates NPOV. However the user misinterpreted the consensus and claimed that "All content, including every lists, maps, and tables, related to China should not include Taiwan" despite that Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, with the Constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomingtang claiming the political entity to be the only representative of China. There are also policies on Chinese Wikipedia to ban both "juxtapositioning Taiwan and China" and "including Taiwan as a part of China", because either way violates NPOV and "Wikipedia should keep silence on this matter".

    Ythlev then started mass purging maps all over the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, including those shades Taiwan with a different colour and clearly labelled the island as "claimed but not controlled by China", a long-established convention on WikiProject Maps. The user changed and reverted this, this, this, this, this, this, and this 25 times in total to lobby his prefered version despite being reverted by four different editors. PE fans soon noticed his destruction and rose a discussion against his conduct. Many users supported the "controlled/claimed not controlled/grey" colour scheme (with the reason that they remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia) for geopolitical disputed territories and voiced their concerns against Ythlev's removal of "claimed not controlled" territories. Even Ythlev himself admit that "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go.

    However, I later found out Ythlev is still mass purging maps, so I posted a concern on his Commons user page to inform his violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files, which states that

    Controversial or contested changes

    Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. Upload wars (a form of edit war in which contributors repeatedly upload different versions of a file in an effort to have their version be the visible one) are always undesirable. As with other forms of edit warring, users who engage in upload wars may be blocked from editing.

    If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion.

    The more known uses of a file there are (through transclusions on Wikimedia projects), the more cautious contributors should be in deciding whether a change qualifies as "minor". Widespread usage of a file makes it more likely that even small changes will be controversial. If in doubt, uploading as a separate file avoids potential surprises for reusers. In some cases, prior discussion with previous uploader(s) or in locations where the file is in use may help decide whether a planned change can be considered "minor".

    and Commons:Disputed territories, which states that

    1. Both versions of any map can be uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV, and linking one another as Other Versions. Whichever map was first at a certain filename gets to stay there. The Wikipedias can decide which version is appropriate to use in which educational context. Legitimate improvements that are independent of POV can be made with complete consensus, but if anyone objects, they should be reverted and sent to a new filename.

    over his 25 reverts.

    Nevertheless, Ythlev ignored all these Commons Policies and regarded my messages as a circumvention to Wikipedia Policy through Commons Policy. He then threatened me on his Commons talk page and reverted every compromises he did before. Regarding to his conduct and multiple violations of policies across Wikimedia sites — including the 3RR rules — I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Akira😼CA 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I wish people would stop creating subsections for their comments here. Anyway, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions. If I find people are disrupting MOS pages, I'm going to become irritable and probably block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Ythlev, the only RfC-related notice I even blanked was your blatant canvassing (the ping notifications by that point were likely already sent to each of the targets anyway) which you attempted to deny. In addition to your own disruptive editing, which has appeared on this noticeboard not once, but twice, it is apparent that you are not above telling any lie. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Akira CA: "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go To be clear, that sentence means both a map without Taiwan and a map with Taiwan distinguished are acceptable. Yet your actions show you don't agree with the former as acceptable. You would rather have a map with undistinguished Taiwan than no map at all, as demonstrated by your reversions. In that case, the guideline is completely pointless. Ythlev (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above paragraph make zero sense as I have never add Taiwan to any maps that originally (before any of your edit) don't include the island. All I've been doing is stoping your disruptive editing with respect to the orginal uploaders and their versions. -- Akira😼CA 23:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even PE fans wrote "However Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland". Ythlev (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV" I fully support this. In fact, my opinion is that if there is no distinction from the mainland, inclusion of Taiwan indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is part of China" and contradicts NPOV. However, the key point is that excluding Taiwan from China indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is not part of China", which also contradicts NPOV. The long time convention stated in WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps is to mark disputed territories as disputed territories. I believe in that this long time convention fits best with NPOV principle. After a long discussion in the talk page involving many editors, the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles indicates its support on WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. I hope that everyone can follow the current version.PE fans (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, stop debating the dispute here. Second, I don't see why we're accusing a user of canvassing when they literally pinged their opponent in a dispute. Canvassing is selective notification that excludes potential opponents. It's not a credible accusation, so quit repeating it, that's a personal attack and WP:ASPERSION. Third, the community's consensus and the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. Claiming that this is POV is irrelevant, when there is an NPOV dispute, the community can decide on what to do about it, and the community has done so in this case. There should be no attempts to override the MOS per a POV dispute that the community has already ruled on. Fourth, WP:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Orthographic maps is irrelevant in a situation where it does not apply, per a community mandate. Fifth, we have no jurisdiction at Commons, but edit warring over Commons images that are hosted on Wikipedia with the intent of subverting Wikipedia consensuses, policies or guidelines is disruptive editing on Wikipedia. There is no "catch-22" that we will not block you because the disruption is technically taking place on Commons. And last, the reported users have been formally made aware of the relevant MOS DS, and I agree with NRP that we should issue blocks if disruption continues. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Swarm: Where do we go from here? Since then, another user has edited according to consensus and could get reverted by the above users. How are you going to prevent these users from disrupting the site? Ythlev (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts. The "another user" misidentified the map by claiming it is POV on Arunachal Pradesh, however the map doesn't even include Arunachal Pradesh and shades it as Indian territory. The user is indeed damaging the Wikipedia by editing disruptively.

    -- Akira😼CA 07:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nothing at the text of WP:CANVASS mentions the requirement that all the users pinged are inclined to agree with the OP. Only one of the users Ythlev pinged opposes them; notice I participated at the outbreak article, am a frequent editor on East Asia matters (as opposed to some they pinged), and was not pinged. Ythlev is guilty as charged; no amount of apologism will alter that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Swarm: Also could you give me where the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. this come from? The current MoS is edited by Ythlev himself one months ago, which he later admitted is a bold changes and doesn't reflect the consensus at the time. After he added his own word the MoS page has been edit warred numerous times, with not only myself but many other editors opposing his bold change to MoS without any discussion. There were no section about Taiwan's political status before his edit, and I didn't find your quote by seaching across the whole MoS space. -- Akira😼CA 05:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept. On global maps such as File:World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg, the long time convention is to mark only areas controlled by each country. This has been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. On country specific maps such like File:Europe-Ukraine_(orthographic_projection;_disputed_territory).svg or File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, the long time convention is to use a third color to indicate claimed uncontrolled territories. This has also been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. I don't see any reason to deviate from the long time convention. It does not respect the efforts of various editors such as the editors involved in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg between 2010 and 2013. PE fans (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit the Ythlev is an expert in misleading the topics. By saying "The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus", he gave other people the impression that our key point of debate is on whether disputed territories should be drawn as the same color of a country or a different color of a country. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one because this is the current conventions on global maps or other maps when there are only two choices available. I was not surprised that the admin Swarm supported the second one. However, in reality, the main topic is a different one: the main discussion is about the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and other similar files. In 2010-2013, many editors have spent lots of efforts to draw the border line and colors on the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and in 2018, even the small issue about the border line has been carefully treated. The version of Furfur used a third color to treat disputed territories in a careful manner. Even the small islands were drawn in the map. In 2020, Ythlev removed the disputed territories rudely in the sense that when deleting the claimed but not controlled territories on the map, the sentence "claimed but not controlled by China" was not removed. Moreover, he keeps trying to rewrite the MoS to support his version despite being warned by the admin NinjaRobotPirate that "the MOS is under discretionary sanctions". I requested for comments about File:PRC_Population_Density.svg on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh) and a majority of editors supported the careful, long time version of Furfur than the version of Ythlev. I don't know why he keeps overruling this consensus by saying that the supporters of Furfur's version are "A small number of users". PE fans (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Akira CA: I'm strictly referring to the "Maps" section, which reflects the community's consensus from that RfC that settled the map issue. No one should be inserting maps that disagree with the consensus. That being said, anything Ythlev added to the MoS because he was "being bold" that aren't directly supported by a community consensus needs to be removed. BOLD does not apply to policies, policies merely reflect the community's consensuses.
    • @PE fans: "According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept." Is this a joke? How about you actually read WP:STABLE, and then read WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Being called "the main problem"

    From my point of view Ythlev is calling other editors "problem", not just their edits. I thinks this is inappropriate and uncivil according to WP:BATTLEGROUND, but he thinks such use of word is acceptable on Wikipedia [35]...At the very end describing other editors as "problem" is really derogatory and uncooperative. -- Akira😼CA 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for tagging me Akira CA. You should probably refrain from invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND, civility, etc while at the same time writing things like "Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts.” Whats good for the goose is good for the gander and its important to be the bigger person. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are directed to the editor's comments not the editor himself. However "problem" is directed to myself, a substantial difference. -- Akira😼CA 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I can't see why I should probably refrain. Shouldn't both his words and mine be examined under Wikipedia policies? -- Akira😼CA 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    Ythlev has now directly disobeyed an admin's answering of his edit request, and 16 hours after said answering; it is not possible this is a simple mis-step given he himself requested admin closure and was pinged of the request. Given this flagrant violation and inability to abide by even the most basic of Wikipedia norms, I am proposing an indefinite topic ban on all MOS pages and all pages tagged with WP:CHINA, WP:HONGKONG, WP:MACAU, WP:TAIWAN, to include their talk pages as well. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Izno: Now, in a tour de force display of petulance, Ythlev is edit warring to re-open the edit request to which he himself requested admin closure, in violation of WP:ADMINSHOP. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor on standard offer

    This ANI, a very long one, highlighted Krish!, who promotes Priyanka Chopra over various articles. After being back on the standard offer he is back to the same. He was warned by many users, including Hell in a Bucket to not revert, when his edits have been questioned. Since the previous unproductive ANI, he continued his agenda by removing more information even minutely critical of Chopra, here and here. In another article, Andaaz, a film starring Chopra and Lara Dutta, he is repeatedly removing (sometimes sneakily) a win for Chopra's co-star Dutta in favour of a nomination for Chopra. This aligns with his continued attempt to highlight Chopra at the cost of her co-star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been trying to get me into WP: edit warring Andaaz, an article I have been working since yesterday. He has reverted removed several of my edits. Also it should be noted that this editor has been stalking my every edit in order to get me into edit warring and get me blocked. This editor has WP: I don't like it problem. He reverts my edits just because what he thinks is a bias. He called my expanding of lead as sneakily editing out something to show bias against another actress". Wow. This editor has been trying to get me blocked. So now I have to ask this editor's permission to add even a comma in an article? I have written over a dozen of film articles and I have been highlighting few awards in every single one of them yet I was never questioned but suddenly my every edit is been questioned by this editor.Krish | Talk To Me 07:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: Another prominent Indian film editor agrees with my edit . Plus I think Krimuk 2.0 would be reporting me to ANI every time I don't comply with his orders.Krish | Talk To Me 07:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Krish!, I support both your and Krimuk's views but in different ways; Krish's view that the lead shouldn't be bloated with awards; and Krimuk's view that awards should be listed if there's anything important to it. For this reason, I do not want to face charges or be blocked again. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that this editor reported me here just because he thought my edits on biased which none of the editors think of my edits as biased.Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor has been hurling WP: Personal Attack towards me by calling me biased and white washer which nobody has called me on wikipedia. BUT look at what he did in 2018. He removed the criticism of Padukone'a and Singh's performance (the Anupama Chopra review used in the article criticised him a little but you won't see now; just praise) in Bajirao Mastani article and removed Chopra's quotes, image, mention from the lead etc. Note that the version he completely changed was a version that was reached after a CONSENSUS on that talk page. Yet that editor changed it without any discussion. How can anyone remove consensus reached version of any article? Yet I am biased?Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Please quit with the boldface and other non-standard formatting. You were warned about this at the last ANI. (2) Why are you continuing to remove critical material from the article without any reasoning? This material had been in the article for years, for example. I am strongly minded to at least block you from the Chopra article at this point. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly I think that could well just be best. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail I am really sorry. I thought the colored texts were allowed but it's not. So I won't be using it. Also, coming to the removal of that casting withdrawal, as I mentioned in the summary I thought that it suited in the film article instead of Chopra's article. After Krimuk 2.0 reverted it, I realised he had a point. I myself am the biggest contributor to Chopra's article and one of the people who nominated it for FA and it passed. My edit was not in a bad faith. He reported me here beacuse of Andaaz, an article I have been expanding since yesterday. In fact those edits were not controversial yet he reported me here. You see what another editor thinks on that talk page. Krish | Talk To Me 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail Krimuk 2.0 accuses me of removing things from article without any reasons but he himself majorly restructured the article in 2018 without discussions. Yes, that version was there in the article for over 6 years yet he did not hesitate to change it without any discussion but I see no ANI reporting for him. Yet I have to ask for permission to add even commas otherwise Krimuk 2.0 would revert me and report me at ANI. This is the thing that I cannot understand. When he does it it's okay but when I do it with reasons in summaries, I am reported to ANI? Why is it like that? Because of the concerns with the changes he made in that article that violates WP: NPOV, I had started a discussion on here on the talk page. Also, this editor is not ready to discuss any of the things and directly reports me here. I had asked Cyphoidbomb to look into the matter yesterday and he askedKrimuk 2.0 to discuss saying "Communication is a two-way street". Krimuk 2.0 does not want to discuss things as he had yet to reply to my last posts on two others discussions on Chopra's article. You can check there. If this editor is not ready to discuss how am I supposed to edit? He just wants to revert my edits without any discussion. Isn't this WP: OWN? Plus he is the only editor on wikipedia who has a problem with my edits.Krish | Talk To Me 12:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you stop wasting our time and answer the question, please, without mentioning any other editor? Why are you persisting on removing criticism of Chopra and adding puffery to her article (see previous ANI), after you were previously blocked for sub-par editing in exactly the same area? Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite I was never blocked for my "sub-par editing". You need to see the Barnstars I have recieved for my work on wikipedia. I have written 1 FT, 2 FAs, 20 FLs and 22 GAs. How is that sub-par? I am not removing negative stuff from Chopra's article. I had few concerns with Krimuk 2.0's addition to the article which I was discussing it on that article's talk page but he has yet to talk back on it. You can see there what my concerns are about the article. It is as simple as that. It's Krimuk 2.0 who is wasting everybody's time not me by reporting me here for small thing which can be fixed by a discussion like this, the reason he reported me here today. He refused to discuss with me yesterday when I went to his talk page to discuss. Now you tell me? I have been busy writing a article which I expanded 3x in last 12 hours.Krish | Talk To Me 12:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was never blocked for my sub-par editing" - Krish, you were blocked multiple times for edit-warring, personal attacks and sockpuppetry! Meanwhile, you still can't give a straight answer without mentioning Krimuk, and you still claim not to be removing negative stuff / adding puffery despite diffs here and at the last ANI showing you doing exactly that. I really don't see an option other than that I mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit Conflict) This was your indefinite block reason "(WP:CIR. History of personal attacks and edit warring, couldn't even follow "don't even talk about the other user.")" So yes, sub-par editing. Your behaviour and your edits since you returned are suggestive that you may not be have the competence to edit this encyclopaedia in a collaborative fashion. Given the fact that you were asked specifically above by Black Kite to respond WITHOUT mentioning the other editor, and you launch straight back into talking about them and not your edits, suggests to me that you may in fact lack that competence. Now please respond to Black Kite's question without mentioning Krimuk 2.0. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail: I would like to apologise for not properly reading "without mentioning the other editor". I thought you were talking about Cyphoidbomb and Kailash whom I have mentioned above. I am really sorry for not properly reading Black Lite's post. Now coming to my answer to your question, few things were added in Chopra's article which should be fixed like her positively reviewed performances have been shown as mixed and mixed/generally positive as negatives so I tried to fix that and started two discussions on the talk page. Also, I removed this which you questioned above because I felt like casting controversy/criticism should be in a film article (I write a lot of film articles). It was not for the purpose of "removing negatives". I had given my reasons in the summary as well because a film from which Chopra was kicked out at last minute is not discussed either in her article, only in that film's article so I thought this should also stay in the film's article and not in her article. That's all I have to say. And I am really sorry for not properly reading your above post about "not mentioning the other editor". I am ashamed.Krish | Talk To Me 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG Forgive me please tell what rules I have broken that I should be partially blocked? I have raised questions on the talk page of the article and I am yet to receive response there regarding my issues with violation of NPOV in the article. This is clearly Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard issue as Peter James said. The problem is regarding the content of an article which can be only resolved through discussions. The editor who reported me here has refused to discuss any of the disputes so what am I supposed to? Plus, the reason I was reported here was resolved after a discussion, with the editors agreeing with my edit and also the other editor's edit. It is clearly dispute issue. But as an administrator you know the best. What can I say. I only wanted to tell you that I am being misunderstood here and may have not been able to express it properly. After coming back to wikipedia, all I have tried is to contribute here, expanded one whole article, updated another article, working on another and has planned to work on a dozen more in the next 15 days. I have also been suffering from a life threatening disease in real life and all I have done here on wikipedia in last 15 days is defend myself yet no one has questioned the other editor for significantly changing articles without discussions, removing Consensus-reached version of articles without discussions and constantly reverting me even for non-controversial edits. What am I supposed to do? Am I only to be blamed here?Krish | Talk To Me 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Puddleglum2.0 None of my edits have caused the disruption to Wikipedia. So why should be partially blocked? This is clearly a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution case as which says This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." And this is what exactly I did. I first tried to fix the few NPOV-violation of the article by adding neutral worded edits. All of which were reverted. Then I went to the editor's page to discuss but he reverted. Then I asked several administrators to intervene (here, here and here) because the said editor was not ready to discuss. Then an administrator advised him to discuss with me but he did not. He had also not replied to the the two discussions about NPOV violations in the same article. I have given all the evidences/sources for the NPOV violations on the talk page which you can see there. I had opened another discussion at the same talk page of the article yesterday to resolve the dispute. Then that editor started accusing me of bias at Andaaz, an article I expanded 2 folds in 12 hours. Then he accused me of bias towards another actress but I had only added whatever that source said. You can check the source. Note I did not revert any of his edits and continued expanding it then he removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re added the supporting nominationsaying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion. I took part in that discussion and gave my thoughts which were exactly as my summary. Then without replying. He immediately reported me here. During all this, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly. I did not engage in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing yet I was reported here. And the reason I was reported here was RESOLVED on the talk page with the help of other editors through a discussion. Yes, a discussion which that editor refused in the case of that other article. So how am I eligible for partial block?Krish | Talk To Me 04:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Krish!: Thanks for this. Are you familiar with what a partial block is? I don't mean this at all to offend -- I'm just curious. Perhaps your right about a partial block, I'll have to think about this some more, but I still do think a two way IBan between you and Krimuk2.0 would be a vastly beneficial outcome for the community. Would you be amenable to that? Thank you for bearing through this thread; I know how stressful it can get. =) Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 04:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Puddleglum2.0 I think partial ban means I won't be able to edit some section of article. This is a clear case of content dispute which is very much solvable by discussion and I have been asking to discuss this whole time. I tried extending an olive branch several times to the editor but no luck. And, yes, I would support an interaction ban if necessary but I still think the matter can be resolved by a discussion. I have given all the sources and evidences on the talk page as you can see. And, I have not violated any rules. It's a content dispute that should be resolved by a discussion(s).Krish | Talk To Me 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks... I think personally that the best option would be a temporary cooldown partial block, and an indefinite IBan between these two editors. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How does one enforce an interaction ban when both the editors have overlapping areas of interest? And if one makes an edit and is reverted by the other, what then? Do they not discuss? If Krish! isn't willing to voluntarily walk away from the Priyanka Chopra article for a while, then perhaps another admin might consider an article block. In my personal experience, there is no article so precious to me that I wouldn't be willing to unwatchlist it and walk away if there were a major dispute. So both of them should consider that option. Although I don't understand Krimuk's objection to having discussions on their own talk page, Krish should avoid posting comments on Krimuk's talk page and should post them on the relevant article's talk page. If Krimuk opts not to participate in those discussions, then they will not be able to assert consensus. And for both parties involved, if there's any inkling of reverting out of spite, that's not going to fly. Both parties need to be behaving in a civil fashion, and that means assuming good faith and not accusing each other of X or Y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It really isn't a simple content dispute that can be resolved by two editors talking it out. It's about one editor's continued process of removing negative information from articles related to Chopra. To rewind, these are the things that Krish! removed from Chopra's article in less than a month:

    Under normal cases, this wouldn't have been an ANI issue, and the editor could possibly have been reasoned with. But in this case, the editor is back on the WP:Standard offer, and these repeated infractions should not be ignored. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My Answers:

    It is very much a content dispute and you refused to discuss. You added negative stuff in 2018 without discussions which violated WP: NPOV rule of Wikipedia. I tried to fix it by adding neutral worded edits and I have given all the evidences and sources on the talk page of the article. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."

    • 1) These two negative reviews were added by you. You added negative reviews for her largely positively reviewed role in Jai Gangaajal and her largely acclaimed performance in Dil Dhdadkne Do as proven on the talk page. I first tried to fix this non-controversial edit but then you reverted it and I moved on and started a discussion which you are yet to reply.
    • 2) "Widespread success", is what that section (her most successful phase in terms of BOX OFFICE) was called for a very long time till you changed it in 2018 without discussions. Also I renamed it "Wider recognition" (and not widespread success which you claim) as per the lead that says " Chopra subsequently gained wider recognition...." There are two mentions of her starring in "highest-grossing films of all time" with sources. The section also says "Chopra starred in four biggest Bollywood grossers of all time in two years" in the section itself.
    • 3) Again, I fixed a biased edit that called the film was Box Office Bomb but there is no mention of that word anywhere in the source which means you violated a rule by adding WP: UNSOURCED text. I had explained this while fixing it as my summary says "I replaced with a better source from Box Office India" which is widely accepted on Wikipedia. The source I gave mentions "the film is doing poor business" which means a failure or "the film did not do well" which I added, a more WP: NEUTRAL word. Also Moneycontrol.com is NEVER used to cite box office details.
    • 4) As I have said several times which I also said in the summary that "I felt this casting withdrawal controversy suited more in the film's article as opposed to her article since there are no mentions of the films where she was removed by last minute either." You reverted it. I accepted it. What's problem here when I accepted my mistake?
    • 5) How is the criticism for the screenplay relevant when describing her performance which is acclaimed and the film overall was positively reviewed and has 83% on Rotten Tomatoes? You had added this negative review in 2018 by replacing a positive review which was there in the article since a very long time. What was the necessity to remove that positive review and add a negative one? Also, I did not remove (as you claim), I replaced it with a more neutral review that was critical of the overall film and not just screenplay. That review said "Chopra rose above the material". So how it that problematic?
    • 6) This editor removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re-added the supporting nomination saying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion and it has been resolved.
    • This "unsourced puffery" was in this article since a very long time until you removed it in 2018 without any explanations. You hid this edit by only saying "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists".] summary so that no one would notice.
    NOTE: All the five points he raised above was already discussed in the last ANI. So what did I really do that the editor reported me again? The reason he reported me has already been resolved on the article's talk page with the help of other editors. He keeps saying "Standard offer" but none of my edits are disruptive and all this time, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly.Krish | Talk To Me 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also Cyphoidbomb I am ready to walk away from Chopra's article for some time. I have not touched that article since few days. I won't be editing Chopra's article from now on without any discussion on the talk page. There are 3 open discussions on the talk page and from now and I have been waiting for the response.Krish | Talk To Me 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation

    User:IVFC14 has repeatedly added Gregory R. Johnson as a student of Richard Velkley. Professor Velkley does not consider Johnson as his legitimate student and even deleted his name once. I think it is a BLP violation. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I added two official sources.--IVFC14 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No you did not. You added one archived version of some sort of spreadsheet whose authenticity cannot be verified, and one Scribd thing that I can't read but comes from the subject himself. You need better sourcing, reliable secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think IVFC's whitewashing edits deserve closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? Its located at the official page of the Catholic Univeristy of America. This is not archived
    Drmies, Another official source, p. 5 (or 228): The Review of Metaphysics, 56(1), pp. 225-244 (you can use sci-hub to see it)
    Drmies, Pirhayati: I added an official source. Richard Velkley is lying.--IVFC14 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IVFC14, don't use that kind of language: it is a violation of the BLP and of AGF. Do not re-add until we have heard from other parties, including User:Rvelkley. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Velkley's objection is that he essentially took over for a another professor who retired; he thus had very little to do with Johnson as a student, and even less with his later career. It's in that sense that he said "not legitimate"--he was not really his student. Of course, on Wikipedia we only look at the formalities: whose name is on the title page. I have restored the name, with the provided secondary source. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drmies, thanks for your inquiry. IVFC14's edits are focused on some racist issues and some of them have been reverted. I think mentioning Johnson on Velkley's page means provoking some kind of controversy. Don't you think it's a BLP violation? Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to see it that way but I can't. Velkley wants nothing to do with this guy, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. In fact, Velkley wants his entire article removed just because of that; he has another former student with a Wikipedia article that he doesn't want added. Ali Pirhayati, I don't really know what to do. I can invoke IAR but I don't know that that would be valid here. I wish we had more admins weighing in here. Randykitty? DGG? NinjaRobotPirate? GorillaWarfare? Bbb23? Johnuniq? Doug Weller? Although Doug is probably a bit not neutral here since inexplicably HE DOES NOT LIKE NAZIS. Wait. That's all of us, I hope.

    BTW I mentioned earlier that all of IVFC's edit warrant scrutiny, and I still believe they do. Drmies (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really understand academic politics. Trying to understand academic politics confuses me more than trying to read French video game websites. But WP:ONUS gives a means for removing verifiable content: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article." And that's direct from policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, let's see. IVFC stops editing in June 2018, comes back 13 months later with this edit[36] making a Nazi political party, the Popular Socialist Vanguard, look far-left. Next he goes to Greg Johnson adding Velkley as his doctoral advisor and Johnson to Velkley's article. I see I reverted their change of Johnson's infobox from person to philosopher, but I don't see that as involving me in any serious way and at that point didn't see any problems with their editing, only a mistaken infobox change. Then we have an edit to Glenn Danzig[37] where the article says "He commented about the book Occult Roots Of Nazism that "every school kid should have this book" and IVFC adds "as an obvious joke". Now there's only one source for that (on two sites it seems so two references) and that's a video, so the obvious joke bit is obviously original research and if I don't agf I see that as whitewashing Danzig. They go through a number of edits doing something that they seem to do quite a bit, editing qualifications. The next problematic edit is to Alejandro Rojas Wainer an academic who was at one time a left-wing politician in Chile, and changes his description from "Chilean-Canadian" to "Jewish-Chilean"[38]. That's not sourced and I think we can be fairly certain, given their other edits, of the reason, and I've just reverted it. More edits of academic details (to right wing people I see} and then a return to Popular Socialist Vanguard. Interesting thing, an IP has restored the left-wing label after Docktuh and Grayfell had cleaned it up, and IVFC later adds "anti-fascist" and removes Miguel Serrano with the edit summary "Serrano kept praising European nazism and fascism".[39] Well that's true, he did praise them, not surprising that he was a member of a right wing party (remember it had been edited to represent it as left-wing). IVFC made quite a few edits[40] to Alberto Edwards, mainly adding OR and again changing an infobox to philosopher although I see no evidence for that.
    My conclusion from this is that if all IVFC was doing was making unwarranted infobox changes and adding OR all that should happen is standard warnings, and of course if those are ignored than probably a block of some sort, perhaps a short one. But obviously IVFC has an unacceptable agenda as well and that's not acceptable at all. I can't see any evidence that Wikipedia would be worse off without IVFC and to me the evidence is clear that it would be better off without this editor - Drmies is right about my views. Let's see if there are any objections to an indefinite block. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC) @Drmies:, failed ping the first time. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Glenn Danzig is... well... difficult to explain to non-metalheads. The Spanish Wikipedia article on Popular Socialist Vanguard is written from the perspective that the party is leftist and anti-fascist. I don't really know if that's true, but there seem to be some credible sources on Google Books that list it among other fascist parties. My hope is some day we'll have a noticeboard dedicated to politics where we can ask "is X fascist?" and someone who knows what they're talking about says, "Yes, if you check this book published by Oxford University Press, it's clearly labeled as such." And, also a noticeboard dedicated to heavy metal, so that we can talk about Glenn Danzig. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll never guess who edited the Spanish article. Before IVFC edited it it said [41] "Vanguardia Popular Socialista (VPS) was a Chilean political party with a nationalist and socialist ideology that existed between 1939 and 1942." And our article on the party has been changed today since I edited by IVFC.[42]
    "The 'Vanguardia Popular Socialista' (VPS, Popular Socialist Vanguard) was a left-wingand anti-fascist [1] [2] [3]
    But it also says that in 1942 most of its members joined " Juan Gómez Millas ' Partido Unión Nacionalista de Chile [ es ]." and his article says "Gómez Millas was founder of the far-right political party Partido Unión Nacionalista de Chile [es], which existed from 1943 until 1945. Gómez Millas aligned the party with Nazism and Fascist Italy." - so all these left-wingers joined a right wing pro-Nazi party? I've just read the JSTOR source for Millas's article, and that says "of the political system. Vanguardia Popular Socialista (the name of the MNS since January fascist roots in the (Chilean) autumn of I940 did not revive the of the radical right. The Vanguardia, the Movimiento Nacionalista of smaller groups that followed the former dictator Carlos Ibafiez Uni6n Nacionalista in March 1942, but this was a last desperate breathe new life into a dying cause." I'm saving this now and looking further. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another and telling quote:"In July 1941, members of the Vanguardia, together with militants of the MNCh, assaulted the Circulo Israe/ita in Santiago, breaking the furniture of the institution and beating up three employees.132 Following an earlier statement by Trabajo, which had denounced the threat of the ‘Fifth Column’ as ‘a ghost created by the British “Intelligence Service”’,133 Gonzalez now openly embraced the cause of the Axis and emerged as an ardent defender of the Third Reich in the Chamber of Deputies. In August 1941 he voiced the hope that Germany would win the war." and also "The factions that followed in the footsteps of the MNS after its transformation into the VPS - the Partido Nacional Fascista and the Movimiento Nacionalista de Chile - bore all the hallmarks of fascist movements. Their programmatic declarations demonstrate that both were genuinely fascist factions ; the same interference applies to the Vanguardia after the return to its nacista roots in 1940. They all preached the imminent revival of the Chilean nation on the basis of a revolutionary from of ultranationalism, and promised to establish a regime that would transcend liberal democracy and frcc-markct capitalism on the one hand and communism on the other" The source I'm using is "The New Voices of Chilean Fascism and the Popular Front, 1938-1942 " by Marcus Klein Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (May, 2001), pp. 347-375 Published by: Cambridge University Press. In other words, the party represented itself as a party of the left for a short time, but that's all, and IVFC's edits are deceitful. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) IVFC14 has once again changed the article to remove the far-right label. I have reverted the edit and invited them to start a discussion at the article's talk page, because the far-right/fascist label seems to be supported by reliable sources based on my Google search. I have some sort of feeling that IVFC is on a (apparently cross-wiki?) effort to push their POV. --MrClog (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    NinjaRobotPirate, Doug Weller, right now I'm more interested in whether Johnson should be listed in the article or not; Velkley says he has nothing to do with the dude's (current) line of work and suggested in so many words that his input for that dissertation was minimal. NinjaRobotPirate, it is absolutely true that we don't have to include information if it is deemed not relevant or whatever--a matter of editorial judgment, and a matter of the BLP of course: who wants to be associated with that person? So that is really my questions: are these concerns serious enough to remove the information? And I really need that matter to be addressed ASAP since Dr. Velkley is trying to rip me a new asshole: I contacted him for the basic facts, and now, to him, I have come to represent all of Wikipedia, including IVFC's work. Thanks... Drmies (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies: apologies. Definitely not. In no way does it benefit the article to include someone with whom Velkley had so little involvement, and the inclusion is, in my judgement after reviewing IVFC14's edits, meant to attack Velkley. I'm not sure why. There's no need to include any of his graduate students, that one hasn't an article isn't a good reason. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem pointlessly inflammatory to include this, as if we're trying to connect the two men's philosophical positions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding (diff) a highly controversial figure as a doctoral student (and the only listed doctoral student) of a living person is very inadvisable unless a secondary reliable source has indicated the significance of the connection (how did the connection arise? was the advisor aware of the student's background?). That point might be argued. What will not be argued is basing such an addition on two dubious sources and I will block IVFC14 if they push the point against consensus, after a final warning. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ (...) the party, firmly repudiated Hitlerism and moved closer to socialism "in: Haring, CH (1939). Chile Moves Left. Foreign Affairs' ',' 17 '(3), p. 622.
    2. ^ "This new party (VPS) openly rejected fascism" in Socorro, J. (2003).' 'The neo-Nazi movement in Chile between 1990 and 2003 . Santiago, Chile: Universidad Diego Portales . p. 20
    3. ^ "Due to this, the MNS never managed to compose itself, although it changed its name to Vanguardia Popular Socialist. González von Marées continued to be its charismatic leader, defining its follower as an "anti-fascist, anti-imperialist and addicted to the class struggle "." in: The Firm (2009). Nazis and the Nazi Movement in Chile. Miguel Enriquez Study Center , p. 3.

    Redacting edits

    (non-admin closure) Don't think there's anything else to do here. creffett (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Hi, could you please make the external link on this article Greg Alyn Carlson that I added as a 2019 murder in the United States unviewable, since I have been told him being shot dead was not unlawful. Thanks. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Davidgoodheart: I'm a bit confused. If there was an edit with erroneous information that you have undone, that is good enough. Unless the edit contained defamatory or libelous information or was extremely insulting, we do not need to make it unviewable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for letting me know this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    2607:fb90::/32 unblocked

    Just saw that this range got globally unblocked by Martin Urbanec. I'm gonna be worried if there's a lot more activity by other vandals/LTAs. Please block this dude, almost more than 50% of their contributions were undone because of vandalism. I just saw that some blocks were already put in place. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's a huge T-Mobile data network range. We need to have good cause in order to even consider such an action (and even if there was, applying blocks onto smaller ranges first would be the recommended action)... especially given the fact that the range was unblocked due to participation in an edit-a-thon... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that global block was also weird, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I also saw that this topic's been Googled by many, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The way IPv6 is supposed to work, a /64 will be assigned to the usual home network, assuming a router that knows how to do it. Comcast, and maybe others, will assign a /60 in case someone needs a more complicated home network, which allows for 16 subnets. I would expect that a /60 is the most you would block for an individual user. Even at that, you are blocking everyone else in the same house. Gah4 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocking a /32 range that is so active is overkill. If we need to block "individual users", we can do the /64 range instead (WP:IPV6) . I see no reason to just outright block 79x10^27 IPv6 addresses. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To the last two editors, perhaps you don't appreciate the peculiarities of how T-Mobile USA works. Users, rather notoriously, jump all over the whole range (well, at least a /33). A /64 block is entirely useless. I'm not saying we should block the /32, but that is generally the only solution. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zzuuzz: I did not know that! Well that sucks for us. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter offends my feelings

    I've indefinitely blocked JackAtkinson22 as WP:NOTHERE. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yesterday there was an unpleasant incident (primarily for me) with Ymblanter user. This user misinforms people by adding false data to articles. After I was banned from editing articles, I decided to write this in the "talk" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atyrau_Region) . In response, this user left a link to "I can not hear you" page (It depicts a person with a hearing impairment.) I don’t know how he realized that I was really deaf in real life (yes, this is very funny in his opinion), but nevertheless, he did it. He decided to make fun of this defect, and decided to humiliate me with his statement. I understand that this could be a coincidence, but in any case, he did it, he insulted my feelings. And I perfectly understand what this page is, but nevertheless, I think it’s on Wikipedia forbidden to insult users with any defect even using such subtle humor. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to ban me, but for some reason did not do it, respectively, they were baseless (you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JackAtkinson22#Kazakh_names ) I want him to at least receive a warning and stop humiliating other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JackAtkinson22: - (1) you failed to notify Ymblanter about this ANI posting and (2) Ymblanter's linking to WP:IDHT is not offensive. Pinging Materialscientist as they have comments on Ymblanter's talk page about this matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir: Materialscientist has turned off notifications, and "therefore can't see pings, sorry"... ——SN54129 12:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be some merit to JackAtkinson22's content-related point, but the way to find out whether that is true or not is to calmly and politely discuss the matter on the article talk page, referencing reliable sources. The "calmly and politely" part is very important; you can't be rude on the talk page, but expect other editors to be sweet to you in response. Both of you, reboot your interactions, start from scratch, discuss the merits and only the merits, and respect the possibility that the other person is correct. It is not possible that the link to WP:IDHT was intended to mock your hearing impairment, Jack, and honestly, you know that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Floquenbeam But after all, I was always as polite as possible (in contrast to him, he immediately started with the threats of a ban), I even apologized to him for having spoken incorrectly about him. In response, he subtle humor hints at my defect, this is not funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      That is demonstrably false. You called him a vandal multiple times. You reported him to AIV. Your talk page message is dripping with sarcasm and a refusal to discuss. How can that possibly be "as polite as possible"? Please tell me that it is possible for you to be more polite than that. Also, as I type this response, I realize that you are in need of a ProTip: when you are pretending to be deaf, don't call it a defect. People who are actually deaf do not think about it that way, nor do they assume everyone else knows that automatically. Also, just don't pretend to be deaf in the first place, that kind of gamesmanship is insulting. The trolling will stop right this very second or you will be blocked indef. Saying something like "no, I am actually really deaf and not just pretending in order to get Ymblanter in trouble" will count as trolling. Hopefully this is very clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter is a good egg, how could he have possibly known you were deaf??♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    . ―cobaltcigs 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Being deaf doesn't mean blindness. It's obvious JackAtkinson22 can read clearly. Besides, typing in the discussion doesn't require hearing. And based on the responses of editors on this discussion, I get the feeling JackAtkinson22 is more like WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like NOTHERE? His contribution history is crystal clear. We've got a nationalistic POV pusher. Other than make drama at the drama boards, his only edits have been to add and push his considerably idiosyncratic viewpoint of where in the world language exists. Clearly IDHT/STICK/NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree OP is clearly NOTHERE and trolling. That said, WP:IDHT does, in fact, use a physical disability (hearing impairment), together with a picture of someone using a hearing aid, as a metaphor for stubbornness. Not exactly politically correct, but then no one really complains. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe an indef block will solve the problem. Jerm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: The image is of Louise Elisabeth de Meuron, and judging by our article on her she was known for her eccentric behaviour and used the device in question "so that [she] only hear[d] what [she] want[ed] to hear" -- we don't imply she was a member of the deaf community or that she otherwise suffered hearing loss, although that may be the case. Moreover, despite the apparent age of the photo (deliberately made to appear much older than it is?), she was born in 1882 and looks to be at least in her seventies when the photo was taken, when such ear trumpets had long since fallen out of favour as hearing aids. The intent, therefore, is obviously to convey the idea of someone deliberately and stubbornly refusing to listen, not to make fun of people with disabilities or members of marginalized linguistic communities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Levivich—"Not exactly politically correct". It is not a good idea. It is offensive to a segment of the society. Fortunately someone has changed it. Bus stop (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: NOTHERE

    Per the above discussion, I propose to block JackAtkinson22 (talk · contribs) indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. --MrClog (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose This is a new user - February 2020 start date. unfair to call the editor WP:NOTTHERE. It is difficult to find your way around the written and unwritten rules on WP. the editor came here wrongly thinking that the community would have sympathy for a new user. I propose we handle this another way which does not result in sanction for someone who just started on WP. WP:BITE applies. WP:COMPETENCY cannot be gained in 30 days. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      New editor? JackAtkinson22 [43] "been registered here for a long time" don't you know? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I missing? The user has a total of 56 edits and joined less that 30 days ago. Lightburst (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lightburst: The user's contributions show that he has been here with the sole purpose of POV pushing. When called out on this, he starts attacking Ymblanter. Even though he has been told at WP:ANI#JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal that his behaviour is wrong, he continues it and even doubles down with this trolling here. Of course, this block is not infinite. If he shows that he is genuinely understanding of the issues we have with his editing behaviour, he could file an unblock request and subsequently get unblocked. But based on his editing, essentially all of his edits indicate he is WP:NOTHERE. MrClog (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • LightburstLol, name at least one good reason for my ban. What is above is an empty discussion, in which all moderators stand on one side, and literally "agree" with each other. Understand that nobody needs your "respect." You just need to follow the rules. I don’t understand why you constantly repeat about the age of my account, is this the most important thing? New users can not write complaints? I do not troll anyone and do not break the rules, I wrote my complaint where it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @JackAtkinson22: Lightburst opposed blocking you. Anyways, you say that the above discussion is empty. My question then is, do you intend to change your behaviour based on the advice that has been given to you here? Or do you plan to continue your current behaviour? --MrClog (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @MrClog:In such an unfair and inadequate community structure, it makes no sense to try to challenge something. I do not refuse my words. I'd rather delete my account myself, and I will no longer participate in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JackAtkinson22—a step in the right direction might be signing your posts. That is done with 4 "tildes". See WP:SIGN. Do you notice that your "signature" does not look like the signatures of most of the other participants here? That is because a "bot" is "signing" your posts for you. But you can and should do it yourself. Just type 4 tildes at the end of your post, as explained at WP:SIGN. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bus stop, this goes to my point, apparently the user does not know how to sign. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightburst—I also oppose sanctions against JackAtkinson22, a new participant. But they have to demonstrate an inclination to try to observe the practices of the project they are trying to participate in. A start might be "signing" their posts. I want to see some effort expended. Pigheadedness is not in short supply around here. We already have a sufficient quantity on hand to meet our present needs. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jéské Couriano I think rather than exposing chicanery...you have highlighted more inexperience by the OP. Lightburst (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support This seems like a no-brainer: new editors sometimes jump straight into pushing their particular POV in semi-controversial (read: not necessarily controversial in the real world, but controversial on Wikipedia because some editors say so) topic areas, but when they start abusing the system to harass other editors with frivolous ANI threads, and engaging in the kind of extreme IDHT seen here (and probably no one on English Wikipedia understands IDHT behaviour from personal experience better than me[44][45]), is a sign that the editor needs to be blocked; they can always appeal their block and, if they can convince the community that they have learned their lesson, they may be allowed to edit again (with a shorter leash than last time, of course). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - per WP:BITE. I don't think the user really has had time to understand Wikipedia policies. I particularly don't blame him for getting offended either. Maybe an interaction ban would be better? Foxnpichu (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support JackAtkinson22 clearly has unconstructive behavior and even stated to having no regrets for it. So this whole "biting a new editor" is completely bogus when JackAtkinson22 could've asked for guidance or express some form of willingness to improve their own behavior but that hasn't happen. And I doubt that will ever happen. Jerm (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per Jerm. Also for the sheer fact that they are resorting to this noticeboard as a first resort barely 100 edits in. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wilkn's behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement

    (non-admin closure) Wilkn is indeffed without TPA, userpage has been cleaned up, revdelled, and then U5'd for good measure. creffett (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Can we get some admins here to review Wilkn (talk · contribs)'s behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement#"A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet"? Focusing on my sex/gender, Wilkn has, for example, quoted the following excerpt from the Bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." He recently stated in regard to me, "It is clear that that woman does not have the most basic civility that any human should have to be called a human let alone AGF or NPA." And he somehow wonders why the men's rights movement has the negative reputation it has and why my user page/talk page currently states some of what it states? Sighs. He has also repeatedly attacked another editor at the talk page; he believes this editor to be a biased admin. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do we always take so long to get rid of these disruptive editors? Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out that 1 Timothy is a forgery that was included in the New Testament because of a widespread belief that it was written by the apostle Paul (no book got into the NT unless someone was saying it was written by one of Jesus's apostles or someone close to them)[46] despite the fact that it was probably written close to a century after Paul's death.[47]
    Also, the diff of the "Flyer22 is subhuman" comment quoted above is here. I'm not expressing skepticism that he said it or that (like a number of quotes given in a different thread further up this page) it doesn't look as bad in context -- I'm saying that he definitely did say it, it is as bad as it looks, and he should probably be blocked at least until he apologizes for it (and probably longer if he's made similar remarks elsewhere).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stricken my second paragraph as redundant now that NinjaRobotPirate has blocked. I have a number of opinions regarding the answer to his question. However, a more serious issue is actually the editors who hold similar (or worse) views and engage in behaviour that is equally disruptive to the project, but evade blocks for months or even years because they haven't ever done anything as obviously blockworthy as saying "User X is less than human". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see now that Wilkn was editing as early as 2009, so it could theoretically be said that he "evaded a block" for more than a decade. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP and Wilkn's user page

    I know this isn't MfD, but since this thread is here I thought I'd ask before nominating. Do others also feel that Wilkn's user page cross the BLP line? While the editor has not named any other person, they've provided enough information about themselves that they other people referred to can surely be identified. While we generally allow some latitude for people to refer to their family and friends, I think the sort of commentary on Wilkn's page crosses the line. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    non-admin Wilkn's User page contains far too much information. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    non-admin Also includes a sale link for his book and announces he's seeking funding for research. Quite inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. A lot has now been removed. Whether it needs revdelling is a different question, but it surely didn't need to be present. Happy days, LindsayHello 20:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted it per WP:U5, but it was unfit for Wikipedia in so many ways. Favonian (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:TTN reported by User:Herostratus

    Nutshell: User:TTN has devoted a good section of his life to degrading the Wikipedia's coverage of TV and comics characters. He's been admonished for this before by ArbCom but he doesn't seem capable of stopping. Relief requested.

    So, let's go back twelve years to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2... here we have User:TTN being "prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly", and then "User:TTN blocked one week for editing articles in violation of these restrictions", and then "User:TTN was blocked for two weeks violating his restrictions shortly after a previous block, notably requesting a redirect on a project page.[76] He was unblocked after agreeing to avoid initiating discussions related to his restriction and to refrain from asking others to act on his behalf, until ArbCom may review his appeal for clarification." ("TTN, please note that the few uninvolved administrators who have commented have endorsed the block. It is not reasonable to try to argue that the ArbCom meant for a narrow restriction... Continuing to initiate merge/redirect/etc discussions, when the clear purpose of the ruling was to sharply limit you from doing so, is certainly (at the least) pushing the line..." and so on.

    Also, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 was passed (and enshrined at Wikipedia:Fait accompli): "Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits."

    Alright. That was back in the Eisenhower Administration (metaphorically), so but has User:TTN taken the lesson to heart?

    No. No, he hasn't.

    Twelve years later he's still doing this... stuff. How much, how long, and the amount of damage done, would be a whole project to investigate. But I've come across his... work... a few times. Without trying; he's apparently quite busy. Here in 2019, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 53#Massive slew of comics-related deletions from one user, we have

    does this (hundreds of edits already going back to just Aug 25, mostly just applying the deletion templates and warning the users who created the articles, little other activity) seem like quite a lot of PRODs and AFDs to be applied to comics character articles from just one user?

    And this is User:TTN being referred to, the "this" being his [ recent user contributions at that point.

    I mean, we're busy, and we let that go, but it never stops. So, you know, just as one example, here we have a fresh one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timber Wolf (comics). The article obviously meets or could easily be made to meet the WP:GNG (and is otherwise a perfectly acceptable article), and User:TNN, being quite experienced in all this, knows this well. He knows where to find the sources. He could. But he doesn't want to. This is an egregious misuse of WP:AFD.

    What User:TTN's game is I don't know, but I don't want to play it anymore. Twelve years is enough. He's clearly obsessed with this is never going to stop on his own. We're busy trying to create and improve articles rather than fending off this kind of nonsense. I petition the admin corps for some relief from this editor's relentless destructive focus on TV and comic book characters. Herostratus (talk) 06:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the admin corps? Is it some sort of secret society known only to initiates? Do they have passwords and secret signs, and are they issued with rings which fit every size of finger? Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All I see here is, "Hello, I have a massive battleground mentality and need to be topic banned since I can't interact with people who have opposing viewpoints." (just to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about Herostratus) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have seen, the majority of TTN's deletion requests have been successful and a recent related ANI request by Eagles247 seemed to demonstrate this prove this. I've had a quick look at his more recent deletion requests and, with a few exceptions, also seem to have been mostly supported by the community. So, I'm struggling to see what the specific complaint is here. Do you consider the error rate to be too high? Even if you consider in the case of Timber Wolf the behaviour was egregious, it doesn't follow that they need to be removed from the entire area, unless it's shown to be a recurring trend. Is the frequency overwhelming the community? There were some mentions of this in the project discussion you listed, but this didn't appear to be the universal perception. Is TTN being uncivil? It's worth being clear, because my impression at the moment is that he's starting deletion discussions that after community review mostly result in non-encyclopedic articles being removed from Wikipedia, which is a good thing. You need to make a case that they're being being disruptive, because articles being appropriately deleted isn't in itself destructive. Scribolt (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because AfD is not a good venue for discussing long-term patterns of destructive behavior. This page is. And also, I mean this page is supposed to bring alleged behavior problems to the attention of the admin corps. It's not the "get insulted by random editors" page. So, I mean you're not being helpful. (Nobody who's responded yet has been an administrator, so let's wait and see what some admins have to say.)
    So let me point out that this editor was prohibited by ArbCom from doing exactly this. It is true that the prohibition was for only six months. I assume it was six months rather than permanent because the ArbCom doesn't want to be excessively harsh, and figures that someone can learn and move on without having a lifetime cloud over their head. I don't think that ArbCom's reasoning was "Well, this is unacceptable behavior, but after six months he's welcome to start doing it again." Do you?
    Right, I get that the editor is successful in suborning deletion of objectively good articles. This makes the matter more serious, not less, though. Why he is successful I don't know, and part of it is aboveboard (I get that a lot of people don't like comics and television), but on the other hand there are some odd elements here. It's highly unusual for good articles that meet the WP:GNG and are otherwise above-average articles to be deleted, and for my part I'm not convinced that simple snobbery is all that is play here, considering that editor was specifically admonished to avoid underhanded methods such as recruiting other editors to be catspaws.
    It's really a simple question: the editor was prohibited by ArbCom -- but only for six months -- from nominating articles like this for AfD, or converting them to redirects, and similar behavior. After the six months was up he continued to do it, and in fact put it into overdrive at times. Is it the considered opinion of the admin corps that this is how its supposed to work, that following temporary bans a person is permitted to go back to the disruptive behavior? If it is, we can close this and move on, but... if that's to be the general policy going forward, that's... kind of a big deal. Herostratus (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two issues are, first that per the original FAIT principle, TTN is not supposed to be making these Afds at too fast a rate to overwhelm the wikiproject, and compared to the rate from the random case years ago this rate is tame. Second is it has been well known that many of the comic pages violate notability and NOT:PLOT principles. They were made before these concepts were in place and have needed to be dealt with for years. The project wasn't doing it themselves. TTN is helping in that regard. --Masem (t) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus, That's a nice example of begging the question. When someone nominates cruft for deletion and there's consensus to delete, they are not degrading the project, they are improving it. Consider working with TTN and coming up with a framework to cover these subjects without falling foul of WP:NOTDIR. In many cases a list article for minor characters can work. Guy (help!) 09:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has developed their own personal standards for articles and flaunts it in AfD as if it means anything. I don't think there are any accomodations that need to be made for them. Even those in the very WikiProject Comics discussion linked up top were getting sick of the ranting, Herostratus stating "This project ought to be ashamed of itself, to be honest." I'm sure they're doing this in good faith of what they think is good for this project, but I think they have a fundamental misunderstanding on how it works. TTN (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I was pinged, so I'm going to leave a comment here. I have been tracking TTN's AFD nominations since my last ANI post about this subject here, and his December through February nominations still exceed a 90% "success" rate. The number of nominations have decreased each month, as have the "success" percentage (slightly), which I assume is because there are now less and less articles that warrant nomination. I understand Herostratus' frustration here, it absolutely sucks when a topic you have interest in is being targeted as failing to meet notability thresholds, especially since these articles for the most part survived the last 10-15 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't fail to meet notability thresholds. They just objectively don't. ("Meet" here includes "Can be easily made to with a bit of googling or access to a specialized encyclopedia", and notability thresholds means "WP:GNG" for a start. At least, some of them don't, and the examples I've seen don't.
    I mean, Timber Wolf (comics) doesn't. It might be saved, but maybe not -- Dragonmage was destroyed even though it easily sailed thru WP:GNG. User:Eagles247, I don't get the deal with User:Eagles247/sandbox... it's unusual to have pages where one editor is spending energy documenting another editors "work", I'd say. How many other editors need minders to follow them around and keep stats on their rampages? How is it useful to the project for editors to have spend time doing that? I don't have the time or interest for that kind of work. Isn't that what the mops are for?
    I mean, right, the endgame here is presumably to discourage editors from working on this subject altogether. It's probably working. It does on me, for one.
    Well, you know, things like this happen. The Wikipedia is large and complicated and has a number of vulnerable points. It looks like User:TTN has found one (a vein of snobbery) and is going to hammer on it, and he doesn't appear to much care what ArbCom thinks of that, or whether its destructive to what we're supposed to be doing here, and if the admin corps doesn't either, well, I guess nobody can stop him.
    In which case its a political issue, and fine. Some things are. Maybe a political solution can be found, if we alert the larger community to what's happening here. It's be better if the admin corps would pick up the ball and enforce (the clear spirit of) ArbCom rulings, but if they don't want to I guess nobody can make them. =/ Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is but, in my personal opinion, your very skewed view of Wikipedia and notability. Even the Comics Project wanted little to do with you, so I think you're flying solo on this one. Feel free to go start a RfC if you want wider community opinion, but I doubt you're going to find much support with your current way of acting. Current AfD consensuses seem to show I'm generally correct, and honestly, many of these current keeps will likely be challenged again by other people opening AfDs down the line. That's the case for a very large amount of the keep AfDs from the last ten years. TTN (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) If they don't fail to meet notability thresholds, then participants in discussions likely need to do a better job of convincing !voters that this is the case. Clearly that is not a widespread belief, as evidenced from !voters to administrators who close the discussions, to now at least the third or fourth discussion about this same topic.
    There is a certain editor who promised to take TTN and me to ArbCom seemingly in response to my opening up the ANI thread linked above that resulted in their forced/unforced wikibreak. If/when that case opens up, I've compiled this list of TTN AFD nominations so that the group from November 2019 that I brought up in that ANI thread does not seem arbitrary and out of date. I don't agree that digging up an ArbCom ruling from 12 years ago is relevant here when the issues are not the same and Wikipedia has evolved so much in that time.
    I'm sorry you feel discouraged by these nominations, and I don't blame you. However, there are still over 45,000 pages for the Comics subproject, and I hope the deletion of a few hundred does not deter you from contributing further. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I was involved in the Dragonmage discussion referenced above by Herostratus. While I can see both sides of the discussion (my original !vote on that AFD was "keep"), I think that discussion helps exemplify some of the challenges in viewpoint that we are seeing here. The issue IMHO is not Arbcom related or a problem with any user violating policy or gaming the system. The issue, rather, seems to be that some users believe that the only thing you need to justify a standalone article on a comics-related topic is proof that the character's in-universe role in a comic/storyline has been described by a notable source. Other users, by contrast, believe that we also need significant coverage of the character from an out-of-universe perspective to establish notability.

    This clash tends to drive a lot of the debates that we see here. One set of users is convinced that merely being able to provide a detailed in-universe biography of the character is enough for a standalone article (similar to what Dragonmage looked back before it was "destroyed"/redirected to the Legion of Super Heroes) while another set believes that we should have both an in-universe character bio and information about its notability from an out-of-universe/real-world perspective, similar to the articles we have for unambiguously notable superheroes like Batman or Superman, where we have extensive details about the characters' real world legacy, pop cultural significance, developmental history, academic works specifically about the character, etc. I personally tend to lean toward the latter camp, and I believe that if the only sources we can find for a comic book character are the comics themselves or fan articles summarizing those comics, then it makes sense to merge or consolidate those articles as much as possible since they don't demonstrate standalone notability. Michepman (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I understand that. However, it's self-evident that insisting on a special requirement to exceed the WP:GNG -- which articles on most every other subject does not have that requirement -- is prima facie evidence of hostility to the subject in general. I think that editors of that mind should not lurk the Wikiproject Comics boards and discussions, and I believe it's highly unusual for Wikiprojects to be in part hijacked by people who are hostile to the intent of the Wikiproject. I haven't seen that elsewhere and I consider it a problem.
    If you look at User:Herostratus/The Hundred, you'll see that about 30% percent or our articles don't even meet the GNG (or can easily be made to). You'll see that articles being destroyed are better than our average article in terms of length, depth of coverage, format, referencing, and so on.
    WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot trump community consensus, which is that the GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list") is the operative test of notability. That is clearly accepted by the community as a matter of practical fact. And is an important rule. And while I get that some people are hostile to covering comics to the same level that most every other subject is covered, and can make up personal standards about in-universe this or in-universe that -- a requirement not applied to films and so forth -- for whatever reason (snobbery I suppose), it still is only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
    I don't know if this all coordinated inappropriately, or that a tag-team of snobs -- be honest with yourselves, guys -- has spontaneously gathered itself. Probably the latter, in which case yes it's a content dispute. But whether or no, User:TTN is the ringleader of all this, even though ArbCom told him not to and blocked him twice for it, and he's been taken to ANI several times for this [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], and that'll do altho there are several others.
    Apparently he's skated so far, but isn't twelve years enough? How many scores or more of editor man hours do we have to waste on this? What does it take to show a clear pattern of behavior that the person is obviously not going to change and will remain WP:NOTHERE to build but rather to tear down?
    Again, I request the admin corps at least consider this seriously, and I request relief. If the admin corps is not willing to enforce ArbCom sanctions in this case, for whatever reason, and would prefer that we spend more scores of man hours on another dozen ANI discussions to likely be opened on this editor as time moves forward, they should clearly state this, and we can move on. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind TTN is no long subject to the E&C2 case. The only thing that hangs on from that applies to all editors and that is the WP:FAIT concept - is TTN doing this "irreversible" step at a rate that puts too much onus on a small group of editors? And here, I think the answer is no. Compared to the rate TTN was nominating at the time of the E&C2 case, this is glacial in speed. TTN is clearly putting effort for the expected BEFORE search that should be easy to do for these types of fiction topics (eg the Internet should have this information easily available). Ask yourself if any other editor was doing the same AFD nominations at the same rate, would you consider that an issue? If not, then you're improperly focusing on TTN for something they are no longer restricted by.
    We can talk if FAIT is an issue, but given the high non-false positive rate of AFD that end in deletions, there does not seem to be a problem here. And as I noted before, comics pages like this are part of walled garden fictional areas that were created shortly after WP was created before around 2006 when WP started establishing its notability concepts, and there has been plenty of discussion over the years of what is expected to be of fictional character articles. There has been little movement on these by the associated Wikiprojects, so editors like TTN are breaking that logjam. They could be doing it faster, but FAIT does limit that. --Masem (t) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this most recent response further illustrates the problem with the comics related articles. The repeated accusations of snobbery and other attacks are not helping, but at its core I think both sets of users are passionate and dedicated to improving the project. There is just a lack of agreement on what makes a good standalone article on a comic book character or topic. This might be something that a WP:RFC would help, but if the underlying incivility and accusations of bad faith (e.g. that one user is WP:NOTHERE, or that one user is potentially coordinating inappropriately to take down articles) persist then it's likely that this will end up going in a regrettable direction. Michepman (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Roger. If "Keep in mind TTN is no long subject to the E&C2 case" means that admin corps' policy is "if a person has waited out their ban period before continuing the toxic proscribed behavior, and taken care to violate only the spirit and maybe not the letter of their ban, they can skate", well okey-doke then. Read you loud and clear, admin corps.
    "is TTN doing this 'irreversible' step at a rate that puts too much onus on a small group of editors? And here, I think the answer is no"... well maybe you think wrong, which is why we are still getting notices like "Massive slew of comics-related deletions from one editor". And look, we have 91 deletion requests in December, 52 in January, at least 22 in February (count incomplete). All for comics characters and comics-related stuff.
    I can't keep up with all that. Can you? I have other things to do. This is an admin job. If an admin is willing to follow this person around and erase all their deletion noms (let thoughtful people who aren't single-minded deletion robots make them), well OK. Who's stepping up?
    If it's not snobbery, then why. I have asked, and haven't got an answer. There isn't one apparently. And disengenuous protestations of "gee what a coincidence" aren't one. It's an aspect of why we have this rather remarkable situation, and it's probably a useful data point for figuring out why LOCALCONSENSUS isn't enforced for this particular subject, and how we can look at steps for fixing it. We're not required to be willfully blind for goodness' sake.
    If we wanted to fix it, that is. Doesn't look like it. Okey doke then. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You point to a past discussion at the comics group from in the last year where the only two editors that seems concerned about TTN's actions is you and the filing IP, none of the members of the comics wikiproject. I read their input as TTN being a net benefit. Someone had to prune poor articles from the project, TTN stepped up, they're satisfied. If there was a FAIT problem (the one this that we can hold TTN to from the Arbcom case) it's certainly not from that discussion.
    A point was made above, in that it seems you have a unique stance on what is qualified as an allowed standalone article. There are standards we expect from the GNG and when they aren't met there's things we do like deletion or merge or redirect (preferring the last two since content can be returned without admin intervention). The fact in that diff conversation you equating "redirect" with "destroy" is extremely troubling and missing the point of why we seek these softer resolutions when a standalone page doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes, one problem is that the comics Wikiproject has been infiltrated by people who aren't really comics people. Are these people contibuting to useful new content in the area? They're not. They're not interested. And if they are interested, they're only interested in their narrow crabbed view of what comics are or what they're supposed to be, which is fine, if they didn't be about destroying the work of others who don't share their narrow crabbed view. and dominating the project message board with material inimical to what the project is trying to do. It's odd, and I consider it a problem.
    As to "destroy", I mean would you prefer "erase" or "delete" or what? That is what converting a page with many paragraphs of good ref'd material into a pointer to nothing, or maybe a sentence or two, is. You're destroying the text. This is plain English, why use euphemisms. Own it, at least, for chrissakes. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also not super happy with User:Levivich changing my header. Editing other's talk page contents is not a good look, particularly since Levich not an admin. But maybe the admin corps allows or encourages this on the admin board, I dunno. The edit summary of "fix header" kind of indicates the mindset here: in destroying or trying to destroy GNG-meeting articles, they are not engaging in contendable behavior which can be discussed, but merely "fixing" obvious errors with no discussion needed, and no need to consider any arguments. Again: all righty-roo then. We've work to do, educational and political work. OK. Herostratus (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam

    Here we go again. Shyam (talk · contribs) has interpreted this vague comment from Jimbo as it they have been given a mandate to begin blanking content that is unfavorable to the subject. After asking if they could "take this", Shyam began removing content without waiting for an answer [54], [55], [56], [57]. After I reverted these blankings and advised the editor to take it to the talk page, Shyam demanded an explanation and then reverted me while suggesting that I would be blocked if I reverted them again. This article has an extensive history of whitewashing of Chahal's domestic violence (see here for the ANI thread on the most recent incident) and I request that an admin block Shyam from editing the article until such time as they are willing to discuss their changes rather than enforcing them via edit-warring. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems, the article was not balanced about the subject based on BLP policies and overemphasised on the domestic violence incident. It's not that the domestic violence is completely removed from the page, rather has been balance based on the length of the article. The user has been biased and might have some personal grudges. Please don't consider it as personal attacks. I am expressing here my neutral point of view. Any neutral expert user can have a look over the page and I balanced the article based on Wikipedia standards. I hope this helps. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not balanced. Chahal is primarily notable for his domestic violence convictions, which you have now reduced to a single paragraph at the bottom of the article. This, of course, is what Chahal has been attempting to accomplish for years through paid editing and intimidation. That said, that's part of the content dispute. The issue for ANI is your insistence on edit-warring to reinstate your preferred version of the article. This is particularly problematic given the contentious history of this page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you justify he is primarily notable for domestic violence, not notable because of entrepreneurship. Shyam (T/C) 14:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. The majority of significant coverage related to this individual has focused on his history of domestic violence. This has been documented on the talk page and, as a content issue, is not an important part of this thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am suspicious when any account comes back from the dead, but more so when it's a highly controversial topic (especially one that's been heavily canvassed on social media). Their non-consensus forming edit should be reverted and they should be required to make changes via the talk page, if not outright blocked from editing the article directly. Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the idea that Jimbo weighing in is at all relevant to consensus is, well, irrelevant and absurd. He is no more an authority as an editor in a dispute than you or me. Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moreover, Jimbo took great pains to avoid expressing an opinion on the content and merely called for a fresh discussion. Blanking is not discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The actions are somewhat odd - a message left and not even an hour later made an edit they had to know would be controversial and the subject of extensive discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was watching the article page and looked me quite odd when I read from other external sources. It pushed me to go through the talk page, and hence i decided to take it up. If you want me to refrain, I shall not make any edits. I thought I am a neutral editor. Shyam (T/C) 14:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Shyam, then please respect WP:BRD and not edit-war as you're doing. Ravensfire (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a BLP, so it's possible to invoke discretionary sanctions, such as putting the page under 1RR. I don't know if that would help or just make things worse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanctions might be sensible, especially given that the article's subject is known to have employed a number of freelancers to whitewash the article, not all of whom we've yet detected. Yunshui 雲水 15:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My only concern is that such sanctions might be gamed against editors like myself who oppose the whitewashing. While Shyam was reverting my revert, in the same breath he hinted that I might be blocked if I undid his revert again. While that probably would not have happened, it should be noted that prior POV-pushers have attempted to lawyer the snot out of any angle they can find. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (edit conflict) Note that the editor has continued edit-warring even after engaging in discussion here, forcing their preferred version of the article, and even trying to use this discussion as their reason for doing so. Thankfully, several editors have reverted to the stable status ante quem, which is the version one is supposed to revert to, unless there’s a serious BLP violation (which there isn’t, in this case). Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't know Wikipedia has become a battle field with hired editors (may be from both sides) with the parties which are so proactive in edit wars. I am on Wikipedia since 2005 and I just bumped to that article. I don't want any edit wars with hired editors. i wanted to put my neutral point of view. Google or other search engine results may be more unbiased about how much weight should put to his domestic violence. I shall refrain myself from edit wars on the article, let it be battle field from both the sides. Thanks Shyam (T/C)
    • The answer is obvious—and as the disruption continues throughout this discussion—a preventative block of Shyam's account until they can demonstrate they understand one of our most important policies. ——SN54129 15:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I leave the decision to the ANI or ArbCom to take the further decision. I would like to keep myself neutral. I hope this helps. Shyam (T/C) 15:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer you simply be kept out of the article, period. NinjaRobotPirate, would you be so kind as to see if a block for User:Shyam on this specific article is warranted? I would do it myself but some Wikilawyer might call me involved, since I made minor edits ot the article. Of course, if Shyam says, explicitly, that they will refrain from editing the article at least for the time being, that might not be necessary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I can tell, everyone involved has committed to stop reverting. I don't know how long this peace will last, of course, but I'm sure someone will loudly complain if it starts up again any time soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had I come across this two hours ago, I would have blocked Shyam for disruptive editing. Given that they've stopped reverting for the moment, I'm disinclined to sully a clean block log, but they should take this as a clear-cut warning that if they make any further reverts in the absence of strong consensus, or even if they continue to post boilerplate on the talk page, they will likely recieve a page-level indefinite block. For the record, I'm uninvolved here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process

    More input would be welcome at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Deprecation and blacklisting process, where I am proposing a more robust process for blacklisting and deprecating sites that have significant usage in articles. Guy (help!) 08:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sons of Lucifer

    Indefinitely blocked by Cullen328 --DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I've also semiprotected the article for an additional year independent of this report. El_C 03:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:Sons of Lucifer (talk) is repeatedly adding incorrect information to the page Battle of Karbala.

    Toddy1 (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like he logged out [58] --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: (Non-administrator comment) Final warning given, Username against policy (plural), and given the last edit summary, quacking like crazy. Why not just report him at WP:AIV? Kleuske (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indeffed this editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Soumya-8974 and redirects

    Check out User talk:Soumya-8974/Archives2020/March and you will see a wall of RfD notifications for questionable redirects created by User:Soumya-8974. Included in this archive is a thread titled Redirects are cheap; editor time is not by Mathglot and Glades12, where some of these redirects were laid out for Soumya-8974. Instead of discussing, the action Soumya-8974 took was to post these redirects to their user page, like creating junk redirects is something to be proud of. Another talk post started by Uanfala, called Before creating redirects..., went unanswered. This shows that trying to discuss the issues is not working.

    Soumya-8974 is clearly a resource drain for those at RfD, and I am at my wits end seeing their redirects pop up there seemingly every single day. I propose an indefinite topic ban on redirects, broadly construed, to be lifted when Soumya-8974 can adequately demonstrate an understanding of redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban me if you want, I am on the full disclosure. The redirects you mentioned (except the "How to survive COVID-19", which is created by mistake) are misspellings (the spelling "Korona" is found on several boards of India). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addl'l comment: the editor in question self-identifies as a 15-year-old kid, so perhaps he or she could benefit from Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, in particular the bit about "remember that we have some rules." TJRC (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may: the core of the problem seems to me to be the creation of redirects that a native English speaker would be unlikely to search by, such as foreign-language names (I Griego) and implausible misspellings (Korona epidemic, Preservance (rover). Germania (cant) and Germania (argot), which are on the short list of bad examples that were posted to the editor's talk page and transferred to their user page, are useful; I was unaware of Germanía, which they point to, and most English speakers ignore or don't notice accents. If Soumya-8974 could be gotten to not make redirects from misspellings or foreign languages, perhaps given a place to propose any they really think would be useful, that would perhaps be enough, leaving us with just stuff like scientific formulae and map coordinates, which I suspect Soumya-8974 will easily recognize are unlikely search terms here? (The formulae likely come up as suggestions if one does type them into the search box.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another RfD regular who has nominated a fair share of Soumya's redirects for deletion, I would most strongly endorse the limited TBAN against creating redirects from misspellings or non-English languages. Soumya has also created some useful redirects, so I would hope that they can learn to edit within the limits of this topic ban. However, the lack of adequate communication is also concerning, and if that isn't resolved blocks may be in order. signed, Rosguill talk 17:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another RfD regular, the space has been flooded the last week or so with this user's redirects. Some of them have been kept after discussion, but a lot of them have been deleted. The user has voted to keep some of the redirects at discussions as "cheap and harmless", but a strong consensus to delete these has formed frequently. Commendably, they've requested G7 on some of them, but it's still a big time drain at RfD to deal with this user's redirects. I'd support a temporary topic ban, to give Soumya-8974 the chance to read and understand the applicable redirect policies. They've created some useful redirects, but it's growing to be a problem - redirects such as 29.9792458°E (half of the coordinates to a place, as well as the incorrect cardinal direction for that half) are making a mess at RfD. Hog Farm (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • As another RFD regular, I agree that Something Needs To Be Done. I would prefer something less than a block, as I did in the recent case with DM; but the WP:DISRUPTION has to stop. As well as new redirects up for RFD, I've also seen RFD discussions of old redirects which were heading for WP:SNOW deletion after policy-based !votes by regulars but which had to be relisted after one dissenting !vote by Soumya-8974. This sort of stuff is a classic timesink. Narky Blert (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree there should be a topic ban in place, but only on the creation of redirects, since from what I have seen, that is the only problem topic. Other than that, with the exception of Soumya-8974's rather liberal and repeated incorrect applications of WP:CSD criteria in WP:RFD discussions, I see no other topic-ban eligible problems with their edits. (Well, there was one more thing, but that was a while back and the only thing I care about that now is remembering that it happened.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a TBAN on creating new redirects. Those are the real timewasters. (1) Find. (2) Research. (3) List at RFD, proposing deletion. (4) Stand aside while other regulars do their own research and !vote. (5) Expect an unhelpful unadorned keep !vote on the lines of "it's useful". (6) Look for the relist next week. (7) It's WP:COSTLY. Narky Blert (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Soumya-8974's creations from the last week or so, I think I can say they aren't as eggregious as the earlier ones (the recent avalanche at RfD that forms the backdrop of this thread is not necessarily relevant for the present because of the time lag between the time a redirect is created and the time it's picked up at NPP and sent for deletion). Could it be that some of the feedback has been taken on board? I think redirects where "corona" is spelt with a k are helpful, and even ones like Preservance (rover) that might draw a chuckle here, are actually plausible from an Indian English perspective (a reminder that there are at least as many users of English in India as there are on the British Isles). Juvenoia on the other hand is concerning: Soumya, you have seen time and again that redirects for random translations of non-English words get deleted, why do you keep creating them?
      I don't know if a ban from creating redirects is completely necessary, but if imposed, it should be on the understanding that Soumya is free to request redirects at WP:AFC/R (subject to some reasonable weekly limit). At the very least, a track record of successful requests there could help with a future appeal of the ban. – Uanfala (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a topic ban, while permitting them to use WP:AFC/R up to some reasonable limit, would be good. I'm unpersuaded that they've learned their lesson from this discussion having started. There are weeks of discussion on their talk page (now archived) that were clearly without effect. There no harm in having an editor needing to go through a slower process in an area where they've demonstrated a marked inability or unwillingness to regulate themselves. It could be educational, and if it can be shown that the redirects requested at WP:AFC/R have been meritorious after six months or so, lift the ban.
    Right now the problem stems from them being able to create problematic redirects with ease, that have to be unwound only slowly, through the efforts of a large number of editors, as Narky Blert points out above. TJRC (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Diametakomisi and incessant incomprehensibility

    To be frank, I think this user needs to be blocked per competence is required. They have a long term habit of cluttering up articles and talk pages with incomprehensible original research.

    • Take a look at their user talk page. They've created various articles and pages, all with the same issues, that had to be moved to draft space, speedy deleted, RfD'ed, or AfD'ed. See this and this AfD for examples. (More examples at XTools.) They've also been warned for disruptive editing and edit warring.

    I'm sure this person means well, but good intentions are not enough. The above shows that they are a net negative to the project. I therefore support an indefinite block on both of their accounts. Crossroads -talk- 20:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to address the problem at Talk:Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science)#Current_state_of_the_article. I couldn't make much sense from Diametakomisi's reply, but they did at least repair the opening sentence so it wasn't as bad as it was when I posted. I didn't keep pushing because we don't seem to speak the same language (even though all of our words are in English). Schazjmd (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    tbh Crossroads I just feel that you are either just wholly not sympathetic to the edits at Non binary or just: not giving enough attention to concentration to the information I've added at the talk page, or that you are just not intelligent enough to comprehend the addition. For example "incomprehensibility" is an indication of my inability to be comprehensible is not proof of my lack of ability to express my own communication, but on the contrary your lack of ability to comprehend. Both situations might be true, wouldn't you agree? In contradiction to Crossroads I'd like to add "Live edits 1,323 · (78.8%)" doesn't indicate my lack of ability to comprehend subjects - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science) Authorship Diametakomisi Top Edits · Edit Counter 65,434 96.5% does infact contradict Crossroads "At Social gadfly (which they renamed)" Macrakis is free to revert again if he/she wants to, if it is the case their is a problem with the article, Macrakis didn't proceed to revert the article again, and is active @ 18:59, 19 March 2020 - which is today obviously (and no-one has reverted or made deletions to the article since I stopped making major contributions @ 01:44, 27 February 2020‎) - why additionally Crossroads didn't revert Gadfly_(philosophy_and_social_science) if he/she feels the article is simply an error... there's no reason because the article shows numerous sources, that << Social gadfly >> existed isn't proof "Gadfly (philosophy_and_social_science)" is a bad article. Crossroad's opinions just seem like a fascistly or bullyingly identifying individual because of either his/her personal inclination, or because their position is intenable in the dialogue of Talk : Non-binary > perhaps @ 19:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (Diametakomisi) response to "Gender (in the context of this article, that means gender identity) is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people. Gender identity is the topic of a great many sources in psychology and they are clear that it is stable" (Crossroads). Even if Crossroads opinion is true, which it isn't, his/her opinion "indefinite block" - this is entirely unnecessary because of the evidence at least of 78.8%, and I am willing to not make changes in light of being helped by other editors to align my contributions to an acceptable situation. Crossraods effort is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section. As an addendum, there is no reason (and I do intend to indicate a lack of reason here) to state "they" since there isn't any way to know if this user (myself) is the only user of the account or there are multiple users - so why add "they" it is a baseless application of thought on the part of Crossroads, because he/she cannot know if there is one or multiple users, which is an indication of the reasonlessness of Crossroads effort in words Diametakomisi (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "At Non-binary gender, here are their talk page comments, and here and here are their article edits (reverted by DMacks and myself)." - I am currently engaging in Talk page dialogue at that article - and have aligned to DMacks to not edit war - so there isn't a serious problem at that article, I think Crossroads is just not able or willing to engage in a dialogue, because I made a great deal of effort to review and assess the comment he/she made and my own changes to the article - in order to stop my own changes making any harm to the article there - in good faith that Crossroads response to my changes reflected a considered reality on his / her part Diametakomisi (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't revert Social gadfly because I felt dealing with your editing should be done first. But anyway, I think stuff like Crossraods effort is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section tells the admins all they need really. As for calling you "they", I was using singular they and not assuming gender - which I'd think someone editing a page on Non-binary gender would appreciate, but I guess not. Crossroads -talk- 21:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crossroads, I dead, because it was a mess. Written like a personal essay. Guy (help!) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    viewing https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Crossroads I see Crossroads is interested in relevant subjects to transexualism & transgender which does indicate he/she is perhaps an informed individual, but that this interest exists does perhaps also indicate the lack of neutrality in the opinions of Crossroads WP:5P2 - Crossroads might have an opinion on the subject that I don't agree with, so Crossroads just would prefer to eliminate my position, looking at the evidence as objectively as possible considering I am one of the disputing users Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (copy of addition re-added due to "edit-conflict" at the editorial screen Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    Crossroads "is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section" is just my opinion, I don't know anything about you, so you can't construe the comment as an offense against you, it is my considered opinion Diametakomisi (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC) that is all, I don't intend to harass you or to have harassed you is what I mean to say Diametakomisi (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    'Crossroads "is just an assault I think that is all, looking at the evidence, and really he/she should just be arrested by the police not adding comments to this section" is just my opinion'. Diametakomisi, would you care to explain in plain English what that is supposed to mean? because I'm a native English speaker, and haven't a clue. Narky Blert (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Narky Blert, I felt that the opening of this discussion is unnecessary because my intentions at the articles is not to do harm to anyone, and I thought at the time of writing the comment << I have made an effort to comprehend the subject, so there isn't any reason to have disputed my contributions >>, so that the fact Crossroads has begun this disagreement, just felt like an assault against me. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC) (changes after signature 21:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]
    @Diametakomisi: You have not answered my question. I have no idea what, if anything, the sentence which I quoted means. Narky Blert (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having viewed the contributions page of Crossroads I see he/she is interested in the subject - so I feel more sympathetic towards user:Crossroads - I do feel I attacked Crossroads by identifying << lack of reason >> , but really my response was a reaction to the perceived threat to me by Crossroads - I don't intend to discredit Crossroads, but I just feel Crossroads is perhaps biased to his/her self not neutral on the subject, due to the interest the user has, and the fact I'm looking at sources to only make a contribution. I do have some bias against transgender as a reality, which is maybe how this disagreement began, but I'm not hateful of Crossroads. I really don't want to be blocked because I enjoy making contributions, and seeing that Crossroads is interested primarily in the subject, and considering my lesser interest I would think I must have not understood something fully, but if you would like to look to the source @ 21:21, 13 March 2020 Non-binary gender, you will see the source is a close wording to the addition I made, is why I can't agree so much with Crossroads. Diametakomisi (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to Gadfly...

    I agree that Diametakomisi's additions to Gadfly (philosophy and social science) have made the article much worse. As I said in my talk page message in January, D does not seem to be able to write a useful encyclopedia article. In fact, sometimes D doesn't seem to be able to write a cogent English sentence. D's contributions are extremely wordy, extremely discursive, very hard to follow, and often only extremely indirectly related to the topic.

    D's contributions to other articles are similarly problematic. In Bianchi classification, D writes

    Cosmology the concept results from the unification in thought of, theory by cosmological modelling, to datum and knowledge from astronomical and astrophysical observation.

    This is not English, but some sort of word salad, as is the rest of the contribution. To the extent I can extract any meaning from it at all, it (and the rest of the paragraph) seems to be a commentary on the philosophy of cosmology, which is completely irrelevant in this technical article about a mathematical result. --Macrakis (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Block I had been watching their interaction with Crossroads at Non-binary gender with confusion, as I had no clue what they were on about or trying to say. Combined with their voluminous and inscrutable response here, I agree with WP:CIR. This isn't about a difference of opinion, it's about being close to incomprehensible. Also, not sure what "I do have some bias against transgender as a reality" is supposed to mean, but it does not fill me with confidence. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Macrakis, Indeed./ I rolled back, he reverted. I think it's time for at least a partial block or TBAN. Guy (help!) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Diametakomisi adds refs to articles, which is useful (if they're reliable). Can you topic ban against "no sentences"? Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that D seems to know a lot of things and a lot of sources, and it would be a pity to lose that. On the other hand, D does not seem to be able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant things, nor to be able to write comprehensible text. Adding walls of incomprehensible text to Talk pages instead -- even if they include some gems of information -- does not seem helpful, either. --Macrakis (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The shortcut I was looking for was WP:CB. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked both accounts. I seem to be turning into ANI's hanging judge, which isn't really what I signed up for, but I don't really see any other way to handle this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha-harrgh, Cap'n, ye didn't know what ye were a-signin' up for when ye boarded this deathship, did ye? Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was the only option. I read through the links Crossroads provided to the non-binary gender article and talk page, and the comments there make gadfly look like Dr. Seuss. Schazjmd (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism (recent) at the page of "M. Night Shyamalan"

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked by Floquenbeam. creffett (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Please take a look. There is a user (not logged in) who is deleting large swaths of sourced and referenced information without reasoning and refused to listen to my revert explanations and warnings to stop. Please help. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: offending user seems to have perhaps temporarily stopped. I hope they do not continue to do this. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Apoorva Iyer, I've blocked the IP. In the future, you can report these cases to WP:AIV, which (usually has a quicker turnaround time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Thank you so much! Apoorva Iyer (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ADOS MMXX

    I just blocked ADOS MMXX for 31h for disruption. A "brand new editor" making rapid-fire changes to national or ethnic categories. Is this a recognisable LTA or just some new bull in our much damaged china shop? Guy (help!) 15:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: if this is a sock it's not an LTA. I posted this at Talk:African Americans in relationship to American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS). That article and talk page give the background and the talk page in particular should be read. "We've got an interesting issue here. ADOS sees African Americans (why no hyphen?) who are descended from slaves as deserving their own racial classification. This explains the request above about Obama. As a consequence, we are now getting good faith editors such as User:ADOS MMXX removing some black Americans from African American categories. I think this needs discussion and I'm not sure where. There are three wikiprojects that are relevant for instance, but I don't think we want multiple discussions." Doug Weller talk 16:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Their edit summary here lays out pretty directly that their edits are based on a POV: "Being black in American does make one African-American; there is a different in culture and heritage."

    While that may or may not be a defensible position, it is not (AFAIK) the current consensus on Wikipedia. This comment, getting into phenotype (!) and mixed parentage is clearly wandering into the same field.

    Sock? LTA? Tiger? IDK. I'd say give them a bit of rope and see what happens. - SummerPhDv2.0 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So, where might one find the current consensus/MOS guidelines on when/how to properly use these type of descriptors, i.e. white, black, African American, Asian American, etc.? (Whatever the case may be.) Ditch ∝ 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ditch Fisher: I don't know of one, but for this, maybe use Talk:African American as our article discusses what it means? Doug Weller talk 16:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ARIZONAUSA and USA123AZ

    ARIZONAUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for persistent vandalism earlier today, they appear to have returned with USA123AZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can we get an administrator to both block the sockpuppet and semi-protect the article they're vandalizing, 2020 United States Senate special election in Arizona? Thanks!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on it. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished now. 331dot (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you much!-- Patrick, oѺ∞ 15:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CPHL reported by User:FlightTime

    CPHL (talk · contribs · count)

    User is running amuck, very disruptive. persistent addition of unsourced POV, OR content, despite a full talk page (with no replies or comments) This user is a net-negative and needs to be addressed. Going behind this user and cleaning up is getting laborsome. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Young user, also has info on their user page that might need revdel. Rgrds. -Bison X (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bison X: Thanx for pointing this out, I hadn't looked at the user page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    East Lothian IPs edit warring on childrens TV shows

    Somebody in East Lothian has been uncommunicative regarding their repeated re-insertions into childrens television show articles of a section listing international broadcast channels.[59] (The sections are in violation of WP:TVINTL, so they shouldn't exist, and they also carry unnecessary flag icons in violation of WP:FLAGCRUFT.) EvergreenFir has been removing these sections, and myself and others have been reverting the subsequent restorations of them. Several groups of IP ranges have been involved, so I'm wondering if we can set one or more rangeblocks to stop this person. Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, the ranges are so wide that you'd end up blocking the whole of Edinburgh and the surrounding region (and very possibly many others - the 86's and 109's are in a /12, which isn't technically blockable anyway) from anyone using BT Broadband, the UK's biggest ISP. Could this be done using an edit filter instead? Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet and Black Kite: Yeah this user has been a nuisance. An edit filter would be lovely if possible. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Try posting at WP:EFR. It may be possible to design a filter based on partial IPs and the subject-matter which doesn't cause too much collateral damage. Narky Blert (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good info. I didn't know partial IPs could be part of a filter. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

    I am not sure what sense to make of this as I can't read the language. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Google Translate gives me a bizarre screed on DMCA and human rights, something about "delete my illegal data" and being misled by Twitter, followed by what appears to be a copy of the FAQ for the Creative Commons license. Given the choice of topics, there might be a legal threat embedded in there, but if so the translation is sufficiently incoherent that I can't say for sure. creffett (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, thank you. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Google translation - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth reaching out to the Chinese Wikipedia zh.wikipedia.org for guidance or referring this user to go there instead of here. Michepman (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit here has been reverted, and I don't think there's any more that needs to be done. I'm sure the Chinese Wikipedia would not welcome us chucking this over to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, good point. Fair enough. Michepman (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism for 75 minutes and counting

    And no acknowledgment at AIV. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 36 hours. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oshwah, thank you. Now I'm off to write an article. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome, Bob! Happy editing! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a 550 word piece for publication. I do two or three a month on average. Pays the rent and it's more fun that reverting vandalism. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by Levivich at DRV for List of people with coronavirus disease 2019

    A DRV for list of people with coronavirus disease 2019 has proven controversial and well-attended. Levivich (talk · contribs) has made abrasive comments and personal attacks on those who advocate for keeping the article, and doubled down when challenged. He began by claiming pretty much anyone with a brain knows the correct result here and continued by saying anyone who thinks Wikipedia should have lists of BLPs by disease should not only be site banned but also jailed ... this really is evil. It's Nazi-esque. It's slightly ambiguous whether he is referring to keep/overturn !voters or the list with that description of Nazi-esque, but the distinction is not important here; if you claim the list is Nazi-esque, that immediately taints anyone advocating to keep the list. Comparing other editors to Nazis is a textbook personal attack (by which I mean it is literally listed in the policy as an example). He was independently challenged by three editors (1 Smartyllama, 2 myself, and 3 Bradv) and asked to withdraw his attacks. However, he instead doubled down on his comments and repeated his comparisons of the list to Nazi sciences such as eugenics. Hundreds of thousands of people were murdered because of eugenics; it's not something to invoke over something as trivial as a Wikipedia deletion debate.

    It is fine to disagree with other editors as to whether a list complies with certain policies and whether it should be kept or deleted. What is not fine is using this disagreement as a basis to belittle other editors, call for their imprisonment and compare them to Nazis. Both Levivich's comments at DRV have now been hatted, but without administrative intervention, I fear his complete lack of remorse indicates he will continue such attacks in future. – Teratix ₵ 01:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's standard for tempers to flare at AfD and review, particularly when dealing with ILIKEIT commentary. How about seriously considering what Levivich and others have said (before irritation set in)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree @Johnuniq:, Impossible to see this as anything other than a PA. An administrator called him on the PA and he doubled down with a tedious reply. We should be able to call out a PA even if you do like the editor. Lightburst (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that it would be a good idea to encourage users to try and tone down the personal attacks. The fact that tempers often flare at AfD doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing to run around calling people Nazi-esque; indeed, I think the reason why tempers flare at AfD is because of the general gutter standards of discussion that prevail there. Levivich is a great editor and he almost always has something helpful and constructive to say, so I don't think this needs to be a big deal; just a general admonishment to all editors to rise above that kind of rhetoric and focus on content and policy. Michepman (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, so long as everyone is nice to each other, who cares about the underlying issue? Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I read thru Levivich's comments and saw a sound, policy-backed argument that others were having trouble disassembling. Levivich then went overboard with some hypothetical comparisons (confusingly using the word "you" instead of "one") and it offended those attempting the disassembling and an opening was presented allowing for some WP:SEALIONing. This is ridiculous. Please close. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 on the close. Agree with Bison and Johnu - Atsme Talk 📧 05:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no wish to further debate on the merits of the list; I have said my piece at AfD and DRV. All I ask is that Levivich recognise that he did indeed, as you say, go overboard with his rhetoric. I will be quite happy to withdraw my report once that happens. – Teratix ₵ 05:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from their talk page comments, it appears they would appreciate recognition that BLP trumps (my words, not theirs) "going overboard". I understand your frustration, and others have been made aware of the breach of civility, but if you consider this a draw would that be acceptable? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP and civility are not mutually exclusive; there is no need for one to trump the other. It's quite possible to argue an article is a BLP violation without the need for disproportionate rhetoric. – Teratix ₵ 10:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Levivich hasn’t edited since yesterday so I’m not really sure any admin action is warranted here at this time since it would be punitive rather than preventative, but using a historical picture of Nazis to illustrate a point after calling something nazi-esque and being warned about it is quite frankly disgusting. Either he was comparing those who think we should have the list to those making the nazi salute, or he was comparing himself getting into fights on Wikipedia to the person refusing to salute. Maybe both. I’m sorry, but that’s just not okay.
      Yes, frustrations can run high, and I certainly get the desire to have people follow the BLP policy, but people of goodwill can and do disagree in good faith. Painting your position as the only morally defensible one in the starkest tone, calling your opponents evil, and then posting that picture in response when challenged pretty clearly crosses into the not acceptable behaviour realm.
      Finally, Levivich is gifted at rhetoric and probably one of the most well-spoken newer editors we’ve had in a while. He knows what he’s doing with his language and I don’t think this can be dismissed as just tempers running high. I think this should be closed with a formal warning to him that similar incidents cannot occur in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another approach would be a 2-3 day block retroactive to the opening of this ANI. I think that would underscore the gravity of this offense. It is an offense. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yuck. I didn't !vote in the AFD. I haven't yet !voted in the DRV, and didn't see the inflammatory comments by User:Levivich, because they were wisely collapsed. User:Teratix is right and User:Levivich was wrong in engaging in what is an "impersonal attack" on a large segment of Wikipedia editors, those who favored Keeping the list. Saying that editors who want the list kept should be jailed is in the same territory as legal threats, and Levivich is fortunate that their remark was collapsed without a block. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible issues with User:Luigi1090

    There is a user by the name of Luigi1090 whose behavior in articles has me concerned:

    I am tempted to say this might be a WP:CIR issue, but I am not too sure. Going through their talk page, I've seen issues with their edits and that they have made no real improvement in the years following the initial warnings. Thoughts? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 02:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no thoughts! I've always respected the Wikipedia rules since the first day I'd subscribe, and I haven't a poor grammar. I'm the one who made (sometimes also created) most Wikipedia pages (like Cartoon Network Studios, Shorts Department [created by me], Lazor Wulf, Re-Animated, etc.) what they still are: the most updated and complete ever and, above all, the most totally free from vandalism acts by most anonymous Wikipedia users. Although I've tried over and over again to have a dialogue with him on his personal talk page, this user (The Grand Delusion) is only making a plot against me and ruined me trying to make unnecessary alarmism. Luigi1090 (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Paranoid much? The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you also starting to insult me? Paranoiac is an insult for me! Luigi1090 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated WP:BLP violations by IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E

    (non-admin closure) The IP user was blocked for 31 hours by Drmies.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please block IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E, who has persistently violated WP:BLP policy at Tim Martin (businessman) page. Also WP:REVDEL his vulgar edit summaries. NedFausa (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • NedFausa, please just report this at AIV next time. Better yet: don't just revert, but also warn and then report; if you had given them, say, a level-2 warning the first time, they could have been blocked two or three edits ago. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: Two weeks ago, administrator Bishonen chastised me for using the word vandalism in my edit summary when reverting what I believed was obvious vandalism. I determined then that I shall no longer identify vandalism at Wikipedia even though, as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Potter Stewart famously said about hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it." I'm not an administrator and have no authority to issue warnings of any level to another editor. I plan to avoid WP:AIV like the coronavirus . NedFausa (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NedFausa, By looking into your contributions I think you have never used Wikipedia:Twinkle. You can activate that tool from here. It is really useful because it allows you to send different types of warnings. Like if you saw an edit that looks like a test edit (not obvious vandalism) you can find a warning template for that. You can easily report editors to AIV or any type of noticeboard, rollback vandalism etc etc. It is an extremely useful and almost essential tool in wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam: That's not going to happen. If I am out of line reporting serious BLP violations and other persistent disruptive editing here at WP:ANI, the admins can sanction me accordingly. But I will not be drawn into disputes about what constitutes vandalism. NedFausa (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I am not talking about what constitutes as vandalism. I am just saying that there is a helpful tool that you can use to make things easier for you. Drmies said that you didnt warn the editor in their talk page. That tool will help you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NedFausa, I think I disagree with Bishonen there, but reasonable disagreement is fine. I do not see where she "chastised" you, and I also don't think that edit (while yes, I think it's vandalism) is a serious BLP violation. But what we were talking about here was pretty obvious, and to not report that as soon as you can defeats, to some extent, the whole purpose. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies: When I first reverted IP user 2A00:23C4:48E:5801:7489:3BDC:DB94:911E, I had no idea he'd continue violating WP:BLP. So 18 minutes elapsed, during which time he did persist, until I reported him. You then determined that his edits were so egregious, so utterly and flagrantly unacceptable, so beyond the pale of civilized conduct, that you blocked him—FOR ALL OF 31 HOURS!!! And now I'm the bad guy for not reporting him sooner. What a place. NedFausa (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were "the bad guy", but don't go patting yourself on the back. That first edit was bad enough, and letting it go for 18 more minutes, during which time the editor did it five more times, that's not something to be proud of. I don't know if you were trying to make a point out of some grievance, but it's not helpful. Neither is your rhetorical overload. "For all of 31 hours"--sheesh, you should know by now that we don't block IPs for much longer, and if you looked carefully you'd see that the IP address was switched and the vandalism continued (so a longer block would have been totally useless). And again, if you looked carefully you would have seen that I blocked the range, not just that one already outdated IP address. Anyway, I'm done with you; please don't ping me again in this discussion. If there's some vandal that needs blocking, that's a different matter. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Having been properly rebuked, I am contrite. I've learned my lesson. I shall not report BLP violations here at ANI or anywhere else. But I will continue reverting them, and rely on the WP:3RRBLP exemption should the offender persist. If administrators deem that my approach is noncompliant with Wikipedia rules, you are duty-bound to sanction me as you see fit. I'm sorry to have bothered you. NedFausa (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you see a BLP violation revert, then warn the editor on his talk page. Here are some templates that we usually use if, lets say, the content added was defamatory, first level warning we use Template:Uw-defamatory1, start a discussion in the user talk's page titled with the month and the years (e.g == March 2020 ==) then add this text under the section header {{subst:Uw-defamatory1}}. If the user added the content again then revert again and send a level 2 template, if the edit was in the same month then add it under the original section. The level 2 template is {{subst:Uw-defamatory2}}. The same thing with the level 3 and so on. I dont remember any of these templates but I use Wikipedia:Twinkle. You can activate that tool from Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets scroll down and you see "Twinkle: add menu buttons to automate common tasks..." click check. You will see a new button called "TW" and there you go, it will give you a list of useful options.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SharabSalam: Would it be agreeable for me to advise you privately by email each time I revert a BLP violation? You could then apply your Twinkie tool at the offender's talk page without publicly implicating me, and I would not run afoul of disapproving admins. NedFausa (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Macy jannah

    I've filed an SPI report about Macy jannah. Meanwhile, they continue to make unsourced and obviously false changes to Algerian population statistics after their fourth warning. Could someone maybe block them while we wait for the SPI case? Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks! --IamNotU (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    Spanish flu Lua error messages

    Spanish flu is currently throwing up a load of Lua error messages. Can someone with the required knowledge fix this? It doesn't look good in a high traffic article with 400,000 daily views.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Spanish flu is throwing up? EEng 13:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted the last revision, which broke everything. I haven't looked into what went wrong. The Moose 13:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And now it looks fine on my screen on the other revision. So I reverted myself. The Moose 13:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RMCD bot

    On Talk:1968 flu pandemic, RMCD bot is repeatedly making headers saying Move discussion in progress. Can you figure out what is going on with it and fix it? Pinging wbm1058 since he is the bot operator. Interstellarity (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, it looks like my bot has got the virus LOL... looking into it now. wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wbm1058: I think it may have something to do with there being a recently opened move discussion of the 1968 article on the 1968 talk page, as well as a combined move discussion of it and other articles on another page. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, it looks like the bot has been attacked by a pandemic of open requested move discussions on different pages. I'll see if I can make it behave in a more defensive manner when such events happen ;) wbm1058 (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TBJApple

    I really don't think this user is listening or helping, I've asked him not to remove AfD notices yet he keeps removing it from 2019-20 Chesterfield F.C. season page, which is up for deletion, at WP:FOOTBALL project we don't have season pages for non-league teams yet he has created and edits them. The user has been unresponsive and continues to do his own thing. I did give a warning earlier but I feel it's fallen on deaths-ear. Something needs to be done. Govvy (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Govvy, I've given the user a personal message, with a warning that I'll block them if they do it again - let me know if the disruption continues. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, although I don't see it being much help. Govvy (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's always potential for help in sending a non-templated message. It seems that this editor has only ever received templates before. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Again personal insult

    CLOSED
    Incomplete unevidenced report. Seems far more like using ANI to gain an advantage in a content dispute. The only possible actions for this report are outlined at BOOMERANG and we don't need to go there yet. Engage on the article talk page and use WP:DR if need be. John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    Editor Sadko again uses hate speech. First time he insulted me that I was a Nazi follower and you didn't punish him for that. Now he talk that my contributions to Wikipedia are Serbophobic. Anti-Serbian sentiment is "A distinctive form of Anti-Serbism is Anti-Serbianism which can be defined as a generally-negative view of Serbia as a nation state for Serbs" "The best-known historical proponent of anti-Serb sentiment was the 19th- and 20th-century Croatian Party of Rights. The most extreme elements of this party became the Ustaše in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia".[72] Please stop editor Sadko and his insult of Wikipedia editors. I give my time and contributions here and please do not insult me. This time I expect a harsh punishment. This is spoken word of the editor Sadko I quote: Those are not RS, not at all. Please stop spreading personal opinions which are bordering with Serbophobia - We do not know whether this "Serb" recorded in the school administration at that time is for all Slavs and Catholics as well.[73] I ask that this man is finally punished. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Utter nonsense (even more so about "Nazi follower") and yet another "boy who cried wolf" story. Please stop abusing "hate speech"; people who are real victims of hate speech will be left out in a cold place due to such actions. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor refuses to listen/learn, gets abusive

    Tee wew28 is repeatedly adding (1, 2, 3, 4) a variety of unsourced genre's to I Shot the Sheriff and their modus operandi once reverted is to first revert back to their unsourced version before asking for help on their talk page. Woodroar and I have, besides issuing warnings, attempted to offer help in the form of links and explanations (as can be seen on their talk page) but instead of reading the links and providing reliable sources they prefer to edit war and break the 3RR. Then when given a final personal plea and warning they resort to this sort of abusive behavior. Please could an admin have a look at this. Robvanvee 19:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, I was about to start a report myself. I first ran into this editor at Talk:The Movies#Abandonware, which was (ultimately) a futile effort to explain that we need reliable sourcing to label the game as abandonware. They're strangely obsessed with the game, to the point of asking someone to send it to them on their user page. The two "March 2020" sections on their User talk page—mea culpa for duplicating the heading—are more examples of futile explanations. I'm not sure if there's a language issue, but this seemed like a clear case of WP:CIR even before the abuse started. Woodroar (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef for a complete lack of any clue, ample use of the f-bomb toward other users, and minimal competence. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JanaMelitzana reported by IceWelder

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    JanaMelitzana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Clearly WP:NOTHERE, adding xenophobic content[74][75][76] and unexplainedly removing content,[77] as well as other disruptive edits. Was previously blocked for similar edits, including adding obvious factual errors by using a petition requesting this fact, a rumour, or no source at all, multiple times.[78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] Editor refuses to communicate. IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: The "too gay" wording appears to come from secondary sources, not JanaMelitzana. [88] [89] [90] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New GF editor Cwanless needs counselling

    I don't have time now and have to quit editing for but Cwanless (talk · contribs) is adding OR, copyvio at Autodesk Inventor, etc. to articles. I'll notify them. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=946699447"