Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Repeated bogus OR accusations

IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Repeated abuse at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake

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) 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) 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) 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: That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful. — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC) All very disputatious — JJ 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 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)

• This complaint seems ridiculously overblown. I see no substantive incivility on J. Johnson's part. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

(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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: I use they/them pronouns btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Sorry! Slip of the mind. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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; [13] 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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). — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

• 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)

• (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? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• @J. Johnson: Whom do you believe Mark canvased here and how? If onwiki, then please provide diffs for context. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

• • @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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @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)
      • @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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @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)
        • @Nil Einne: Agree to disagree. However, as my friend Wander has pointed out to me, WP:CANVAS actually does not say anything about pings (and it has been argued that they're fair game). Idk, this might be better for my talk page since we're getting a bit off track. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @MarkH21: Not sure if I have any contribution to give really - I stumbled onto the Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake page because of the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Earthquakes#RfC_on_wording_in_the_lead_of_1976_Tangshan_earthquake - everything I've seen related to this is in the tangshan earthquake talk page. It seems like one side of the squabble for wording is more reasonable than the other, but I guess that's what this incident is about, i've not been following the whole thread, I was hoping this would be settled amicably without having to read it all. EdwardLane (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 12:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of allegations of incivility stemming from "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)

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)

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)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Does 10 years of editing and 800 hours of teaching Wikipedia count as relatively new nowadays? — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"Ι declare no COI".   ManosHacker ^talk 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Your claim that "Incivility (continued)" is a neutral header is simply preposterous. "Incivility" is what you allege, and to present it as an assertion of proven fact is prejudicial. Would this be clearer if I took the same liberty as you have to rename this as "ManosHacker's false claim of incivility"? How about "ManosHacker's false statements and lying continue"? Making headers that present a claim from only side is non-neutral and a violation of the Talk Page Guidelines.

Your reasoning (as far as I can make it out) seems to be that the header I added separates your accusations from Mark's accusations. If you wanted your accusations to follow Mark's then that is where you should have put them. As it is you appended them to a string of comments in my "Reply" section. It is quite inappropriate to blame me for any confusion resulting from what is your error.

You seem to be arguing that specifying "VAN" in the header makes the section "focused on content instead of JJ's manners". But your accusations are plucked from the context the VAN issue, and misleading if that context is ignored. Your claim of "JJ's distortion of a Wikipedia article" is not about my "manners", but about content, sources, and – just as you said at the start – slow edit warring about VAN, where the central issue is the promotion of a fringe theory. So in addition to falsely insinuating that I drove off JerryRussell – which, being false, you really should strike-out – now you are dressing up a content/rs/profringe issue, and trying to pass it off as a civility issue.

You say I have "deployed a distract strategy", and accused me of disruptive "manuevering", whereas I say that your repeated replacement of the header here with a non-neutral prejudicial header is disruptive, and your introduction of a spurious accusation disruptive.

You say I have "deployed a distract strategy", and accused me of disruptive "manuevering", whereas I say that your repeated replacement of the header here with a non-neutral prejudicial header is disruptive, and your introduction of a spurious accusation disruptive.

I changed the header to what I hoped might be a reasonable compromise – 'Discussion of ManoHacker's allegations of incivility re "VAN"' – but I see you have already reverted that. Which John from Idegon undid, and you reverted again. So now we have an edit war. I will jump in again, in order to remove your name from the header.

Re "distract strategy": that is what I would call Mark's approach of raising all these other instances, thereby distracting us from a focused consideration of his personal grievances. Also your edit warring re this header.

I hope to have additional replies soon. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not come here to air personal grievances (and I do not have any against you personally). I came here to report your continued uncivil remarks on other contributors despite repeated explicit requests to stop. The report arises from the requests at 1976 Tangshan earthquake but addresses a fundamentally long-term trend. So far, you still have not acknowledged the incivility of any of the reported uncivil comments (e.g. the list from two weeks ago that begins with your weasely bitching). That's the main issue; it is nothing personal. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how you can dispute that you did come here to air grievances – i.e., "a real or imagined wrong or other cause for complaint or protest" – about me. Of the grievances you raised some are from your own personal experience, and the rest not from your experience, but of others. (Is that clear enough? Or do we need to dive into more linguistic analysis?) In particular I was referring to your five complaints, I was not saying anything about them. At this point I could offer a possible explanation of why we seem to have differing concepts of "personal grievance", and that would be fully in accord with the very first suggestion at WP:Civility#Avoiding incivility: "Explain yourself". (Italics in the original.) However, that was exactly what I tried to do where all this started, where I tried to explain why it occurred to me that you might not have read the source. And here we are.

As to whether you have anything against me "personally": you do seem to be on a crusade. And while I have acknowledged that my own conduct isn't without fault, what I don't agree to are various false statements, mis-characterizations, and hyper-sensitivity seen here. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you think I’m on a personal crusade. I asked you to stop making various comments several times, after several others before me. You didn’t stop, hence I created this ANI thread so that you will stop. It was simple, just acknowledge and stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, it was not a "simple" matter, because when I first tried to respond to your initial complaint (on 1 Mar.) you only became more disputatious. But let's continue this discussion elsewhere, as I'd like keep this section focused on the issues ManosHacker has raised. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that keep answering to JJ about the section's title will burn us all out. If an admin cares please find a proper wording for the section's title.   ManosHacker ^talk 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

• 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: [14], [15], [16], [17])

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)

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)

@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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

• 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)

  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[18][19]. 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)

  @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? — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  @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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

  You forget WhatamIdoing.   ManosHacker ^talk 21:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• Support. (uninvolved) This should be closed soon at this point. It's more extreme than I would've liked, but I'll go with it since everyone else seems to agree with it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Grudging Support - JJ does have a point in his above comment, but the civility issues are a problem. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support it is a disruption to the project, to repeatedly diminish others with harsh language and scorn. A break is needed. Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment (uninvolved) - Before handing out sanctions, I recommend J. Johnson take a break from editing, at least in this particular subject matter. Could help clear your head and avoid getting too heated in discussions. Nanophosis (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC); correction on number of hours 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

User's contributions speak for themselves on the case here.   ManosHacker ^talk 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Precisely how is "I could use your help" non-neutral? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

"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)

• 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)

  @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)

• 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.

“

@Horse Eye Jack: I don't see Arunachal Pradesh included under PRC / Tibet AR control on the current version from 06:28 UTC 13 Mar either. You wrote your comment at 16:30 UTC 13 Mar. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 05:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

”

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

• 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)

• @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)

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)

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)

• @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)

• @Swarm: Thank you for replying, in fact the whole "Maps" section is based on what Ythlev added "boldly", and the current version is some comprimise (though he wants to push further) between his changes and editors oppossing the changes. There were extensive discussion on the talk page and edit wars on the page's history. Since both him, myself, and other editors here are involved more or less, and the discussion has already ceased, hopefully you (or any other admins) could review the page & page talk neutrally and holistically and decide what to do. -- Akira😼CA 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Swarm: Thanks for clarifying that Wikipedia does not support the "by default", "stable", "long time" version but only supports a version that is "directly supported by a community consensus". Since the current version has already reflected both the consensus on Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak/Archive 8#RfC on map of infected cases and the consensus on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh), I see no reason to deviate from it. Have a nice day! PE fans (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

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 [20]...At the very end describing other editors as "problem" is really derogatory and uncooperative. -- Akira😼CA 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

User:TTN Again... tireless, longstanding inability to understand why he's a problem

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)

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)

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)

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)

• So ranting longwindedly on the AfD wasn't enough; you've got to come here and rant some more? Reyk _YO! 08:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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 [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Per this discussion, the header was changed to be neutral. The original (and current) one expresses bias. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Suggest close- Since the title of this section is causing arguments but consensus seems to be that the subject of the complaint hasn't done anything wrong, I suggest we close and archive it. Reyk _YO! 09:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support closing - It seems as if this discussion has essentially stalled and is no longer productive. I would encourage an uninvolved party to close this and I would encourage the parties at the discussion to consider WP:Dispute resolution since there is no chance that an admin or ARBCOM will ban either side from using WP:AFD. Michepman (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Diametakomisi and incessant incomprehensibility

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

---

• Diametakomisi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armoracia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - disclosed as their previous account

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.

• At Non-binary gender, here are their talk page comments, and here and here are their article edits (reverted by DMacks and myself).

• At Social gadfly (which they renamed), it originally looked like this, but now they made it into this. (Page history) You can see that Macrakis reverted their OR, but ultimately to no avail. And look at the mess they made on the talk page (from here on down).

• 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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Crossroads, I dead, because it was a mess. Written like a personal essay. Guy (help!) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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))

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)

'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)

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))

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

The shortcut I was looking for was WP:CB. Narky Blert (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I just saw this and it may be moot at this point, but if anyone cares, their odd use of English is very reminiscent of Whalestate (or rather, their most recent sock, 23h112e). I could very well be wrong, but thought it might be worth bringing up. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Also late, but just adding my approval about a CIR block. I commented at Talk:Non-binary gender (diff) before noticing this. Mathglot (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks NinjaRobotPirate, your interventions to resolve pointless problems is very helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks everyone for weighing in, and to NinjaRobotPirate for ending the disruption. Note that the user has an unblock request if any admins wish to handle that. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks all, I endorse this block: when I commented to delete the first of their pages at AFD, I got a long rambling response with an odd personal mention that I chose to ignore since they're clearly not worth engaging with. All these discoveries articles are junk. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

ADOS MMXX

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

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)

@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)

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. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

So, poking around policy pages, it looks to me that if either the article's subject (verifiably) identifies as such...and/or good secondary sources report as such...then it can be used. Otherwise, not. There seems to be no clear guidance on this, as far as article writing is concerned. (Unless someone can direct me otherwise.) Thoughts? Ditch ∝ 22:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking more from the sources side. I am unaware of any independent reliable sources discussing a subject and in passing describing them as an ADOS. Surely we have someone who considers their nationality to be "of the Independent Nation-state of West Florida" or some-such? Do we list them as an "American" or "West Floridian"? {AFAIK, all of the articles edited by ADOS MMXX have reliable sources that describe the subjects as African-American.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the discussion is here. Is this about the block, or the policy regarding categories? Guy's block seems justified to stop rapid-fire changes, and to encourage the blocked user to discuss; advice they will hopefully heed when their block is lifted. We'll see.

But if a larger discussion needs to be had about whether (or when) it's appropriate to categorize black Americans as "African-American" (or something else) then this is probably not the right venue. Ditch ∝ 15:08, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This RFC is relevant. (But it turned into a bit of a mess, FYI). Ditch ∝ 20:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Young user, also has info on their user page that might need revdel. Rgrds. -Bison X (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X: Thanx for pointing this out, I hadn't looked at the user page. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: I'm sorry no one has actioned on this yet. I looked at it but it was too much trouble. Can you provide some good old fashioned diffs? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bison X: Sure, unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced unexplained/ unsourced date change ect...... Just a few I just went through. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have issued CPHL with a final warning about adding unsourced content. Hopefully, that will resolve any outstanding issues, precluding the need for sanctions. El_C 01:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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.[27] (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)

• March 2020 – 109.155.183.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.145.55.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.155.183.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• March 2020 – 109.156.52.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.157.44.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 86.162.213.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.157.44.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 109.145.55.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• February 2020 – 86.142.153.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• December 2019 – 31.52.98.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• November 2019 – 109.145.55.45 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• August 2019 – 86.162.213.223 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• June 2019 – 86.173.226.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)

@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)

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)

That's good info. I didn't know partial IPs could be part of a filter. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines

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

---

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)

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)

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

Google translation - FlightTime (open channel) 20:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Heh, good point. Fair enough. Michepman (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible issues with User:Luigi1090

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

---

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

• [28] - citing an unreliable source
• [29] - use of article talk page for inappropriate discussion, response
• [30] [31] [32] - mislabelling edits as vandalism
• [33] [34] - addition of material not supported by sources, response
• [35] [36] - removal of sources from articles, response 1 response 2
• [37] [38] [39] - poor grammar in edit summaries, such as "for the confirm"

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)

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)

Paranoid much? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 20:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you also starting to insult me? Paranoiac is an insult for me! Luigi1090 (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I brought up legitimate concerns about your behavior, and you're responding in a paranoid manner that will not help your case. Wording like "making a plot against me" implies there is some kind of ulterior motive to my report. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 22:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Paranoic/paranoid is a strong word for me, equivalent to an insult or a personal attack, because I'm a most sensible type that hate read or hear these type of words. The reports that you listed:

• [40] - I had already explained it to you and I repeat it again, one of those two paragraphs ("The list of...") isn't an inappropriate discussion, because I created it for protection of the page against vandals.
• [41] - Just because it comes from a social network (Facebook, Twitter or Instagram), Twitter in this case, doesn't mean it's an unreliable source. The social user that posted there isn't simple but really the creator of this new Cartoon Network pilot, if you looked at his profile, but I bet you didn't.
• [42] [43] [44] - Those mislabelling edits as you call them I really consider vandalism; in the first (Template) most Wikipedia users insert titles that have nothing to do with it, while in the second (Re-Animated) everyone in this world know that CN Studios isn't involved in its production, and finally in the third (CN Studios page) I hate the careless and clumsy users.
• [45] [46] - In my opinion a source it can be anything, even an official website or a social network.
• [47] (the poor grammar has nothing to do with it) - Some public Wikipedia users don't intend to at all of Wikipedia's table episodes formats.
• [48] [49] [50] - Like for the UPCOMING paragraph/subparagraph in "List of programs brodcast on...", when a series or a movie has been already premiered on TV their sources no longer have any value.
• [51] (also there, the poor grammar has nothing to do with it) - Some anonymous Wikipedia users removed those links without motive.

Luigi1090 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you are demonstrating your failure to understand Wikipedia policy.

• [52] - The talk page is for discussion on ways the article can be improved, not for lists of things.
• [53] - The account you cited was not verified. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter: "In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way."
• [54] [55] [56] - You're conflating good-faith editor mistakes with "vandalism".
• [57] [58] - You did not address the problem I have with those edits. The sources you used make zero mention of Lazor Wulf. Per WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
• [59] [60] [61] - There is literally no excuse for you to remove those sources unless you have consensus to do so.

In conclusion, I feel as if you are not capable of contributing to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 02:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I attempted to provide some counseling at the user's talk page after seeing this thread. Their response was here. Whatever else is evident from this exchange, it is clear that ...the ability to read and write English well enough to avoid introducing incomprehensible text into articles and to communicate effectively. is in doubt. There is no shame in being unable to communicate in English effectively (Gaia knows I can communicate in few other languages effectively) but it does make their participation on this project difficult. I hope I've not overstepped my bounds here. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@The Grand Delusion You had to specify WITHOUT just telling a bad word that you used against me, which is paranoid and/or paranoiac. It doesn't matter if you tell me to go look for that word in a classic dictionary or here on Wikipedia, because that word is strong for me, equivalent to an insult or a personal attack: I'm a most sensible type that hate read or hear these type of words.
P.S: Also mess is a strong insult for me. Luigi1090 (talk) 11:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Luigi1090, that post underlines the fact that your English is not really good enough for you to edit an English-language encyclopedia. All the The Grand Delusion did was to say that your edits left a mess, which is a very mild word and said nothing about you personally, so it was not any sort of insult, let alone a strong one. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger No, you're wrong. The Grand Delusion really said another bad thing about me in a personal manner, before "mess". After that I gave my first personal opinion in this thread, he said: "Paranoid much?". Paranoid or paranoiac is also an insult for me. I don't care if you tell me to search for that word on a classic dictionary, because do you have to know I'm a very sensitive guy that who wouldn't insult anyone, both inside and outside Wikipedia, and I also hate ALL type of insults (strong or slight they are). Luigi1090 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not wrong, and by saying so you are demonstrating yet again that your English is not good enough to be editing an English-language encyclopedia. I was responding to your comment "mess is a strong insult for me". It is not a strong insult for anyone who understands English well enough. Whether any other insults were made is irrelevant to that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The last parts of the first phrase of your answer: "...your English is not good enough to be editing an English-language encyclopedia". Both in the virtual and in reality, I can speak, read and understand very well the English language. I can also write it well, not in the most perfect way ever but I can do it normal, because seriously, from my depth, I do my best for my contribution to Wikipedia in 8 years that I'm here. Luigi1090 (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wow. This user has been here 8 years and has a talk page full of competency and sourcing warnings with no sign of understanding. In 8 years they have failed to both comprehend the core policy for verification and they have no sense of their poor English skills. I did not poor thru their contribs to see if they have contributed anything positive, but the inability to properly source plus the poor language skills appear to be 8 years of a net-negative. I don't know if a block is appropriate (they have a clean block log), but I don't see anything changing soon. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  If we never blocked anyone with a clean block log then we would never block anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Simply meant that after 8 years of not getting attention, it might be too quick going straight to indeff. But I have not had to deal with this user, so left it to others. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Now Luigi is edit warring in Magic Jewelry to say Magic Jewelry's mechanical resembles that of Columns against someone who is trying to fix the grammar. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• The latest revert certainly intruduces a grammatical error, although I haven't looked into whether the accompanying removal follows reliable sources. Surely it's time for a block, which, as always, would be for preventative rather than punitive reasons. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I would totally support an indefinite block on WP:CIR grounds. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 21:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate @Phil Bridger Hey, for Magic Jewelry I haven't done any edit warring but only removed a false thing from the article: Dr. Mario doesn't reassemble its gameplay in that game but only the original Columns. Then I created the paragraph with its explanations in the talk page of that article. And finally, for Magic Jewelry's mechanical resembles that of Columns, that citation had been featured on the article for a long time, before I started working on it for the first time. Luigi1090 (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• General comment from uninvolved editor From his responses here alone, it is clear Luigi1090's grasp of English is suboptimal. (It almost reads like a parody of an Italian speaking English.) The number of warning messages Bison X notes are all just under the bar that results with some kind of administrative action, which explains how he's managed to hang around for 8 years. The way he misunderstood Eggishorn's post on his Talk page suggests maybe Luigi1090 is simply trolling here. I think Luigi1090 has occupied enough of our time here; if it weren't for the fact I'm about to go to bed & won't be around to handle the resulting fireworks, I'd block him here & now. -- llywrch (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@llywrch (talk) I don't know you and I've never seen you in my life but, in the summary revision history of the article, and partly also in your opinion, you used to insult me by giving me two very strong words: "troll" and "incompetent". I hate ALL type of insults. That's why, for the second strong word you gave me in your summary ("incompetent"), I quote you a sentence from the paragraph "Responding to suspected lack of competence" on WP:CIR:

• Alleging incompetence: It is generally inadvisable to call a person "incompetent" or their editing "incompetent". While being direct with problems is advisable, it is possible to be direct without being insulting. Telling people their work displays incompetence does nothing to improve their work; it only serves to put them on the defensive, making them less receptive to instruction. Luigi1090 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Luigi1090:, at this point, your extreme hostility has proved to me that you have no ability or intention to be "receptive to instruction". Your use of English is plainly not up to the standard expected here and betrays features that strongly suggest the use of machine translation. Your continued defense of that inability to use English suggests that the Dunning–Kruger effect is in operation here. Simply put: you've amply demonstrated that you don't know English well enough to know you are not competent in its use. You attack anyone pointing this out to you with a fervor that precludes accommodation or compromise. Your statement on your user page: "...based on TRUTH, because of edit a page I inform you about EVERYTHING..." further proves this and shows you are either unaware of or opposed to the site's Core Content Policies. Intransigence and hostility to both editing within policy and editing cooperatively with other editors should be non-negotiable grounds for being removed from editing. I therefore reluctantly support a lengthy block. I'm sorry it came to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I understood their message about using English langauge only that they'd to clarifying me WITHOUT using words equivalent to real insults for me, because I hate ALL type of insults: first The Grand Delusion called me "paranoid" and "mess" on his answers, then Llywrch called me "troll" and "incompetent" on his summary description. In fact, if you look at all my answers in this discussion, I'm replying exclusively for these their words, NOT for the message.
And then, the statement that you found on my user page: "...based on TRUTH, because of edit a page I inform you about EVERYTHING...", it's a type of statement to which I'm not tied and associated for a long time, because I wrote it as a novice the first day I registered here on Wikipedia 8 years ago. Therefore, you must not relate it to my alleged opposion to the site's Core Content Policies because it's not true. Luigi1090 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Luigi1090, when someone who doesn't know you & has no interest in the area you edit, who happens to have edited Wikipedia much longer than you, & who happens to be an Admin, when that person makes the observations I had above, do think that it might -- just might -- be that he is right? And there might be a better way to respond than to argue over his choice of words both here and on his Talk page? (And I hope you do not find it insulting that I suggest you take some time to think before you answer.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can the users whose edits overlap with Luigi1090's confirm if any of their edits are beneficial? If blocked, I would support an unblock if they can comprehensively explain their understanding of WP:Verifiability & WP:Reliable sources; AND if they can find someone to mentor them with their writing skills (i.e., a proofreader). This is a lot to ask, so it all hinges on my question, Are their edits worth it? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Bison X: I think they're a hopeless cause. Regardless of whether their edits are beneficial, they have demonstrated poor reading comprehension in regards to other editors' replies here, a loose understanding of Wikipedia policy, a poor grasp on English grammar, and an apparent unwillingness to learn from all this. So no, his edits are not worth it, and I'd support a WP:CIR block. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Based on a random picked one such as here. No. That one is a pure case of WP:OVERLINK of previous links. Canterbury Tail talk 19:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking further into their history, I've come across a huge number of moves "Real original title of the game" that moved video game articles to other names with zero of the references in the articles supporting those names. For instance this diff. Amazingly they are for obscure games and therefore not spotted, but check the logs they're full of these moves with no evidence to back up their assertion of correctness. I think we should just end this. Canterbury Tail talk 19:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

RMCD bot

Moved to User talk:RMCD bot § Pandemic

 – wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Sorry, it looks like my bot has got the virus LOL... looking into it now. wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Hmm, single-edit drive-by IP editor 71.29.115.248 edit-warred with the RM process: diff. wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

And later another single-edit drive-by IP editor 67.68.160.84 further usurped process: diff. wbm1058 (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TBJApple

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

---

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)

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)

Cheers, although I don't see it being much help. Govvy (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

Again personal insult

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".[62] 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.[63] I ask that this man is finally punished. Mikola22 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• I left an ANI notice at Sadko's talk page. Jerm (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Please provide diffs of where Sadko has used hate speech. If you want others to look into edits then you need to be explicit about which edits they are, rather than make people do the work of finding them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• I read the talk page and saw no personal attacks. You used scare quotes around "Serb" and he called you out on it. I did see others disputing your sources. If you believe your sources are reliable sources, then take it to WP:RSN and prove it. Otherwise, this looks like a content dispute that needs to stay on the article talk page. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

---

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)

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)

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)

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

Post-close comment. Tee wew28 discloses their DoB on their User Page - is that TMI which needs revdeling? Narky Blert (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• If they are under 18, then yes. Over 18, more power to 'em. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Over 18. Narky Blert (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

JanaMelitzana reported by IceWelder

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

JanaMelitzana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Clearly WP:NOTHERE, adding xenophobic content[64][65][66] and unexplainedly removing content,[67] 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.[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] Editor refuses to communicate. IceWelder [✉] 18:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: The "too gay" wording appears to come from secondary sources, not JanaMelitzana. [78] [79] [80] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree, Hungary, which allegedly pulled out in 2020 due to these reasons, is not related to "Skopje" or the 2021 contest. The user tried to degrade North Macedonia with unverified (and obviously made-up) statements, and replacing "North Macedonia" and "Macedonian" with "Skopje" and "Skopjan", respectively. They also replaced "North Macedonia" with "Skopje" in the third linked revision. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I am not seeing vandalism in the diffs. I see content disputes more than I see disruptive editing. The inability or unwillingness to discuss is problematic when there is a content dispute and likely necessitates harsh action. I hesitate because this is a new editor, 285 edits, and 7 months on WP. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Unsourced contributions by 93.87.163.221

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

---

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

I noticed this user making un-cited changes to Mary of Guise (changing her title from "noblewoman" to "princess"). I looked into it, and found no evidence that she was a princess, so I reverted the users edits and posted to their talk page. However, the used has (so far) ignored my posts on their talk page, and continued making un-cited changes. I'm not an expert, and have not reviewed all of their changes (there have been many), but the one I did look into makes me question the accuracy of the others. -drt1245 (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drt1245: If you give them enough (4 or more) warnings and they continue their behaviour, you can report them to AIV. Happy editing! Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Continuous unsourced edits despite repeated warnings

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

---

Heepman1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Heepman1997 has been adding unsourced information to articles for years and a quick glance at their talk page will give an admin some idea of the amount of warnings this person has been given. It should be noted that I have only looked at the music article edits but they have been at it on more than just music related articles. Between the good edits there are a large amount of unsourced edits and despite the plethora of warnings and a previous block (Swarm's words then:"Persistent addition of unsourced content: chronic offender, if issues persist please indef") for this very reason they continue unabated.

Here are some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (I could go on but I think one gets the picture).

When I recently reverted several of their unsourced and questionable edits, I was accused of hounding and of being a crazed wikistalker. This editor also has yet to communicate on their talk page regarding any of these issues/warnings as well as my personal plea for them to source their edits. The names really do not bother me but the unsourced additions do and I'd be grateful if an admin would remind the editor of the importance of the verifiabilty policy. Robvanvee 06:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeffed per the above. El_C 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Robvanvee 08:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Paulsmithwikia14

User in question has been creating many hoax/fake drafts that should be deleted. I'm not 100% sure on the procedure, but all the drafts can be deleted as they are completely false information, and the user should probably get blocked from editing or creating anymore drafts, as these hoaxes constitute as vandalism.

The drafts in question are:

• Draft:Blue's Clues: The End of Joe
• Draft:The Big Bang Plotagon: The Movie
• Draft:The Adventures of Blue and MJ
• Draft:Liam Atkinson
• Draft:Liam Atkinson: The Series
• Draft:Presidential War

Only one I'm not positive on is Draft:Template:Ilderton Blue Jays roster, but seeing as their current drafts are all completely false information and they've already had plenty of speedy deletions of their drafts, I would tend to think this one is the same. They've even been warned on this, but they definitely seem to be WP:NOTHERE. Magitroopa (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Confirmed to Liamatk2020 (talk · contribs), both of whom are evading a lengthy block for hoaxes. I'll do what I can to clean this stuff up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Compulsory purchase

I would like to apologize for the extreme lameness of this matter, but I'm in another edit war with WilliamJE at Template:Clist compulsory purchase. This is not the first time, or the second, that I've clashed with this editor. On this occasion I have, clearly, breached WP:CIVIL and I'm still bloody furious with him. Would some uninvolved sysop please hand down an appropriate remedy such as a two-way iban?—S Marshall T/C 01:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I've protected the template due to the edit warring. If it continues then blocks are next. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

How typical that WilliamJE got another revert in before you did. My eyes literally rolled. (Please could nobody bluelink that stupid page on the wrong version, or indeed type out a burma shave haiku.) Protecting the template is not a sufficient response, because this is repeated behaviour on both sides. I repeat my request for a two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 02:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, actually, we've had haikus, and we've had Burma-Shaves, but so far no Burma-Shave haikus. That's a great idea – thanks for suggesting it! Levivich? Creffett? EEng 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Difficult, the hardest part will be that Burma-Shave usually uses the two-syllable iamb as its basis (and are an even number of lines) but haiku have odd-length phrases and are three lines. You'd need to have it split cleanly on the second phrase somehow. creffett (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you've each reverted 5-6 times in less than a day. Maybe dual editwarring block would be more appropriate than an i-ban. Natureium (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's go with both. I'm very happy to be blocked over this matter if it means I never have to interact with WilliamJE again.—S Marshall T/C 02:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, is there something more recent than this 2016 ANI thread detailing the conflict between the two of you? Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Nothing more recent. It's been four years since we intersected, so an iban isn't exactly a hardship for either of us. Now that WilliamJE has learned not to revert my discussion closes, the locus of the dispute is confined to the placement of external links in articles I started.—S Marshall T/C 03:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Not true. There is these edits, here[81] and here[82], where you tried to rewrite MOS to suit yourself. Those edits were reverted by another editor here[83] and here[84] the second of which with the edit summary- 'you need to get consensus at MOS's talk page before changing it and using your change to justify changing articles'. All because I removed See also redlinks from an article he created. He then unsuccessfully tried to change MOS at this talk page discussion[85] but I didn't participate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it's true that I think the MOS is poorly thought out in this respect and I've tried to change it. I've made lots of policy-and-guideline edits in my time, not all of which have stuck.—S Marshall T/C 14:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

NPC 00120009

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

---

switched from using a disgusting pipe

-EEng

Could an admin revdel the "welcome" notices posted by NPC 00120009 between 20 March 2020 and 23 March 2020? See contribs log. NPC included graphic and obscene content in the welcome notices, which is hardly the first impression of Wikipedia that we should wish to present to new users. Somebody may wish to investigate whether this was deliberate vandalism as I suspect, or if it was some bizarre technical malfunction with Twinkle. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Already requested a NOTHERE block at AIV.. User switched from using a disgusting pipe to inserting an obscene image in sig so obviously intentional. Meters (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the two sample diffs I listed at AIV [86] and [87] in case someone wants to take action here/. Meters (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's hope the user is indeffed as soon as possible, then. Altamel (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Moving of Abdur-Rahman As-Sudais

Hi.

The above page was originally at Abdul-Rahman As-Sudais, was moved to using "r", and after reviewing what is available in English, it seems clear to me that the "l" should be the proper name per Talk:Abdur-Rahman As-Sudais#Correct Name. It was moved back again. I neither want to get into an edit war nor want to mess up the redirects, so may an uninvolved admin review the issue, and either restore the page to "l", leave it at "r" and explain why, and in either event move-lock the page, please? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues again with continued lead edits without explanation or engagement and likely sock-puppetry at "Ross Butler (actor)" and "Frank Oz"

There again seems to be a user using multiple IP addresses continuing to edit the leads of the pages of "Ross Butler (actor)" and "Frank Oz" without explanations. They do not engage via explanations for their edits or on the talk pages of either individual, and because they use different IP addresses each time, I am unable to communicate with them through their Talk page although I tried posting on one of their Talk pages previously. For the past week or so the page was protected after my previous posting regarding this on this noticeboard. Now that the page is not protected anymore, the user has returned and continues to engage in this fashion. Please advise me on what to do next. Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• It isn't just those articles. The IP (it's an Italian mobile phone range) is changing the nationalities of many many articles. The range is 37.160.0.0/14, and since this is too big a CIDR to list contributions, you can search for the contributions of 37.160.0.0/16, 37.161.0.0/16, 37.162.0.0/16 and 37.163.0.0/16. I'm going to say that even though this is a wide range, the vast majority of recent edits have been to change nationalities (usually from Italian to Italian-American, but there are many others). I am considering a rangeblock, even though there would be a small amount of collateral damage. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wow, okay. I had no idea that the scope of this was that large. Thank you so much for giving the issue your attention. Are the number of pages that this user is changing too numerous to protect? Apoorva Iyer (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, because I suspect the IP would merely turn its attention to others. I'm putting a rangeblock in place now with account creation enabled, with a note for anyone blocked that they can register an account. Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Viraltux at Spanish flu

Resolved

 – Handled at WP:ANEW, where I did a 24-hour partial block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Viraltux (talk · contribs)

Please could someone block here? Viraltux is well over 3RR and is not listening to any other users' comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Magna19

We have a majority who support specific wording here.

Magna19 is aware of the majority who supported that wording as they are actively involved in the discussion.

They continue to change the wording despite the above consensus.[88]

In my opinion a restriction against them editing this topic area for a few days would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing once during the initial dispute and once after achieving compromise consensus does not constitute 'continual'. Once a consensus on a sensible compromise was starting to be reached here, unfortunately Doc James (talk · contribs) effectively shut down the RfC by starting a summary, going against compromise policies. I would advise for admins to act as they see fit but it appears to me and a few other editors that this user is being quite disruptive. Magna19 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Uninvolved Comment: the whole handling of that first sentence has been a mess. I've been trying to figure out how to vote on this unsuccessfully as there seems to be a mess of RFCs on the talk page without any clear indication of where one needs to vote. I believe the current sentence on the article lead is at best misleading and at worst criminally negligentdangerous. We should act to fix it with extreme urgency given the topic so I can understand User:Magna19 and think some slack should be allowed. However I would invite him to help maintain order on the page and to stay calm. Voting on this topic should be reset: discussions clearly labeled as closed and a new vote restarted. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)r

• @Gtoffoletto: You're absolutely right that the discussion needs order maintained and that its participants need to remain calm. How that squares with your use of obnoxious bolding (which is basically yelling) plus the extremely inflammatory, extremely dubious claim that "the current sentence on the article lead is...at worst criminally negligent", I don't know. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But I'm from Milan. People are dying here and worldwide. This isn't any other article. This issue needs urgent resolution. Every second that lead is up people are leaving with a dangerously misleading piece of information in their head and will cause great damage and suffering. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gtoffoletto: I can't imagine what it's like. The fact is, you cannot get this emotional when editing here. It's specifically lowering your chances of accomplishing what you want here. (The strategically bland tone User:Doc James is deploying when dealing with two editors who, despite it all, are clearly acting in good-faith is similarly problematic. But he's an administrator who has edited Wikipedia for 13 years so nobody who can do anything about it actually will.) I know it's not a nice thing to say but you have to focus on the content issues while not getting overly emotional. It's the only way you have a chance at making the changes you want. 2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:724 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I would support this course of urgent action given the significance of the article and misleading nature of current edit. Magna19 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the article content. We are hear to discuss someone editing against consensus despite that consensus currently being clear.

That User:Gtoffoletto is beginning to make legal threats may need action aswell. Stating that us closely reflecting the CDC is "criminally negligent" should receive a warning +/- topic area block until we have reassurances that you will take a step back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not my intention to make a "legal threat" Doc. Only wanted to emphasise the urgency I see in that edit. Also: I was obviously not referring to you specifically in any way but on the sentence. I apologise and retract that part of my statement if it is unintentionally misleading. Sincere apologies for the misunderstanding if you felt directly attacked. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Gtoffoletto making legal threats against the Wikipedia community generally is simple not appropriate. Thank you for crossing it out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I regret the misunderstanding User:Doc James. My response was too emotional (ironic as another user has pointed out). I want to absolutely make it clear that no threat of any kind was intended towards you or anyone else. Sorry for the confusion I caused in good faith. --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Gtoffoletto appreciate the withdrawing of this and look forwards to working together productively going forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• User:Magna19 should be blocked as an any-old-admin action for tendentious editing that has ultimately become disruptive. A partial block is probably insufficient as there is a myriad of similar pages they could move on to and repeat the same. They've also now been alerted to the general sanctions in place on the COVID-19 topic are...for next time. ——SN54129 18:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

After talk page discussion, I edited the discussed sentence once based on good faith on the available information as I assumed compromise consensus. I am no longer editing the discussed sentence nor do I intend to until a resolution can be found. @Serial Number 54129: , am I now blocked from the entire article? I had planned on contributing to other non-related and non-controversial areas voted on in the talk page. Magna19 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Why are you willfully ignoring what the WHO and ECDC statements? Wikipedia may operate on consensus, but a consensus of editors should not be able to ignore something this important and well sourced. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

no one is 'willfully' ignoring anything--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: So he's being forced to ignore it? —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith(your actions should be in best interest of the article Locke Cole}--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Good faith only gets you so far when someone repeatedly ignores one part of a source for an entirely different part of the same source (that was not answering the question of "how is it spread") and then posts comments like this in their defense. At this point he has a borderline conflict of interest on this subject and should honestly withdraw from debates and discussion on something that he appears to be passionately opposed to not because of the sourcing, but because of its impact on his line of work. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it that way, Doc James above every editor I can think of has real clinical experience which is essential to this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole

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

---

User in question has a history of edit warring.[89]

They are aware of the consensus and despite this have changed the text in question.[90]

I would propose a topic ban on the user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see. So I vote against you on the talk page at 2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), make one edit which I explained on the talk page, and you propose a topic ban? Is this how you silence dissent or those who don't agree with you? I urge anyone reading this to read the section directly above, and the talk page discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as the admin who invoked IAR to unilaterally protect Coronavirus disease 2019 in the first place—so hardly someone welcoming disruption with open arms—this request looks like a massive overreaction. Unless there's been something oversighted, Locke Cole has only edited that page once in his entire history, and by definition it can't be considered edit-warring. If this were someone inserting an obvious fringe view I'd maybe have less sympathy, but "viruses can be spread by sneezing" isn't exactly up there with "viruses can be cured by drinking cow urine". ‑ Iridescent 18:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• • User:Iridescent The issue is that their is consensus on the talk page and User:Locke Cole was aware of that consensus and still made the edit anyway. Sure we can also give them another chance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • That's still not edit-warring. Neither me nor any other admin is going to sanction a 15-year editor for a single, non-disruptive good-faith edit. It's not in dispute (I trust) that viruses can be spread through sneezing, so all we have here is someone who tried to make what they saw as a correct edit, was reverted, and is now discussing it. This is how Wikipedia is meant to work. ‑ Iridescent 18:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: WP:CCC. Also, I was not aware of the "consensus" on the talk page (I'm assuming that list at the top of the page). It's really disappointing to see something that well sourced and important to people who are looking for information during this time would be getting incorrect information because of an older "consensus". —Locke Cole • t • c 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:St Judas the Lazarene: slavery / Nazi Germany / far-right topics

St Judas the Lazarene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I first encountered User:St Judas the Lazarene (SJL for short) at Latvian Legion, a WWII formation under Nazy Germany's command. My edits were reverted by SJL on the grounds of them being  "sheer vandalism" (via e/s): [91].

I then looked at their contribution and discovered a recent pattern of problematic edits that span far-right topics, Nazi Germany, and slavery:

• 9 February: In Slave breeding in the United States, modified the article to add that it was an "alleged" practice, which "allegedly" included coercive sexual practices: [92]. Also on: 
  • 23 February: [93]; 
  • 22 March: [94]

• 10 March: SJL removed Proud Boys & Patriot Front from Template:Neo-fascism: [95]. The first sentense of Proud Boys contains: ...a far-right neo-fascist organization...; same for Patriot Front.

• 12 March: At English people, removed "Islam (see Islam in England); Judaism and other faiths (see Religion in England)" referencing "Islamic apologists" in e/s: [96].

• 17 March: At Wage slavery, modified the lead to present it as an "alleged" situation: [97]. Also on: 
  • 20 March: [98], where they described it as an "ideological and subjective concept" via edit summary
  • 22 March: "alleged" again: [99].

• 17 March: At Share cropping, replaced wage slavery with wage labour: [100].

• 20 March: Edited Irish slaves myth: [101], removing The myth is especially popular with apologists for the Confederate States of America ... during the American Civil War,

• 21 March: In this edit, SJL removed Category:Nazi parties from the WWII-era National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands: [102]. The lead of the article says: ...was a Dutch fascist and later Nazi political party.

Given this pattern, I would like to propose that SJL be topic banned from far-right topics, Nazi Germany, and slavery, all broadly construed, -- or another appropriate sanction be applied. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Support a topic ban. I note that he also seems to have followed Bastun to the Irish Slave myths article after Bastun reverted an edit of his at Oscar Wilde. At Talk:Irish slaves myth he wrote "the idea that the SPLC, a far-left partisan organisation that in addition to spreading deliberate falsehoods and race hate propaganda openly employs violent extremists, is reliable, is ludicrous, but I suppose only to be expected from the administrators--or should I say Commissars?-- of this site". At  Talk:Communism: "I agree completely. Like all the articles on far-left politics on Wikipedia, this article was clearly written by extreme leftists themselves, which is obviously far from ideal to say the very least." Doug Weller talk 19:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Tban per OP and Doug. This is a worrying pattern of editing. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. And my compliments to K.e.coffman for the very readable manner his evidence has been presented. -- llywrch (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

• A topic ban for redirects may be in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a block before a ban. There are two problems here: the unacceptable behavior surrounding redirects, and the lack of engagement on their Talk page. A topic ban may indeed be needed eventually, but first they need a wake-up call. Mathglot (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with a block, so long as the topic ban is in place once the block expires. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I endorse a topic ban. The user is still creating useless or near-useless redirects (such as How to survive COVID-19, Korona epidemic (a K? Really?), and Preservance (rover)), and has thus made it clear that they do not intend to change this behavior. The unanswered talk page discussions have been enough to constitute a "wake-up call". Glades12 (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

• I would also endorse some restriction. I'm not an admin, and have no input on what the right form of it would be, provided it can rein the editor in. Independent of this discussion, I just nommed two redirects (Preservance (rover), referred to by Glades12, above, as well as Preseverance (rover)) and when notifying the editor via user talk, saw the link to this discussion. TJRC (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment. I see consensus for action, but this had been archived without action so I am unarchiving and reposting here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A876

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

A few days ago, A876 made this change to the main MOS page. Afterwards, three separate editors (not even myself, despite being the one who reverted the initial edit) brought this up on his talk page at User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes (again). The edit in question introduced a ton of changes, almost all of which were cosmetic, making it difficult to find what the substantive changes were (if there were any). And this has been an ongoing problem for years and years. And since those 3 editors all echoing the same concern, A876 made 3 more changes over the past couple days (diffs: again to the main MOS page, [103], and [104]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 for the Black Death article

Black Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Like the Spanish flu article, this article has also experienced increased editing -- some of it problematic -- due to the pandemic. It could use more eyes. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)