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)

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

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

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

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.

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)

What I asked regarding your changing of the section title is whether it needed to be clearer to convey why your change was preposterous. What is more likely to burn us out is your failure to put your comments in the place you intended, and your edit warring over the section title. And also your false statements that you have not yet stricken. Perhaps you should answer to an admin about those items. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Detailed reply

ManosHacker says I said "bullshit" (true), but without specifying the exact offense, and ignoring the context. (For sure, some find the word crude, but modern usage is more tolerant, and it does have a particular meaning albeit perhaps not universal understanding. But that is a different discussion.) And he alleges "distortion" of the article VAN method.

Unlike MarkH21's complaints, that I was making comments and speculations pertaining to him personally, my comment (at Talk:VAN method#Current work (2020), with accompanying explanation) was explicitly directed to an SPA editor's comment that he had "just updated the literature" with "just recent publications in well known international scientific journals, which cannot be of course characterized as doubtful claims." That was in reference to this edit, which is a continuation of a long running edit war by various SPAs to promote the "VAN" theory, and to reduce or remove criticism of it.

That claim of "just updated the literature" is breathtakingly inane. First, it removed the information that after 1996 VAN's Alexopoulos and Nomicos were replaced by Sarlis and Skordas, who developed this "natural time" method. It also removed text such as "Mainstream seismologists remain unconvinced by any of VAN's rebuttals", and added langauge that the VAN results are "far beyond chance", are "statistically significant earthquake precursors", with "proved high rates of success prediction" (all strongly rejected in the mainstream literature), etc. These statements are based primarily on publications by (surprise!) Sarlis and Skordis.

The particular bit of "recent literature" is Sarlis 2018, from a publisher (MDPI) whose peer-review process has been questioned, and a supposed journal not at all well known in seismology. Also cited were sources from 2016 and 2006 that do not support the text. (There was another reference to Christopoulos, Skordas & Sarlis 2020, but no full citation provided.)

That edit was major distortion in the promotion of a fringe theory, and characterizing it as a mere literature update is deceptive. For the sake the integrity of the encyclopedia it ought to be called out, and if anyone can suggest a more apt, more succinct term than the one I used I will welcome the instruction. Pertinent to the current discussion is that all of that is a content issue, and even an issue of WP:NOTHERE; it is not a civility issue. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ's campaign against presumably opponent scientists is an expression of incivility still going on. The commenting on editors in order to justify JJ's wording choices in the examples, is being continued. I see no apology or other act of regret for the incivil language / manners JJ has used. I also see JJ's desire for continue of this behavior.   ManosHacker ^talk 09:07, 24 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? shorter block (up to 1 month) (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)

J. Johnson has now indicated he does see his comments were a breach of WP:CIVIL. I would like to see some strategy on his side of how to deal with passionate debates in the future, preventing the stage where steam has to be let out. JJ, you haven't replied to my previous suggestion. Alternative/in addition to that, would you be open to initiating third opinions and/or RfC in the future when dealing with editors you have difficulty communicating with/they have difficulty communicating with you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ has changed Incivility (continued) to Discussion of allegations of incivility stemming from "VAN", a title that also implies that incivility comes from VAN, and does not acknowledge I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature." as uncivil, yet. I will be happy to see JJ acknowledge this and present a view or strategy on how to better collaborate in the future, especially regarding comments on other editors, i.e. introductions of new editors in a talk like this one.   ManosHacker ^talk 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment that my revised title "implies that incivility comes from VAN" – which, by the way, was not the case with my original title, that you deleted – shows precisely the kind of mis-understanding that is rampant here. In this case there are two ways (at least) of parsing this:

1. Discussion of allegations of [incivility stemming from "VAN"].

2. Discussion [of allegations of incivility] stemming from "VAN".

Your interpretation, of an assertion that incivility stemmed from "VAN", depends on how the elements of that phrase are grouped. My intended meaning, using a different grouping, is that the discussion stemmed from "VAN", and which should have been clear from the original title: 'Discussion re "VAN"'. Your assumption of an incorrect interpretation, without inquiry, coupled with your refusal to strike your incorrect statements (above), I take as a violation of WP:AGF. Are you going to acknowledge that? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

• 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)

I agree that there are issues re civility. And I accept that I am not entirely without fault. But I will argue (hopefully soon) that the principal reason we are here is Mark's WP:BATTLEGROUND manner of disputing trivial matters, and to assume the worse possible interpretations of my supposed intents. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk)

I'd say you were both in the wrong. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:56, 24 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)

Which I am not opposed to. And I am open to mediation. But that is not what MarkH21 is requesting. And faced with the prospect of a three month block (and the corruption that has already started regarding VAN) I am likely to just leave project. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits on VAN should be talked one by one and move to the article only after reaching consensus, due to controversity. The community should be able to handle this. If it is up to one editor to keep an article in good standing, then there is a fundamental problem in the wiki process applied here.   ManosHacker ^talk 12:49, 24 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)

Close or just archive?

This thread takes up nearly half of this page and it has been dominated by three editors who, between them, have made over 90 comments. Could and admin either assess or just archive this obscenely long and two week old thread? Mr rnddude (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That’s what most of us have been waiting for. Iridescent asked for more uninvolved editor input a week ago; more uninvolved editors have commented and a clear consensus has emerged since then. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been drawn out because Mark (and now ManosHacker) raised a whole barrage of issues, and I haven't been able to address all of them (not even his specific complaints). And I can't go much faster, as due to certain circumstances I currently have only about an hour of Internet access a day. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

JJ do you have an eta on when you get your full internet access back ? that might help an admin decide how to proceed EdwardLane (talk) 15:33, 25 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 [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], 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)

• Yes, close. This is obviously going nowhere. Herostratus (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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)

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)

If you can do all that, and make it a palindrome at the same time, then great, knock yourselves out, and add one of your hilarious images as well. Otherwise, could you maybe not? Thanks very much.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 24 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[26] and here[27], where you tried to rewrite MOS to suit yourself. Those edits were reverted by another editor here[28] and here[29] 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[30] 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)

  S Marshall, so the problem here is that a sysop can't just impose an iban. Only the community can do that. And there isn't a lot in this tread to go on. If you want more help and less palindromic burma shave haikuing perhaps present some diffs of the relationship between you two which could justify supporting a 2 way iBan. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

  Or, if you want less help and more palindromic burma shave haikuing, ping me. Standing offer. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll drag some up. A sysop should be able to impose an iban. It's a quick, simple, low-cost way to manage drama.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Working—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what needs to be done here. (Except that I have witnessed the creation of a new genre of poetry.) In this corner, we have S Marshall who thinks this template needs to be re-written, & changed it one way. In this corner, we have WilliamJE who also thinks the template needs to be re-written, but wants it changed another way. (Or is this disagreement over a portion of the MoS? As I said above, I'm having trouble figuring this out.) Neither really seems eager to fight. How about both promise to stay away from that template, & each other, & do their own things, meanwhile we start a discussion about rewriting said text on the relevant Talk page? That way neither is tempted to return & start this conflict over again. -- llywrch (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Great idea! And let's ask the community to enforce this mutual staying-away by way of a two-way iban, for all the reasons I'm currently typing out.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• In order to avoid putting a disruptively large chunk of text on AN/I, I've placed a statement in my sandbox.—S Marshall T/C 20:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• S Marshall, after reading this thread and your statement, I don't understand why you're asking for a two-way IBAN. If such an IBAN had already been in place, then when WilliamJE made this edit on March 12, 2020, you would not have been able to make this revert on March 13 (which then led to two rounds of edit warring, on March 13 and March 22–23). Even going back to 2016, at that particular template, it was you who originally reverted William's edit and not the other way around. So how would a two-way IBAN have helped that situation? If, in four years, you're the one reverting him, why would we need a two-way IBAN? Why not just... avoid reverting him, if you want to stay away? (Please clue me in if I'm misreading the situation.) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• If I wanted a tactical advantage in an editing dispute, I would be seeking a tban. I'm not looking for a tactical advantage. I'm looking for a clean way to end the conflict. WilliamJE and I are never going to be able to interact without tension so the interactions need to stop.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this? Block them both from editing this particular template for six months, and if it starts again, make it indef or consider focused sanctions. We have the means. IBANS can be very labor intensive. John from Idegon (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• The conflict isn't confined to this template and WilliamJE has a history of following people he argues with to other venues (as demonstrated in the statement I linked), so I would see that as insufficient.—S Marshall T/C 10:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

If no one will address this, then I will do my best to restore the appropriate English-language name, fix the redirects, and move-lock the page myself. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Avraham: Most English sources do seem to use "Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais", with both "l"s. The last move was three months ago though, so it’s not clear to me that move protection is needed on top of a move revert. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: This is the second time it has been moved to "r" unilaterally. We can leave off protection this time, I reckon, but if it happens shortly afterwards again, I'd think locking it would be warranted. Would you be willing to move the associated pages back to "l", or should I? -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 25 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)

Oh the irony of puppetry happening at Frank OzRavensfire (talk) 20:49, 24 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.[31]

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)

@Ozzie10aaaa: No, what is needed at this article is someone who is neutral and able to follow the VERY reliable sources we have available to us, and not try and spin it a specific way out of fear. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:44, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Locke Cole, I would consider that a personal attack and casting aspersions. You are free to disagree with other editors but do not malign them. Consider this a warning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: Except it's not, it's pointing out his own words (linked above, I'm assuming you didn't follow the link): [...] and incorrectly present COVID19 as an airborne disease. This will trigger the general public to use all the N95 masks (when non or a simple surgical mask is enough). Which will mean that health care providers will not have N95s for situations that need them (ie intubation).. That's not a decision based on the sources, that's a decision influenced by fear. It's also a conflict of interest. We don't make editorial decisions based on how the public will react, we never have. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:28, 24 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, [32], and [33]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "mostly inappropriate changes" (edit comment). None could be called "inappropriate". None broke anything. Many were unambiguous improvements. Many were explained in edit comments (q.v.).
• "... introduced a ton of changes ..." Some editors do a hundred edits on the same article, saving every word or sentence or 5 minutes. (Talk about wasting resources.) I prefer to do one big edit. Sometimes a touch-up. Sometimes a catch-up after editing a related page. Reviewing 50 same-day near-edits by the same editor surely is more tedious and more error-prone than one big edit.
• "almost all of which were cosmetic, ..." (Well, over half were "cosmetic".) I made "real" changes. "Cosmetic" edits do not disqualify an edit and do not justify compound-reverting reasonable work, unless the edit actually "hurts" the page by bloating it with irrational markup.
• "... making it difficult to find ..." It's not that hard. Once and it's over. No one will "fix" those things again.
• "... what the substantive changes were (if there were any)" That is devastatingly insincere. The "substantive changes" were described and obvious.
• "Some of the changes made are okay," Okay. "but they are filled with pointless ones" Each one had a point. Some are substantial, some are cosmetic. Some are subtle. I expect clear markup, so I put clear markup. Moving the anchors up to where they are recommended to be helps people arriving from shortcuts. It is small but not trivial.
• Cosmetic-only edits are discouraged, but there is no mandate to revert even one of those (unless it does real damage). I've warned other editors who did a lot of these, but I have never reverted one, even when I didn't like what they did.
• "there were a couple [of] changes within that great clump that I did think were necessary" (Geekdiva) Correct! But some would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
• "Not broke", but "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." (essay) It helped a little.
• I expect legible and consistent markup when I do any editing. When markup is inconsistent, I change it. The important result of editing is good markup (secondary to good content). Diffs? Someone doesn't like my diffs? Diffs are tertiary. Still, I pay some attention to what the "diffs" look like. They are legible and comprehensible.
• The main MOS page recommends 1RR if not 0RR. You reverted two harmless beneficial edits.

- A876 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Truth Alone

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

---

• Truth Alone (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

Many of their contributions seem to be removing sourced information from articles dealing with antisemitism, for example [34] (on Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee—edit summary "There is no consensus that any Jews were persecuted merely for being Jewish, rather than alleged counter-revolutionary activity"); [35] (on Erich Mielke—"A Nazi survivor's opinion about this organization is irrelevant"); [36] changing "antisemitic purges" [in the Soviet Union] to "allegedly antisemitic purges" (on Jewish left); [37] change "Instances of anti-Semitism on Stalin's part" to "Alleged anti-Semitism on Stalin's part" in Stalin and antisemitism; [38] Rootless cosmopolitan, removing sourced info that this epithet was applied "mostly to Jewish intellectuals".

They also make questionable edits to various Iran-related articles, for example Iran says US military is a terrorist organization in United States Armed Forces; [39] remove mention of anti-Khameini protests in 2019–20 Iranian protests; [40] United States Central Command, added "The Iranian government has designated the United States Central Command a terrorist organization". Most of their edits were quickly reverted, so it seems to me that they're not here to build an encyclopedia, although perhaps a topic ban from antisemitism-related topics would do the trick. buidhe 14:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Purely as a matter of interest, only tangentially related to the above user, is there any evidence that a user with a username containing the letters "truth" has ever offered anything useful to the encylopædia? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 17:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope, never. Always rights great wrongs accounts. Canterbury Tail talk 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I've yet to see an account created along the lines of Verifiability Alone... GirthSummit _(blether) 17:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm thinking about changing my username to User:Lies Alone. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just came across this edit of theirs. "Unrelated and unsourced." Despite it literally being the title of the source. Who wants to do the blocking honours here? Canterbury Tail talk 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::I've been reviewing their edits. It's obvious that the username alone suggests some sort of agenda, but coupled with what I agree is a clearly anti-semitic edit pattern (I've been checking sources) and a number of their other edits on a variety of subjects, I think I shall block them indefinitely as NOTHERE unless someone has a better suggestion. Except that I've had an edit conflict with Canterbury Tail, so I'm doing it now. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Jingiby

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

---

I am deleting this file sharing-piracy website from articles so why is this person adding them in???he is only reverting all my edits. [41][42] THIS IS ILLEGAL! PROMACEDONIA / KRORAINA ILLEGALLY HOSTS AND SHARES COPYRIGHTED WORKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelTopalov (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AngelTopalov - when you start a thread here concerning another editor, you must notify them on their talk page - there's a big yellow banner telling you that when you edit this page. I've notified them on your behalf.

Jingiby - are you familiar with the website in these diffs? From a cursory inspection it does look like there might be copyvio issues, in which case we shouldn't link to it - can you explain further? Best GirthSummit _(blether) 17:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

That newly like editor is in fact WP:SPA, obviously WP:NOTHERE and most probably WP:SOCK. In the haste of removing its one-sided edits, I made two mistakes that I eliminated. Greetings! Jingiby (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

he knows the website well and he is accusing me of vandalism for removing it and removing all my edits but he is editing against wikipedia:ethnicity in all articles and his sources are disinformation and do not back the claims. he is a gatekeeper maybe paid disinfo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelTopalov (talk • contribs) 17:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC) why did you add the illegal sources a few days ago? you did not fix this "mistakes" befor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelTopalov (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ohnoitsjamie blocked AngelTopalov as WP:NOTHERE. I've reblocked AT as a  Confirmed sock of Parabellus (talk · contribs · count), whom I've also blocked as the master. Jingiby, as well as Bishonen, may be familiar with Parabellus.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I am, Beeb. The first thing I told Parabellus, four days after they started editing, was that I thought it obvious that they weren't a new user.[43] But it doesn't sound like you've found a master for them, I guess? PS, I've just blocked another sock who edited this thread,[44] and rolled back their edits. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

• Yes, Bishonen, I noticed your sock comment on Parabellus's Talk page. My guess is if there is an earlier master, they are no longer editing, but it's hard to be sure of course. I've tagged "your" sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• Bishonen, I'm a bit confused about the edits of the latest sock: it looks like all their article edits were to undo edits by Parabellus, and so in reverting them, you've restored a bunch of Parabellus's edits? --JBL (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Joel B. Lewis, yes, but were those edits by Parabellus bad? I didn't think so. Admittedly I didn't look at them all, but at a biggish sample, and they seemed constructive. I think the person, in anger, after Parabellus was blocked, created a new account to revert their own contributions. 'Why should I help Wikipedia when they treat me like that?' In support of that notion: this. What does Bbb23 think? Bishonen | tålk 10:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC).

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

Accusations at AfD

Please could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Griffin (2nd nomination)? They haven't been specific, but I think an IP editor and the author of the article (Wikkot) are accusing me of UPE and/or sock puppetry. There will need to be some refactoring of the comments, and some clarification of what they're actually saying, but given my reading of the accusations I don't think I should be the one to do it. I'll notify the editors now. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:43, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely NOT being accused. In fact, before you wrote this statement there was a very long paragraph dedicated to not mix you with a loose neck tie. Check the time stamps. You were spoken about with care and absolute carefulness making sure not to confuse you with a clear sock puppet account. Why would you write this? Also, it was careful not to outright title a loose neck tie but rather give detailed accounts so they can be investigated. They are the only ones that were in question and you were definitively separated from that. You came in after without knowing what occurred. This was stated before you wrote this above. We can not let bad actors be mixed with good ones and that was the type of care given to you so no one is confused by it. Wikkot

To quote, and the time stamp clearly shows this is came before this false statement on this page which I assume is miscommunication? log clearly shows this is the only time in which Girth Summit was mentioned so there can be no confusion on the level of care that says the complete opposite of the accusation presented here. The original nomination came from a clear sock puppet. And details were added to allow sleuths to get to the bottom of it. What was stated is we need a smoking gun to link the sock puppet to the in real life statements that someone paid. The notes were clear to state that is needed to know if it was coincidental. But the facts were presented. Most importantly, Girth Summit was only mentioned positively and a great effort was made to make sure NO ONE confused them with the original nominator. I dont believe anyone would go to such great lengths to have made sure to protect any possible confusion because it was not needed as the core statement referenced someone else in the first place. It was done from care. Here is the direct quote: "However, there is no question that the second nomination came from an established user with no ill intent so let's not group the paid service "sock puppet" and the second established user together. I want to make that clear that bad users give the good users a bad reputation just by standing next to them so need to not allow that to occur here. The second user was noticing a page adjustment (they see thousands so cant know every detail on the back story of each one) and it's on other users to inform them on this page details that the original deleter somehow got away with in their fast deletion. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikkot (talk • contribs) 23:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I moved your lengthy discussion to the talk page of the AfD. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions for a guide to how you can contribute to an AfD. In short, if you think the article should be kept, you succinctly state the policy reasons for that; i.e., how the subject meets WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or whatever qualifying policies. In uncommon cases where there is to be a discussion about the AfD, that belongs on the talk page for that Afd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie - thanks for acting on this.

Wikkot - sorry, I was about to log off last night when I saw the comments. I didn't read them as closely as I should have - I saw comments about 'the original deleter', which I assumed were referring to me (since I was the one who closed the first AfD discussion and deleted the article) - I can see that you were not intending to refer to me. Having said that, if I read the comments correctly, you are now accusing another user of being a sock puppet and/or accepting payment for nominating articles for deletion. I'm going to notify A loose necktie of this thread, since they have been named. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hounding of User:Ckfasdf

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

This editor has been hounding me for a few months now, which began after a debate on info box native names. Since then he has been reverting my edits on nonsensical issues (i.e.- sources un-soured revert. I've asked him twice to stop, first time was ignored, and the second time was met with coincidental sharing of subjects. Interestingly the individual started editing pages that they didn’t do so before, prior to my recent edits (i.e. - LAPD Trinidad and Tobago Defence CASA CN-235 Swiss Air Force aircraft Turkish Air Force aircraft, National Aeronaval Service & most notably an immediate interest in aircraft inventory tables. (an area I’ve edited for years) - I also received a post on how to apply sources which I felt was a ”I'm better than you” dig. This may be an overzealous new comer, but I would like this type of behavior curbed. - FOX 52 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

the following are my side of story on hounding claim by FOX 52.
Initially, I noticed my edit on native_name of airforce page infobox keep reverted by FOX 52 and we can't reach conclusion on article or personal talk page. So, I bring it up to RfC board and reach community consensus there (which against his claim).
Afterwards, I noticed FOX 52 edit my upload on logo of indonesian immigration (which is not his usual scope and possibly hounding on me) and eventually caused it to be deleted (i can't put the history log as it already deleted, but it was happen around 1 December 2019) and immature me at that time retaliated by edit his edit on LAPD, I believe this was my mistake at that time, but then I moved on as he suggested.
FOX 52 and me have interest on air force pages, and I also aware that he is actively updating aircraft inventory on air force pages using latest edition of FlightGlobal's World Air Force (WAF). I don't have problem with that, in fact I also helped to update the aircraft inventory pages using the same source. while WAF is mostly considered as reliable source, I noticed that there are some issue on accuracy data on WAF, this issue is mentioned on some talk pages of air forces such as ROKAF, PoAF, Indonesian AF, FAF and etc. So, I took step to look up other source and verify it with WAF. That's pretty much what happen on my edit on air force pages (example).
I also fans of WP policy of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, so you can find some of my edit are just adding reference (not only on air force pages)
and also, I have some history on revise or even replace infobox (here example of such edit)
Since air force pages also in my watchlist, I would know if someone makes an edit on air force pages (including FOX 52). And most of time the edit is reasonable. But on rare occasion, I noticed some of FOX 52 edit are unreasonable such as here, he remove archive-url here, he remove author, and here, he remove full citation and left it to be bare URL. And I did ask him to figure out his rationale of such edit. Which I assume he didn't take it well and eventually leads us here. I am sorry for this inconvenience.
But, I also have to thank FOX 52 for our interaction, because of that I actually read and try to understand Wikipedia Policy / Guidelines and can be better contribute on Wikipedia Ckfasdf (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting I have yet to send an "ANI-notice" to your talk page as I wanted to add a few more examples, but here you are replying to my report - FOX 52 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

It's on my notification, I believe if you report someone on ANI, the system will automatically notify them. Please assume good faith. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the substance of this report, but a note to FOX 52 - Ckfasdf is correct, your mentioning them above will have triggered the notification system and informed them of this thread. The requirement to notify people on their talk pages (which you really ought to have done immediately upon opening the thread) is in case the notification system fails, which can happen if there's a typo somewhere, or if you forget to sign in the same edit that you mention the other user, or whatever. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 08:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As you stated, you retaliated by reverting an edit on the LAPD page" November 30th for file that I had deleted on December 1st, yet the log shows December 9th. And its not what you said on your talk page regarding the LAPD edit. This just demonstrates your ability and intention to hound someone over one issue, a trend that you seemed to continue with by the examples I laid out. Your latest one being the National Aeronaval Service - FOX 52 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The deletion log said the file was deleted on 8 December, but your edit request to delete it was on 30 November (fie history was gone as the file was deleted). You did message me regarding the deletion on my talk page on 30 November. Regarding my edit on SENAN page, it was not related to your edit nor I do anything on your edit. Around that time, I was editing pages on security forces in countries without military (includes: SPI, SENAN, Panama PF, Costa Rica PF, AVS), their pages are using infobox military unit while they don't have military force. So, I replace the infobox into infobox law enforcement agency and it was thanked by an admin (Nick-D). Ckfasdf (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the date, you still reverted an edit, in retaliation for another person’s edit, and demonstrated your willingness to hound them. And when asked to stop, you ignored the 1st request, and the second time it now appears to you chose to deceive them. You've have continued this trend with the examples I laid out, in my initial compliant. FOX 52 (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krish990 edit war

The Indian series Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke originally stars Shaheer Sheikh and Rhea Sharma in main lead roles. User:Krish990 continuosly keeps adding Ritvik Arora and Kaveri Priyam in the main cast but describing them as pivotal/supporting character as evident in the latest version of the article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeh_Rishtey_Hain_Pyaar_Ke

Arora and Priyam play supporting roles as evident by their awards won. The open sequence and poster credits only Sheikh and Sharma as the main leads of the series. Despite the user agreeing them as supporting roles, they consistently keep on adding them under main cast whereas the recurring/supporting cast is the section for them and not the main one as per MOS:TVCAST. The user also points out their screentime for placing them in main section while MOS:TVCAST says that "main" cast members are not determined by popularity, screen time, or episode count.

Before me, User:Ravensfire and User: Ritchie333 intervened in the issue when there was an edit war between them and User:Payalmishraa and the latter blocked them from editing the article for some time for discussing it. Even I have discussed in the Talkpage of both the user and the series. Despite, the user is adamant and keeps them adding under main cast inspite of them agreeing Arora and Priyam playing supporting roles. This issue is going on for a long time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noobie anonymous (talk • contribs) 12:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Krish990: please explain why you're edit warring on this article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried a while ago after seeing Krish in an edit-war with a different account (later blocked as a sock) and both of them blocked by Ritchie333 from the article for a week. There wasn't much discussion during that week and as soon as it was up, Krish put back his preferred version. I lost my cool and ranted (but still agree with what I said) so have disengaged, but from the limited discussions, Krish doesn't appear much interest in listening to the views from other editors from their actions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Capankajsmilyo and infobox templates

User:Capankajsmilyo is suggesting the conversion of many infobox templates to wrappers of more general ones, and adding identical votes to similar discussions started by others. Despite multiple requests to stop, or to add at least some substantial arguments to their proposals and votes instead of simply referencing the same essay each time, they have continued with this behaviour and haven't addressed any concerns.

They made 7 such proposals in a row yesterday:

• At Template talk:Infobox writer#Comparison with Infobox person, they still replied to comments and seemed to take on board criticism. Their next section there, Template talk:Infobox writer#Standardise notableworks, didn't indicate much improvement though, thoughtlessly asking for a cosmetic change to 10,000 infoboxes without providing any arguments for this.
• Template talk:Infobox comedian#Comparison to put things into perspective was a continuation of a convert proposal they already started in 2018(!) but didn't get consensus.
• Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Convert to wrapper presents no arguments, and is already opposed by two editors.
• Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Convert to wrapper is the one that drew my attention. Please read it for yourself.
• Template talk:Infobox saint#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox Christian leader#Convert to wrapper, one comment in opposition
• Template talk:Infobox church#Convert to wrapper, with nearly everyone in opposition, and the first calls to stop spamming these proposals.

They also voted with the identical reason "Merge per WP:INFOCOL" at 14 discussions over the last 2 days, no matter if there had been significant opposition against the proposal or not, as if that essay was a convincing reason and not some "argument to avoid" in such discussions: [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] and [57], where they also added one of those long comparison tables[58]

That last one is a perfect example of how these proposals are made, as if a table showing how different two templates are, is a good (nay, the only necessary) argument to argue for making one a wrapper of the other.

I then addressed Capankajsmilyo directly in User talk:Capankajsmilyo#Voting and proposals based on an essay, without providing arguments or countering opposition, with additional comments from User:Jonesey95. I also pointed out that this edit, implementing a change they supported at TfD, actually made the article worse, despite the higly misleading edit sumary "cleanup".

They didn't answer, but continued with the identical voting[59], and created 5 more of these "discussions" or "proposals" or whatever they are supposed to be:

• Template talk:Infobox sportsperson#Convert to wrapper (a template used on 88,000 pages and with very little in common with the suggested target)
• Template talk:Infobox royalty#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox religious biography#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox military person#Convert to wrapper
• Template talk:Infobox Twitch streamer#Convert to wrapper

A user who starts 12 of these discussions in a row, without listening to feedback or replying to criticism, and without providing any actual arguments, is just being disruptive. The many identical votes, and the lone "cleanup" edit to impose his preferred solution (thereby making an article worse), just emphasize this point. They may be right in some cases, but it is impossible to know this as no meaningful discussion is possible in this way.

Please make them either respond or make them stay away from these templates and discussions. Fram (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Capankajsmilyo has not made any of these disruptive edits in the 14 hours since I posted in multiple locations, including their talk page, asking them to stop. That is a good sign. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

No, but considering that his most recent edits are things like this (not problematic in itself), it doesn't seem like they are interested in discussing or reverting their posts. Fram (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Personal attack from CaradhrasAiguo

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

---

• Please response to personal attacks against me from CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) on national basis. See diffs: [60] [61] 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a warning. Lets see what happens from there. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

IP has time to edit war on an article (4 reverts in 42 min; see AN/EW report) and spam multiple noticeboards while avoiding the talk page in concern. Their only purpose on this site is to wreak disruption. Immediate WP:BOOMERANG, please. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't excuse those kind of comments, which are not acceptible. Edit warring not withstanding. Canterbury Tail talk 17:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyway when something is brought to ANI, everyone involved's behaviour is up for scrutiny, including the IP who posted this. Canterbury Tail talk 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This is probably relevant background for people evaluating this [[62]]. Could they be nicer probably but I think more is happening here. Irregardless the comments didn't excuse the edit war. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, over 80 minutes since the last talk page edit and this IP does nothing apart from post on noticeboards and waste everybody's time in the process. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean in fairness we shouldn't be throwing those insults around, it makes AGF harder to accept but likewise their actions do too. My suggestion to you both, make nice and drop the stick. IF the IP continues the complaints then maybe a boomerang but failing that we do need to AGF a bit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The user in question has also used language like "scummy IPs" ([63]) and uses warnings as intimidation. I understand things may get heated, but Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --MrClog (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats just CaradhrasAiguo being CaradhrasAiguo, genuinely unsure why they’re still around [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that HEJ has a well-documented history of irrelevant interjections (notice the focus at Talk:China was STSC's edits and Aman's reverts) [77] with the appearance of being all "buddy buddy" (while in fact being condescending), it would be difficult to see the above post as being made in any good faith or constructive spirit. Your disruption has on at least one occasion extended across scores of articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would provide more diffs but it seems you pull no punches even on ANI. I had forgotten your edit at Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point#Inclusion of Taiwan though, thanks for posting a diff which discussed it. "Indeed, a disclaimer would clear it all. Only the most militant, Sinophobic, pan-Green partisans and their neocon sympathisers in the West would differ but their opinion should be considered both criminal and extreme.” Yikes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, multiple users besides myself noted at the en masse source removal thread that, fullly aware of the fact that it is disruptive, your citing of BLP in non-BLP article spaces, but sure, your obsessive focus on polemic / rhetoric reveals your concern, as usual, to be revolving around tone-policing rather than substance. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Come on, Canterbury Tail just warned you about WP:PA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Come on, everybody knows your concerns over NPA are faux outrage given the tendencies I described above and your own failure to condemn psychological attacks in your backyard just because they came from a fellow partisan. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Dude, they better indef you. This isn't funny. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's enough of that. CaradhrasAiguo blocked a week for personal attacks. Someone else can decide whether more than that needs to be done. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I was edit-conflicted in my previous reply that pleaded for someone to do just that. Thank you. From the evidence of this discussion it appears that an indefinite block would be preferable, but at least something needed to be done immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The unblock request and the response to my decline appears to show little comprehension. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Accusations of bad faith-editing on article with sanctions

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

---

Owynhart has made repeated and aggressive accusations of bad-faith editing on the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article. There are currently general sanctions in place for Michael Jackson articles.

• The Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article is currently nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson (2nd nomination)). In the discussion, Owynhart referred to me and TheLongTone as "trolling clowns" (diff) and made jabs such as Keep your face straighter. Your half-suppressed grin is showing (diff).

• In the same discussion, Owynhart also referred to a puffery tag I placed on the Cultural impact of Michael Jackson article, writing: Now can we topic ban this troll, so we can actually improve it? Because you've been sitting on that Puffery tag like it's your couch. [Diff]

• Shortly afterwards, Owynhart was notified of the general sanctions relating to Michael Jackson articles.

• Today, about 24 hours later, Owynhart removed the puffery tag mentioned above, with the edit summary: removed puffery tag after extensive edits. previously placed by a troll apparently. continue to work with editors who are willing to IMPROVE the article.

• Shortly after this, in the deletion discussion, Owynhart once again described me and TheLongTone as "trolls".

I always edit Wikipedia in good faith and would like to stop being attacked in this way. Popcornfud (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

You've stated repeatedly that you want the article gone, not improved. How does someone who wants the article gone improve an article? Deletion of articles are reserved for deletion nomination, not editing nor edit warring with other editors. This is disruptive to editors who want to improve the article.

• Here are some of your lurid comments on the article that sounds pretty troll-like.
• Here is you stating that the best thing to do to this article is to remove it: I really think the best thing to do is to wipe it. Popcornfud (talk) 12:34 pm, 20 March 2020, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)
• TheLongTone whom you've working with has made troll-like comments and massive removals, as well. He has also stated that we wanted the article gone rather than improved.
• You have not added anything to the article. You have only placed a Puffery tag and insisted that it stays, despite the fact you do not add anything meaningful to the article to improve it away from Puffery, and other editors have tried compromising with you. I have also assumed you were doing so in good faith before. They have also complained about the Puffery tag placement despite their edits and compromises. You are the only person who insist it stays.
• Some comments made by TheLongTone seem racially and personally motivated, by the way. For example this one on the removal of cited material or this one about "not wearing aviators would be more remarkable." You have not stopped any of these edits despite the fact that you claim to improve the article with him.
• Yes, I mocked your comment, because I genuinely believe you do not have any intention of improving the article now. I don't agree with the idea of compromising with trolls or editors who do not improve articles or are doing it in bad faith. Wikipedia does have problems with these sort of editors, regardless if you are one or not. The purpose of the sanctions is to eliminate disruptive editing, which I do believe you are doing. I also thought about reporting you for disruptive editing had you continued to place the Puffery tag on the article. Owynhart 20:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, topic banned. I'm sick of this Michael Jackson drama, and it's going to end right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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