Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 217.150.87.242 (talk) at 17:44, 3 April 2020 (→‎User:Patapsco913: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Repeated bogus OR accusations

    IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

    • Oppose - IvoryTower's points were not wrong. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page of the article, but he usually just gets angry when other people try to help him with his editing. It would be better if he would take fair criticism on board instead. This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Ahiroy (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahiroy: IvoryTower's points were not wrong. Yes, they are. I wouldn't have come here if policy weren't explicitly on my side and every single impartial user on the talk page hadn't already agreed with me on that point. It looks like Hijiri88 has very frequently needed to have his claims corrected by other users all throughout the talk page of the article, but he usually just gets angry when other people try to help him with his editing. Are you getting me confused with someone else? This ANI thread is just an overreaction to reasonable problems with his editing. Umm... I have been accused, in bad faith, of violating one of our core content policies, well over a dozen times over the last four months. An admin finally stepped in and put it to a stop, and one editor has refused to stop. I also issued multiple warnings, and attempts to politely explain our policy, over said four months. How is any of this an overreaction.
    I have been editing Wikipedia for over ten years, and have more than 30,000 edits to my name -- I know what "original research" means; the ones on the talk page who have accused me of OR are all either sockpuppets or extremely new users by comparison -- as, it might be pointed out, are you. If you also do not understand how our "No Original Research" policy works, then you really need to read it before weighing in on discussions like this one.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

    In addition to IvoryTower123, four other editors have also argued that many of Hijiri88's edits in the article of mottainai are original research.[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.

    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.

    @Martinthewriter: What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just trying to derail this in order to get revenge on me or something? Are you saying that, despite what the closing admin said at the end of the first RFC, what I have been doing is OR and Ivorytower123 shouldn't be sanctioned for saying that it is? The fact that some other editors said as much before last week's RFC closure is irrelevant (if they also continued to do so, they would be here too); the fact that you have now done so here means that yes, perhaps whatever happens to Ivorytower123 should also happen to you.
    New editors not understanding our editing policies is theoretically acceptable; new editors repeatedly harassing established editors and talking down to them about our editing policies when they themselves are the ones who are getting the policies wrong is a sanctionable issue.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I would ask that you refrain from taking quotes out of context on ANI. Most admins and other experienced editors will know better than to block me or otherwise blindly support your proposal without actually clicking on the diffs and seeing what I actually said, but it is nevertheless unacceptable for you to do this again after having been told off for it back in December. The paragraph beginning Much of this recent bludgeoning... is, needless to say, very misleading on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I caught wind of this dispute when I closed a previous RfC, was asked to clarify the close, and asked about the appropriateness of a subsequent RfC that seems to have led to this current thread. I feel that additional comments from uninvolved administrators would be helpful in resolving this dispute. I don't know the full history among these editors, but Hijiri has raised concerns about wikihounding which should be taken seriously. The diffs that Martin provides should at least be read in that context. As for the original post, I don't really understand the hang-up on OR. Editors are routinely asked to evaluate the reliability of sources and determine due weight, so I don't see how OR plays much of a role in these discussions. Personally, I've struggled to resolve this issue, and would welcome help from others who are better at handling conduct disputes like this. Something should be done here, and wider input would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify two minor issues in case anyone thinks I was being deliberately misleading:
    (i) I don't think Martin is technically "hounding" me. In November, he showed up on a page I had edited almost two years earlier, and reverted most of my work on it. His edits don't appear to show a good-faith interest in the topic (since any honest reading of the sources would lead to the opposite conclusion he has reached), and he appears to be more interested in haranguing me than in improving the article. It is not clear whether or not he would continue to follow me to other pages and try the same thing if he were page-banned. I can provide evidence of all of this in the form of diffs, but since I am not actively seeking any sanctions against him, I don't want to waste time doing so. (I have already wasted dozens if not hundreds of hours on what should have been a cut-and-dry issue.)
    (ii) This ANI report, which has nothing directly to do with Martin, was not prompted by the recent RFC, but by one of the participants therein repeatedly accusing me of "original research". This problem (including my saying that I would seek administrative assistance in resolving it) also goes back to November, as the diffs I presented show.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I mean I oppose any sort of "page ban" on Hijiri. The page mottainai is a terrible mess, WP at its worst; most is a section nominally called "etymology etc", but actually a ragbag of argument-from-etymology claims of a distinctly nihonjinron flavour, and the latest spat relates to the inclusion of a scraping from a Jungian psychologist, who (not surprisingly, since it's an axiom of the Jungian quasi-religion) thinks that "mottainai" is "connected" (meaning unclear) to anima mundi, which looks like the Shinto animism idea. I think most Japan specialist editors will have given up on this page; apart from Hijiri's contributions, almost all input is formulaic, legalistic recitations of rules about "sources". While I think that a less confrontational approach from Hijiri himself would doubtless help, it is hard to see his critics as disinterested contributors to the content of WP. For example, the user IvoryTower123 mentined at the beginning seems to have made many edits, for which I see no reason not to assume good faith, but apart from a comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan (mostly procedural), has made just one other Japan-related edit, creating a user page containing a Japanese language level 3 claim, and no other content. This does seem bizarre. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've unarchived this thread. It clearly needs a proper (admin) closure this time, especially given the comments that were made my Martinthewriter and Ahiroy therein, essentially promising that the disruption will continue indefinitely until something is done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now the second oldest thread on the page -- is no one going to look at it? I know it's not necessarily fair to suggest that problems like this one are not "sexy" enough to attract attention from uninvolved admins, but what other explanation is there? Back in December the problem was apparently that the first admin who came across the thread didn't want to weigh in on my "side" for "personal" reasons, but now...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn Still waiting for someone to deal with this... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Hijiri88, this is not about other editors, it is about what YOU have said. It is quite simple, the diffs above show the threats and intimidation you have made. And, as John says below, WP:BLUDGEON also applies. 1292simon (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John from Idegon: Did you mean to post that in a different ANI thread? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't. It was directed straight at you regarding this very thread. WP:BLUDGEON is possibly applicable. I am almost certain that I'm not alone on this. You didn't make your case above, and there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem. Someone opened a boomerang thread that wasn't going anywhere and would have archived soon, but you had to have a resolution and called attention to it again. Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't make your case above I said I was being wrongly accused of OR and presented seven diffs in support of this claim. there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem ??? Are you saying that I was violating NOR? Are you willing to back up that claim? You would seem to be the first editor with more than 1,000 edits who agrees with that assertion... That said, Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? is exactly right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion on whether you made your case is irrelevant. If you had, it would have been actioned. I couldn't care less about the underlying articles. I haven't and won't look into it. I'm strictly commenting on your behavior in this very thread. As you've historically commented frequently at ANI, finding the diff where I discussed this with you previously is neigh on impossible. But I'm sure there are plenty of other editors here that are well aware of your tendency to not heed the advice given at WP:STICK. You are a vital editor here. There's a lot of ways to end a dispute. You can seek further DR assistance, and walking away is always an option. One thing for certain though. The community frowns on continuing disputes. If no one saw enough merit in your report to action it, that's your answer. The fact that you re-opened a dead thread, a thead where the only even vague indication of consensus is to sanction you, is, well, at best foolish. At worst, it's disruptive. We aren't playing poker here. Bluffs don't "win" the pot. John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your involvement in this thread is bordering on harassment at this point. We get it -- you don't like me and will take the side of whoever is against me, even if they are blatantly violating most of our content policies. I'd be happy with this thread being archived without result at this point -- the RFC will be closed shortly, almost certainly with a result not favourable to these two obvious sockpuppet accounts, and if they try any more disruptive editing after that point ... well, I'm sure the community and admin corps will do their job at that point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    So you admit you were "critical of my actions"? You also do not understand our NOR policy? Is there another explanation I'm not seeing? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being critical of your actions isn't a policy violation, so there's no need to admit anything. I agree with John that you made a poor choice in resurrecting this thread, and you should have taken John's sound and logical advice at face value and moved on instead of becoming combative. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being critical of my actions, when my actions constitute me requesting some admin action against one of two new editors who have been repeatedly violating policy by insisting that use of editorial discretion qualifies as an NOR-violation (and who are obviously both the same person, and probably also the same person as some long-sitebanned editor with a grudge against me), would indeed seem to be a policy violation. If you or John seriously think that IvoryTower/Martin had a point, then you need to familiarize yourself with WP:NOR.
    It's a somewhat prickly policy issue, but I would argue that AGF is on the side of assuming that a long-term contributor whose comments appear to indicate a poor understanding of basic policy is actually just arguing from a blindspot based on a personal bias and simply had not made an an attempt to understand the particular dispute because of said bias -- such human failings are far more likely to be forgiven than a long-term contributor actually not understanding the policy. This is why I went to the "you don't like me" well before the "are you seriously saying you agree with this blatant policy violation well"; the long-term consequences of the former are almost never as severe as the latter.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just going to reiterate what John said above. Sometimes, you are your own worst enemy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, in case you didn't notice, I said a little above here that I'd be happy with this thread being archived without result at this point and have said elsewhere that I intend to take a wikibreak as soon as this and two other discussions are resolved. It's John (and now I guess you) who has insisted on dragging this on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ​

    • comment - I am not the same person as Martinthewriter. I only edit with this account and have no association with him. I don't feel I did anything wrong by pointing out Hijiri88's OR. Almost all of Hijiri88's commentary on the talk page were the ideas he developed on his own in direct contradiction to the sources that he was overanalyzing. However, this was already discussed in detail on the talk page, and most people there agreed that Hijiri88's edits were made on the basis of clear OR. IvoryTower123 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Examination and evaluation of sources, for example: to determine reliability (in the case of a single sources) or weight which should be accorded particular viewpoints (in the case of multiple sources) might well be research and might well be original. It is not, however, original research, in the sense of that Wikipedia term of art. - Ryk72 talk 03:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes: Would you mind blocking IvoryTower123 for the above continued IDHT/harassment? Someone actually doing something to help me might make me reconsider what I did last night. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am not a fan of comments about editors, rather than content. However, while there remain good faith, well founded content concerns such as those raised by Hijiri88, and while those concerns remain unaddressed by the editors who oppose his viewpoint, I think we're at the "advise" or "warn" stage rather than the ban stage. NOTE: I, like others above, am involved in the underlying content dispute. - Ryk72 talk 03:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sort of page ban. This behaviour is about an editor, not a page. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To which Hijiri's unsurpring reaction was: User talk:QEDK#A request describing the above comment opposing a page ban as an "unprovoked attack" and canvassing two admins to block me at Hijiri's demand.
    This is a follow on from last week, when I raised Hijiri's AfD behaviour at AfD, also their persistent attempts to tell me what I may and may not edit. It wa summarily closed by QEDK with a smiley, and no comment or response to Hijiri's behaviour.
    Hijiri: grow up. Many people here have a problem with your continuing behaviour. Do something about that or, as you keep hinting, leave. But running off to your friendliest admin whenever anything offends you is not acceptable. It is basically childish behaviour, and we're all sick of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Why wasn't that warning placed on Andy's talk page? If an admin really wants two editors to stay away from each other, issuing a warning to both on one editor's talk page is a poor way of accomplishing that. I see Andy has been blocked on the basis of that warning and I think that's inappropriate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was bad form, but as he is obviously watching what Hijiri88 is up to he was aware of it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, maybe not. If the admin issues this warning the same way that every other warning is issued, there isn't any question about it. Anyway, for the sake of consistency, Hijiri should be blocked for describing Andy's initial edit here as an attack. After all, there's no question that they saw the warning. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid point, it was not an attack and Hijiri88 (by the terms of the IBAN) should not have responded.Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which IBAN? Had a quick look over WP:Editing restrictions & WP:DSLOG, but couldn't see anything. - Ryk72 talk 23:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, I don't think there's an IBAN in effect between the two editors. However, Hijiri's overreaction to Andy's initial post above, as well as Andy's response, suggest to me that maybe there should be. Andy may very well have been baiting Hijiri with his first post here, and Hijiri may well have been baiting Andy by going to an admin's talk page to complain about it. While New3400 noted below that Hijiri has apparently retired, I have my doubts about the permanence of this retirement. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not here at ANI, but an admin did issue a formal warning that if they continued to niggle each other they would be blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He has retired before an come back as bad as ever (in fact I seem to recall pointing out this very fact the last time he was ANI and retired, in fact I seem to recall it was a self requested block he block evaded).Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Slatersteven, I've also never seen an editor more inclined than Hijiri to claim that they are being harassed. Maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but it's impossible to take their word at face value. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And this [[14]] was posted after his "retirement", its pretty much a PA (and a pretty egregious one at that), and this [[15]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks

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

    Meh, doesn't this fall under the so-called "ragequit leeway" exception, i.e. if someone's farewell message is some variation of "fuck all y'all", we just let that go? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 15:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This was their farewell message [[16]], the rest was after they had said "As of this latest update, I will be logging out to avoid any more harassing pings and messages.)". As I said this is not a genuine retirement, any more than the last one (or however many) was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It might fall under that leeway, however tenuous the validity of this retirement, if not for the naming-and-shaming of one-and-a-half dozen editors. The 'no ping' part makes it even worse. Hijiri was deliberately trashing people behind their backs. That is not permissible even as part of a ragequit. Nor is a bunch of filthy, repulsive degenerates an acceptable way to describe fellow editors. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

    AaqibAnjum If you made a report at AIV, then you don't need to make an additional report here. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The response at AIV was to suggest reporting here, so AaqibAnjum is only doing what he was told. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AaqibAnjum, Authordom is doing nothing that requires administrator action by nominating articles for deletion. If you think they should be kept then simply make the case for keeping in the relevant discussion. Nobody's word should count for more than anyone else's in such discussions, which are closed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, thanks for your response. I've been working on the articles whatsoever nominated for deletion by him as I've joined the Wikipedia last year for the betterment of articles related to Deobandi school of thought. I just wanted to take a note of using cleanup, refimprove etc before nominating an article for deletion, mostly when the notability of the subject is widely known. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Authordom has nominated articles for deletion almost exclusively related to particular Islamic tendencies in India and Pakistan. As far as I can see, only one (possibly two) AfD out of 63 has been outside of this scope. Numerous nominations show no evidence of carrying out BEFORE which would have easily established the notability of the subject (eg Snow keep here, nomination of an elected politician here). Of the last 10 closed AfDs nominated by this editor, 8 have been closed as keep. Editor has been on Wikipedia for close to two years, so they should by now be expected to understand policy. With this AfD in January nominated under the editor's original user name of Kutyava, they subsequently !voted keep under their new username Authordom in the same AfD. Two blocks in January this year and a block in October last year for edit warring. The editor has been asked numerous times to carry out work appropriately. Seems to be ignoring reasonable requests and unable to apply NPOV to the work undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @Irshadpp: at least one example please. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @Ngrewal1: Please wait 30 minutes I'm just working on something.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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 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 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 No action
    7 10.03 Muhammad Rafi Usmani "Non notable Islamist from Pakistan."  Yes No evidence of BEFORE;notability easily verifiable KEEP no 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 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 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 No action
    12 24.02 Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi "Non notable Muslim scholar from India."  Yes No evidence of BEFORE KEEP no 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 No action
    15 23.02 Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi "Non notable Islamist seminary"  Yes[1] 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[2] 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 No action
    20 18.02 Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris "Non notable."  Yes No evidence of BEFORE; academic study on history of the school.[3] 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.[4] 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

    1. ^ "Maulana Saleemullah passes away". DAWN.COM. 2017-01-16. Retrieved 2020-03-25.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    2. ^ "About Us". ahsanululoom.org. Retrieved 2020-03-25.
    3. ^ Bilal, Fahkar (January 2018). "From Jalandhar (India) to Multan (Pakistan): Establishment of Jamia Khair ul Madaris, 1931-1951" (PDF). Journal of the Research Society of Pakistan. 55.
    4. ^ "The Qawmi conundrum". Dhaka Tribune. 2018-01-08. Retrieved 2020-03-25.

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

    Thanks, Goldsztajn. Here I have noticed his one more biased edit. Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi was Grand Mufti of India as I had referenced from (Mufti Azam Hind, Maulana Kifayatyullah Shahjahanpuri Thumma Dehlawi (2005 ed.). Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library.) and this. Here Authordom is regarding this as unsourced.See this edit on Kifayatullah Dehlawi. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Authordom is probably a paid editor. This user is one of the most biased editor on Wikipedia. Authordom is spamming all over these particular topics and nominating the topics he doesn't like for deletion. Me too had an experience that the user nominated me and an unrelated editor for sockpuppet investgation, just because I made a honest edit to one of his favourite topics. Please take relevant action.--SnehaRaphael1996 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [17]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [18] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page post [19]:

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

    is clear inappropriate canvassing by AaqibAnjum. Don’t do that again, please. — MarkH21talk 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkH21: , already taken notice of that. The advice message of Goldsztajn is still there at my talk page. I had just tried to invite her to join this discussion only to discuss issues where Authordom has been accused of being biased. Anyways, this was my err. I shall take care in future. Continuing the analysis of Authordom's bias towards a particular Islamic sect. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Closure-PIwA

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

    Support closing w/o action. Many of the AfD nominations were good and there are no actual conduct issues with  Authordom. Though the false allegations of "vandalism", "paid editing" levied on Authordom violate WP:NPA.  Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a pattern of bias at AfD along with a multitude of nominations carried out with disregard to expected practice (viz. BEFORE), a refusal to respond to reasonable requests, a history of edit warring. I don't actually support closure here given the admin who requested information has not had a chance to reply. I have deliberately not called for sanctions *so far* because the point of ANI is so an uninvolved admin can assess the material presented and make a judgement. Until that point is reached, perhaps we could be patient before jumping the gun. Thanks,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not support closure anyway as per Goldsztajn. I have not accused Authordom of paid editing or anything such;, this comment of the concerned user may be enquired further. My invitation to that user to join this discussion, possibly does not violate any specific Wikipedia rules; agreed that it was not okay to invite Sneha via talk page. Anyways, nominating articles of notable institutions, scholars, politicians of specific group by tagging them as non-notable is clear cut bias. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 'Closing without Action' would be very unjust here. Just like we were, Authordom's supporters should also be asked for 'informatioin' or evidence for their 'simple assertions' above about Authordom, very similar to his typical style of nominating other religious sects' old established institutions, well-known all over the Muslim world, in his clever and sneaky way on AfD as 'non-notable'. So he would be free and clear to continue doing all that? Many of us, including me, have hundreds and hundreds of editing-time-hours invested in these articles. I am asking for justice here with due process of Wikipedia policy. Thanks ---Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can't support closing without any action. AFDs nominations which resulted delete were aftermaths of our negligence regarding his biased behavior. Above there is a list of nominations which should be reviewed. Closing without action is clear injustice.--Irshadpp (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment While I have pragmatically proposed an action due to a stall which would in my view have likely ended up in a closure anyway; I am minded of the good faith effort Goldsztajn has put in. What I will do is place the Template:RfA toolbox here which might give a better quick analysis angle: (While it is usually used at WP:RFA's it might be convenient here; AfD votes it probably particularly useful but other tools might show something also. It admins feel this is inappropriate use of of the template then by all means I apologise and by all means remove and even revdel if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just randomly picked one of Goldsztajn's table, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi, nominated with the reasoning "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar", state at nomination: Old revision of Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi. The article at that point was not tagged with a notability issue but was tagged with a "needs additional citations for verification" despite it being fairly well inline cited throughout and perhaps the "mkislamicworld" perhaps not being acceptable for the books. The fact most cites were Hindi and poorly embellished with details do make it easy for scrutiny on the English Wiki ... Use of translated titles, authors, language indicator, dates, publishers are all really needed for determination for Notability and rather than assisting in this matter the editors to this point are forcing scrutineers to search for the notability rather than pointing them towards it. So I am minded if this had been pre-tagged for notability and a request for cite embellishment had been in place for a while and ignored I would count that as a justifiable AfD nomination. But a WP:VAGUEWAVE "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar" nomination is not acceptable especially as proven by events the subject was judged notable. So a complaint on this nomination would have been in view justified.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: When a user is making a lot of delete nominations one would hope the success ratio would be high. In a couple of occasions of high swamps (e.g. 60+ noms over a few days) at AfD when I've done an analysis I recall about 1/3 were keeps, 1/3 were salvagable with some rescuing, and 1/3 were genuine deletes; and while Authordom hasn't done a massive swamp rate at AfD; the delete(nom) keep ratio is probably not great. There's also enough of a problem that we possibly should WP:REFUND all the delete's to draft to give them some scrutiny to check an overall picture.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The apparent possible focus bias against Deobandi and other possibly ideally requires a response from Authordom ... a TBAN may be appropriate or a warning of a TBAN might be appropriate. I think an Ds/alert (IP) was only given on 16 March 2020 however if the AfD nominations past that point an admin would be entitled to take immediate action to my understanding ... in fact Authordom might consider offering something like a "no-fault" voluntary self-ban from raising AfDs though some might not think it sufficent.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note added the Rajya Sabha Website and voted Keep .Based on this Authordom withdraw the AFD.
    This is missing the forest for the trees. Prior tagging, for however long, does not excuse an editor from reasonably undertaking BEFORE; AfD is not clean up. Moreover, this analysis might be appropriate if all of the editor's nominations at AfD were *not* almost singularly focused on a particular Islamic sect. Finally, I simply do not accept the idea that Urdu or Bangla is a limitation to finding sources; an editor claiming that it is hard to operate in a language should not then be making judgments where use of that language is important (cf. WP:COMPETENCE). --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am minded it would not be expected nor reasonable on the English Wikipedia on a WP:BEFORE to search for foreign language sources. I am also minded while foreign language sources can count towards notability I do not expect to sift through foreign language citations that are poorly embellished: there is little real excuse for such items such as date, trans-title, author, website, and even quote not to be given rather than expecting scrutineers having to click the link to find out. However this is where WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations are an issue: demonstration these things have been considered in the nomination gives confidence, omission of them means relying on good faith. While ensuring a article is tagged that is a good pre-req before going to AfD it is still incumbent to search for references on a WP:BEFORE. An indicator this is being done will be author improving an article rather than taking it to AfD, the recovery of rotted links and marking of dead links is another indicator. The three AfD's after the issueing of the Ds/Alert(ipa) are particularly open to scrutiny as diligence should have been taken to avoid any possibility of biasing beyond that point. While I had called for this to be closed due to an apparent stall I accept there have been reasonable calls for further analysis.... On a different angle is their evidence of improvement of articles in problem area of bias ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Article nom'd by for deletion requested to WP:REFUNDed to draft for analysis
    Afd Draft Notes
    Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Draft:Ahsan-Ul-Uloom
    Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri Draft:Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri
    Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia Draft:Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia
    Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia Draft:Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia
    Darussalam Islamic Academy (2nd nomination) Draft:Darussalam Islamic Academy
    Girls Islamic Organisation of India (2nd nomination) Draft:Girls Islamic Organisation of India
    Ideal Relief Wing Kerala Draft:Ideal Relief Wing Kerala
    Jamaati Draft:Jamaati
    Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi Draft:Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi
    Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris
    Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar Draft:Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar
    Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna
    Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka
    Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi Draft:Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi
    Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy Draft:Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy
    K. A. Siddique Hassan (2nd nomination) Draft:K. A. Siddique Hassan
    K.P. Sasikala Draft:K.P. Sasikala
    Madrasah Islamiah Draft:Madrasah Islamiah
    Madrasa Kashiful Huda Draft:Madrasa Kashiful Huda
    Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom Draft:Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom
    Marunadan Malayali Draft:Marunadan Malayali
    MI Abdul Azeez Draft:MI Abdul Azeez
    Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (Afd-draftied, improved, and returned to mainspace)
    Mohammed Eeza Draft:Mohammed Eeza
    Muhammad Jafar Draft:Muhammad Jafar
    Mujtaba Farooq (2nd nomination) Draft:Mujtaba Farooq
    Outspoken Kerala Draft:Outspoken Kerala
    Poonthran Draft:Poonthran
    Prakash Babu Draft:Prakash Babu
    Shajan Skariah Draft:Shajan Skariah
    SQR Ilyas Draft:SQR Ilyas
    Sunni Council Draft:Sunni Council
    Syed Bande Ali Husaini Draft:Syed Bande Ali Husaini
    Syed Mohammad Husaini Draft:Syed Mohammad Husaini
    Yusuf Islahi Draft:Yusuf Islahi


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

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

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

    @AaqibAnjum: Best wishes with your efforts. I'm more interested in the 34 I have requested refunds for. I have reFilled that article, try to fill out the foreign language ones more fully. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Djm-leighpark Please note that WP:REFUND is only for "... Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions (G6) or rejected Articles for creation drafts (G13)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. Here there was participation in most of the debates have do not think Refund is applicable here in most cases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pharaoh of the Wizards ... You seem to have missed the follow-on bit where it says: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". Strictly I could be refused by requiring to goto closer's first: Some might refuse, some might email, some might end up at DRV (for refund purposes): and while the amount of time effort for me will be painful the failure to go a full refund the overall admin effort if the long way round will be far more considerable. But if that is the way it has to be then that is the way it will have to be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD forums being used as weapons

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

    I see you are very concerned about "winning" on Wikipedia. This is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, and I suggest that you avoid casting aspersions about your fellow voters at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all, NinjaRobotPirate, in my 7 years of editing on Wikipedia, in retaliation I have never nominated for deletion not even a single article for deletion. My editing record on Wikipedia should show it. I was trying to point out a real existing problem on Wikipedia so we can all solve it together. I would like us to stop petty bickering back and forth during this real crisis of Corona-virus pandemic with the hope that it ends soon and we all can get back to 'normal'. None of us has seen this kind of deadly serious crisis in our lifetime. It's NOT really the time to battle with each other over small stuff, when we have a real health crisis lockdown all over the world. Hope Wikipedia administration soon can come to a decision on this discussion so we can move on. By the way, this is the first time I am seeing your name on Wikipedia. I don't remember ever communicating or dealing with you before on AfD or anywhere else. So let's leave it at that. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate Honestly since I hadn't dealt with you before, I didn't even check to see that you were a Wikipedia administrator before writing my above reply to you . I just now looked at your User page. Nevertheless I meant no disrespect to you in my reply. I'll also be glad to cooperate with you or any other admin. to solve this general AfD problem that I mentioned above today. Like I said above in my earlier comments in this discussion that Authordom has been 'piling up' all these AfDs at both AfD India and AfD Pakistan which resulted in 10 'Keeps' and 11 'Deletes' after AfD discussions (taking a quick look at nominations table above). So he had me 'working my tail off' trying to save my own work within last few weeks. Why would I want to 'battle' with him or anybody else for that matter. That's not my previous history on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Similarity with some blocked users

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

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

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

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

    Response from Authordon appreciated

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

    A876

    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, [20], and [21]). 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I am tempted to simply "continue to edit the MOS while making no response to the concerns expressed here", thereby letting "an admin [have] the option of banning [me] from editing the MOS". (EdJohnston seems to acknowledge the abject pettiness of this complaint, in specifying a condition-for and a scope-of punishment. It would be annoying to be locked out of MoS for helping, but that might not meet the tarring and feathering that some of "the editors who actually write the encyclopedia", "content builders", and other "real" contributors (as they've condescendingly identified themselves to me) might demand.) I regard the reverts of my MoS edit by Deacon Vorbis as unnecessary and therefore inappropriate (didn't like?), and the unexplained reverts made since-then to two of my non-MoS edits as unjustified hostile retaliation to make a point and punish, detrimental to the Mission.
    I don't know why some few reach out to disparage, wasting more of their time than they'll ever save, and wasting more of my time than I willingly give.
    Afterward, only two "separate" (sic) editors commented. (Their surgical separation was successful?) Maybe I'll reply there. They raised little new. "The edit pattern is baffling." (Geekdiva) Funny. They don't have to understand; I don't have to explain. Nonetheless, I've already explained. If they figure it out, they'll learn something.
    • "mostly inappropriate changes" (edit comment). None could be called "inappropriate". None broke anything. Many were unambiguous improvements. Many were explained in edit comments (q.v.).
    • "... introduced a ton of changes ..." Some editors do a hundred edits on the same article, saving after every few words, few sentences, or few minutes. (Talk about wasting resources.) I prefer to do one big edit. Sometimes a touch-up. Sometimes a catch-up after editing a related page. Surely reviewing 50 same-day near-edits by the same editor is more tedious and more error-prone than reviewing one big edit.
    • "almost all of which were cosmetic, ..." (Well, over half were "cosmetic".) I made "real" changes. "Cosmetic" edits do not disqualify an edit and do not justify compound-reverting reasonable work, unless the edit actually "hurts" the page by bloating it with irrational markup.
    • "... making it difficult to find ..." It's not that hard. Once and it's over. No one will "fix" those things again.
    • "... what the substantive changes were (if there were any)" That is devastatingly insincere. The "substantive changes" were described and obvious.
    • "Some of the changes made are okay," Okay. "but they are filled with pointless ones..." Each one had a point. Some are substantial, some are cosmetic. Some are subtle. I expect clear markup, so I put clear markup. Moving the anchors up to where they are recommended to be helps people arriving from shortcuts. It is small but not trivial.
    • Cosmetic-only edits are discouraged, but there is no mandate to revert even one of those (unless it does real damage). I've warned other editors who did a lot of these, but I have never reverted one, even when I didn't like what they did.
    • "there were a couple [of] changes within that great clump that I did think were necessary" (Geekdiva) Correct! But some would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    • "Not broke", but "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." (essay) It helped a little.
    • I expect legible and consistent markup when I do any editing. When markup is inconsistent, I change it. The important result of editing is good markup (secondary to good content). Diffs? Someone doesn't like my diffs? Diffs are tertiary. Still, I pay some attention to what the "diffs" look like. They are legible and comprehensible.
    • The main MOS page recommends 1RR if not 0RR. You reverted two harmless beneficial edits.
    - A876 (talk)
    I've blocked A876 for 24 hours for pointedly continuing to restore contested copy edits while this ANI complaint was still being discussed, just as the above post threatened to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow up a bit from last night, here are just some threads on A876's talk page which are relevant:
    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)[reply]
    It looks like NinjaRobotPirate will take action if the problem continues, and I would be happy to investigate and see if admin action would be appropriate if the problem continues. That is, I think this can be closed with an invitation to draw my attention to any ongoing concerns. @A876: Please note that irritating other editors is not compatible with a long-term future at Wikipedia. Perhaps they are wrong and your tweaks are great, but it would be still be better to find something else to do because a glance at your talk page shows that you are irritating other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Deacon Vorbis, and think that this is a bit more serious than "irritating" other editors. Just reading some of those talk page discussions in the past is more like infuriating other editors - making pointless changes, then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless? Really? Really? While "refuses to stop making pointless style changes that don't even render to users" is a really dumb reason to be disciplined, the message of "don't do this" clearly hasn't taken hold. A876, you are NOT improving Wikipedia with tons of pointless wikitext style format changes, you are wasting other editor's time and peeving editors who have a preferred style that you're overwriting. This message clearly has not broken through. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply 2:
    •NinjaRobotPirate imposed a 24-hour block on me "just as the above post threatened to do". (Objections: The original post "threatened" no such thing. The comment that followed "threatened" something else. The block does not say which edit triggered it. Deacon Vorbis and I had stopped "edit-warring" long before the block was imposed on (only) me. The block blocked me from commenting here.) The interesting word is "threatened". Maybe admins should simply order me what not to do, in order to save Wikipedia from me. I would be obliged to comply with an order. Maybe that's how Wikipedia needs to be "run", by a hierarchy using threats and orders.
    •I think this has escalated from "I don't like it", "It annoys Me", and "Stop it stop it stop it!" (with the mighty added backing of "You're breaking the RUWELLS!") to "Mommy, make them stop!", and possibly "Daddy, hurt them now!" I sense an urgency to reign in my outrageous disrespect and bring me to heel, by adults who would "discipline" other adults.
    •These cycles usually start after one of my edits, with a casual flick of the Undo button, and persistence. It has graduated this time to a flick of the Crucify button.
    •Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages... For the class of improper capitalization immediately after "[[" but before "|", it's hard to discover the ones which do "affect the rendering of" the page (true miscapitalizations) without addressing the ones "which don't affect the rendering of" the page. Capitalizing consistently with the context of the word is always right, whether there is a "|" or not. Unnecessary capitalization immediately after "[[" makes reading harder, and using "the pipe trick" cannot even create that condition in a piped link.
    •... (and which many people don't even agree with) ... Well, there certainly are a highly outspoken few. Almost every editor doesn't know what I did; most who know don't care; most who care agree; most who don't agree don't disagree; most who disagree aren't annoyed; most who are annoyed get over it; those who can't get over it compound-revert and/or complain. I never complain about their misdeeds except in edit summaries (e.g. "Don't re-break it. Don't compound-revert. Don't edit to make a point. Don't erase other editors.") and in replies to their objections. There are lots of things I "don't even agree with" that I don't mess with.
    •... is disruptive, ... Maybe it is disruptive. And maybe compound-reverting is more disruptive. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing only talks about "content". However, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary says a lot about reverting, that fits quite closely: It says "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad..." "...your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit". "Even if you find [that] an article was slightly better before an edit, [don't revert]." "Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality..." "Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." It is quite clear to me that every revert done to my edits over "mostly unnecessary", etc. changes went against the spirit of Wikipedia in several ways, and deserves be dissuaded, loudly. Other editors who are annoyed by my "mostly unsubstantive", "mostly pointless", "mostly unnecessary" changes are entitled to [express their objections on my talk page] and [express their objections here on WP:ANI], and I am entitled to reply. I have replied, usually friendly, sometimes argumentative, and usually annoyed when they did reverts. Nothing mandates anyone to revert my changes; and several statements strongly urge editors never to do so. Does scanning a few dozen touch-ups hurt them that badly? Can't they "take one for the team" (as obliged) and allow "an editor [to] enjoy the fruits of his crimes", rather than grow indignant, ask me not to, tell me not to, belittle me, revert, persist in reverting, and complain? I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert. I make the markup as consistent as I can, at the expense of creating a one-time "annoying" diff.
    •even if substantive changes are made during the same edit. However, WP:COSMETICBOT says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Okay, they "should not usually be done on their own" (doesn't say "must not", not even here), and I never do them "on their own". Even one "substantive change" puts an edit into the "may be allowed" category. (Sadly it uses weasel-words "may be" instead of "is".)
    •... trying to sift through the changes to see [whether] any of the substantive ones were problematic is more of auditing, not editing. How many people "sift" and audit every change? How many watchers does each page have? Maybe I really am collapsing Wikipedia under the burden of all my "fiddling" if, for example, 100 people review each of my edits.
    •A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted... First of all, it's a consistency thing. Most articles consistently use no-space; inconsistent articles mostly use no-space. I recently found something on Wikipedia urging no-space, to prevent line-breaks from awkwardly putting the closing "==" at the beginning of a line, when the line is made long by multiple {Anchor}s. (Do you actually prefer with-spaces, or are you lawyering for a silent majority that actually cares and "prefers" them?)
    •I am irritating other editors. Oops, add infuriating other editors when I reply in defense my actions. I wish it wasn't that way. Let me try to rewrite that in E-Prime. Whenever someone edits a page, Wikipedia saves a new version. Anyone can examine a "difference" report between any two versions of any page. Some editors file standing orders that make Wikipedia tell them whenever someone edits specific pages. When I edit a page, I edit in markup-view. I make my changes. I like to fix as many details as possible in each edit. I also look at the markup. Because I have to edit through the markup. I find serious discomfort ignoring ugly markup and submitting ugly markup. I call "ugly" any markup that does not match other markup on the same page, markup on other pages, or my general concept of correct and current markup. I mostly reject unnecessary variations of some forms. I tolerate some variations of some forms. The final markup is freer of distracting, meaningless variations of form. I try to make the markup match, as close I (quickly) can, the markup that I would expect to find when I open the page for editing, free from randomness, accidents, and variations introduced by multiple editors. As a side-effect, the resulting "diff"s often include multiple changes that are not visible on the rendered page. Some editors carefully examine every edit of some pages. Some editors take annoyance at seeing multiple non-impactful edits. They correctly state that my edit makes [a little] more [one-time] work for them, when they examine the diff to make very sure that none of the non-rendering changes did any damage to the rendered contents. They dislike a lengthy "diff" despite it resulting from a better page.
    •making pointless changes,... All are pointful, directly and indirectly. Calling them pointless does not make them pointless. I explained the points several times. Not agreeing with the points does not justify saying "pointless".
    •[and] then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless[.] I only said "hypocrisy" in one context. I tell those who revert that they are wrong, because they are. I tell them they are wronger than they think I am, because they are. Reversion is not the way. (See above.) The entire edit is never pointless; it always includes "substantive" changes, so undoing them is a "compound revert". Undoing is not mandatory, is not recommended, and is strongly advised against.
    •Really? Really? Really. Really. Even if the change actually was "pointless" (here taken to mean "did nothing substantive"), reverting it is just as pointless, plus it is more wrong, because it actually is wrong, for multiple reasons.
    •Like everyone here, I don't set out to annoy people. But other people sometimes take annoyance with any of us. What I have been doing is sensible, at least to me and I don't know who else. I am surer now that it is allowable. I am surer now that one should revert such edits. I have tried to answer objections. I might go through and address the latest list of crimes. I refute arguments that apply the wrong rules, condescend, insult, attack, abuse, and repeat false arguments; are insincere (pretend not to see the obvious); claim that random variations of markup spacing somehow represent individuals' "preferences"; or claim that reducing randomness "has no benefit" (it improves readability to find real errors; it makes text-searches less likely to fail). The credible objections allege that my tidying is not worthy of their effort to review/verify/check/audit the one-time hairy edit – it annoys them so much they ask me to stop and/or argue me to stop; some deem it so worthless that they stop mid-review and revert the edit, and persist in that reversion, as if that helps and/or delivers deserved punishment. Perhaps I should not do things that "annoy" others – not make adjustments that some "don't like" and object to – especially not annoy outspoken and "important" editors by cleaning up "important" articles. I don't want to annoy anyone. I already pay significant attention to keep my diffs readable – they could be much worse. The prospect of never cleaning up the crap that so many pages "are comprised of" is quite painful. MediaWiki could (and arguably should) automatically apply a set of adjustments similar to mine. MediaWiki should fully understand its syntax, fully parse every page at edit-time, and replace most optional variations with the one preferred form, leaving minimal randomness and no undetected malformed pages. - A876 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was quite the wall of text. Let me try and be brief and hit the two major points.
    "I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert."
    A876, you're an editor just like everyone else. Your edits are not specially blessed. Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place) or take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). Claiming your edits are always fine but reverts are pointless is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. (That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) If you want to do this as a WikiGnome wander-by "helper", stop. WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless, invisible-to-readers, preferred Wikitext style imposition. And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Reply 3
    •... Your edits are not specially blessed. No one's are. Edits are one thing. However, reversions are specially cursed, so to speak.
    •Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place)... My edits are neither random nor interference. Reversion is random interference. Multiple editors revert with impunity (anyone not criticizing that is at fault) and/or criticize (some abrasively), and one even complained.
    •or [else] take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). False dichotomy. I never argued for anarchy. I do a grain of policing; I value the work of those who dedicate time to it. At-whim reversion is a free-for-all. Wikipedia is not Tinder.
    •Claiming your edits are always fine... I made no such claim. I've learned from post-edits and reverts when someone reasonably felt that I had damaged an article or could have done better.
    •but reverts are pointless... Correct summary in specific cases. Reversion of "mostly pointless" changes is worse than pointless.
    •is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Not a newbie. Not a warrior. And I never made that re-cast "argument".
    •Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. So editing markup is okay, if I do "a lot of" "real" editing? What is the quota?
    •(That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) Is it? I was just told "A876 is not the arbiter...". WP:COSMETICBOT still says "in an edit that also includes a substantive change." ("a" is a very short, simple word.)
    •If you want to do this as a WikiGnome... (thank you)
    •wander-by "helper",... (insult, and scare-quoted sarcastic insult)
    •stop. (Advice, or the command I have awaited.)
    •WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes... (prejudicial)
    •like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless,... (prejudicial)
    •invisible-to-readers,... (again, not all. the process catches many improper capitalizations. every change is visible to editors. and beneficial if you value the markup over the "diff".)
    •preferred Wikitext style imposition. I mostly impose uniformity, and not absolutely. I apply a small grain of preference, usually in the direction of the examples given in the documentation (casing of templates, etc.). "Wikitext style" is almost funny. Oh I'd be so hurt; I added a section "== NewSection ==", which means it shall be "== NewSection ==" forever; that is my style and my section; nobody shall ever dare disrespect me by changing it to "==NewSection=="; and I'm so validated and grateful when someone puts it back (sarcasm).
    •And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. It's rarely one "real" change. What then is the quota? Two? Equal numbers?
    •That wall of text is unreadable. I know, tl;dr. Of course. "That wall of text" refuted every point. (ps Should I add that expression under thought-terminating cliché?) Closing one's eyes preserves PoV.
    •The situation is simple: if you continue to fiddle... (cheap insult)
    •with wikilinks or spacing or anything at all that is inconsequential... (inaccurate and insult)
    •while making drive-by edits,... (again insult - such condescension!) I always intend in principle to get back and possibly do more on any page I edit. I rarely get around to it, but that is another story. Sorry, I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. I edit to make real changes, and I chip away at cruft that is uncomfortable to see and embarrassing to save. Should I be sorry for not valuing diffs over the markup?
    •you will be blocked indefinitely... (the threat, at long last.) (passive voice. try "an administrator will block you indefinitely.")
    •... Feel free to ask (in a brief question) why an editor is not free to edit articles to enforce their standards... Well, editors are "free"; they are pre-warned that "all of [their] contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." (and criticized) and, as with any freedom (ps free moral agency), they should be prepared to face the consequences of any actual misdeeds and crimes (ps that it is possible for them to commit).
    •when they have not significantly created the content,... This evokes a grain of sympathy. Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords, recasts, or reformats "their" work (even though these actions are virtually promised). (ps When 8 people have "significantly created" and 33 people have maintained an article using 11 to 25 different "styles" of markup, none of them should be lastingly irked if and when the 25 "styles" get constrained down to 4. But then someone looks at the diff, doesn't like it, reverts it or doesn't, and rationalizes why I am wrong and they are right.) I've never liked the notion that there are classes of editors, as if some have worth as a person and some do not. Some articles are built or elevated by minuscule edits, but most construction surely comes from people who are informed, skillful, concerned, and have the time. Like all who linger here, I have some of those four qualities, to some extent, some of the time. Even those who value "fun" above "substantial" contribution are tolerated.
    •but attempts to justify that activity will not be successful. And I thank you for keeping an open mind. I've basically mentioned the rules. I'm waiting for someone impartial to advise those who revert like it's a right, do it when it is not needed, and then complain, all over something they "don't like", to tolerate and optionally criticize, but in most cases simply leave it alone. Or at least consider without deference to other admins or to the plaintiff(s), my outspoken "betters". Should I be in a race to say "get over it" before others tell me to "get over it"? To complain before others complain? Or just be faulted for persisting, by others who persist. – A876 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure from the above whether A876 has yet digested the message but I would like to comment on the second-last point with Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords.... That response to my when they have not significantly created the content misses the point, namely, that creators of content are welcome to set a style which others should not change without good reason. If someone creates an article using dmy date formats, others are not free to change it to mdy without good reason such as, that an article on a US topic would normally use mdy. That principle applies to all styles—someone copy editing an article is not free to change its existing style without good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A876, I've never interacted with you before this, and never reverted you. If you are "waiting for someone impartial", then congratulations, you have found one here. Unless by "impartial" you mean "agrees with you." Your interpretation of WP:COSMETICBOT is incorrect, and no amount of voluminous text is going to change that. 99.99% of editors don't need to be taken to this noticeboard on this issue, so hopefully you can understand that even if you think you're "right", in terms of actual community impact, you are stirring up trouble when others are not. You say above that you want to be told to stop, so... please stop. You are "fixing" a non-problem. Let the 25 clashing styles be. It doesn't matter. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot

    Several editors have expressed concern about a Citation bot task activated by AManWithNoPlan, including @SandyGeorgia and Pigsonthewing:, and have been faced with combative responses from AManWithNoPlan. AManWithNoPlan has variously denied all responsibility for the bot's edits, refused to acknowledge that editors have legitimate concerns, accused editors of telling lies, belittled editors by telling them they don't understand what a bot is or what the bot is doing, and bizarrely suggested that the notice at the top of User:Citation bot (which says Editors who activate this bot should carefully check the results to make sure that they are as expected.) does not apply to him because he wrote it. AManWithNoPlan's responses have been unnecessarily hostile and have hampered attempts to address the underlying concerns with the edits. To compound the issue, it has now been pointed out that the bot is reinstating edits that have been reverted by human editors at F. J. Mears. I seriously considered blocking the bot and/or AManWithNoPlan yesterday but I'm not sure which (if either) would solve the problem and I think we'd just be back to square one after the expiry of a short block. Thoughts, anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For a similar situation, see this archived discussion from a year ago, in which all the traits—and more—described by HJ Mitchell were also encountered, despite the pretty basic issue that an LTA was firing up C-bot to troll users, there was a distinct lack of willingness for action. An approach not limited, in all good faith, to AMWNP—plenty of other Talk:Citation bot regulars were equally stone-walling. It became rather bizarre.
    The bot's operator, User:Smith609 should probably be alerted to this discussion; although their last 50 edits go back 7 months, so they may not be around. ——SN54129 10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, HJM, I should have known that you would have already. ——SN54129 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the only person threatened was me in this whole exchange. I was threatened with blocking over another accounts actions. I was falsely told I had been warned multiple times. I was stonewalled when I told people this was the actions of a bot account that I suggested look at some pages. The above complaint contains lies such as claiming I thought I was specifically exempt from the warning on the bot page—I actually said everyone was exempt since it was a lie put there to give people a sense of responsibility that was not real AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need a separate thread to discuss your repeated claims that people are lying? Accusing somebody of lying without evidence is a gross assumption of bad faith and a personal attack and causes great damage to the fabric of our community. That's the second time in less than a week that you've done it, in relation to this same issue. I would thank you, AManWithNoPlan, to strike your accusation of lying unless you can prove that I intended to deceive the community (in which case you should file an arbitration request to have me desysopped), and if you continue making accusations like that without evidence, I will indefinitely block you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The lie was the phrase "because although I have asked many times". It was a simple phrase, but for people to come to my talk page and falsely claim they have told me many times was annoying. I do not think their was bad faith on their part, I just think their is confusion on the difference between a bot and a user script. Secondly, it is not a personal attack since I am avoiding mentioning the user. I find it funny that I was the first person threatened and I am the one accused of hurting the community. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That phrase does not appear in my post. In fact the fist time it appears on this page is in your post. You said "the above complaint" (referring to my original post here) "contains lies". That is a specific allegation that I, an admin with a decade's experience, lied to the community on one of its most trafficked noticeboards. And once again I ask you to strike it or substantiate it with evidence that I intended to mislead. Otherwise I will petition for you to be blocked for personal attacks (and if you make such an allegation against anybody other than me, I will block you myself). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was a lie of another - that is first lie that got annoyed. "does not apply to him because he wrote it" that is a lie - I said it did not apply to anyone, not just me. And that is a huge difference. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "hampered attempts to address the underlying concerns" that is in my opinion misleading, since I kept trying to get the discussion moved to the bot page wherer is belongs, and once it moved there (I moved it, not the others), I dealt with the issues. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AManWithNoPlan, as you are continuing to accuse people of lying, you are now blocked for 24 hours. If your approach to civil discussion continues in the same manner when the block expires, you will be blocked for longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just woken up to this thread. Since I am the editor accused of "lying" throughout (start with the link to my talk page above, which does not include the back story), Boing! said Zebedee give me a few minutes and I will be back with the links to explain why AMWAP says I am "lying", and why I am not. I am also seeing a language problem here: "the first lie that got annoyed"? AMWNP got annoyed? I didn't; I continued to try to resolve, to no avail. Back with diffs. More importantly, can the underlying problem be resolved so that our readers will know when there is a link? Dealing with intransigent bot people (as Serial Number says) has long been a problem on citation bot issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A missing diff in the list above, where I post to AMWNP talk to explain the problem, which was also blanked by AMWNP just before he posted the personal attack on my talk,[22] which he then deleted without retracting, saying "ping done".
    The history of the times I directly pinged AMWNP (NOT the bot) to explain the problem:
    It appears AMWNP was saying I was "lying" because he hadn't gotten those pings (I believe there were more, but I have not looked further into history). There's a failure to AGF there that I decided to overlook. Since it is so difficult to discuss with him, I decided to ignore the personal attack, and AGF myself (that he had not gotten the pings, for whatever reason).
    At any rate, the underlying problem has been very difficult to solve with the bot people. What the bot is doing is confusing and a disservice to our readers, as I explain at user talk:Citation bot and alters the citation style established in an article (which is that readers can tell when free full text is available because the title is blue linked ... I doubt that the average reader knows what a DOI is, nor should they have to troll through DOIs on any article, or articles I write that have 300 to 500 citations to figure out when they can read the free text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember working hard to stop the person using citation bot to troll a user. That was a lot of volunteer time on my behalf. That was a bizarre troll. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    the bot is not reinstating edits. I think that bot accidentally got reactivated on the same pages when my browser crashed and restarted. The bot is exclusion compliant. The edit complaint was about how a specific editor of a page did not want the CS1/CS2 template guidelines to apply to the pages they owned, and not about any destructive edits being done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "the bot is not reinstating edits." It is: Bot makes first edit, removing |url-access=subscription; I revert with edit summary "unexplained removal of url-access= indicator"; bot reinstates edit, fourteen days later, again removing |url-access=subscription (in both cases, the bot edits were tagged "Activated by User:AManWithNoPlan".) You were made aware of this yesterday, in a discussion to which you responded by announcing that you would unwatch the page where the discussion was taking place and again disclaiming any responsibility for the bad edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what the problem is now. Citation bot removed the URL in favor of a unique identifier (|id=). Because the URL was removed, |url-access= was removed; this parameter depends on the existence of a URL. What the bot should have done is replaced |url-access= with another access control indicator. Also, AMWNP should probably stop pretending that the bot is self-aware, making him not responsible for activating it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Stable IDs such as PMID, PMC, Proquest, etc do not need and should not have an access date. Converting unstable urls to stable IDs is a good thing, since groups do move their websites around from time to time, but the stable IDs live “forever”. I am not sure how the bots well-established actions Are relevant to this discussion. I have no control over what the bot does to a page once it lands there, although I do submit bug fixes to the code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate it is a different problem with medical content, that I hope everyone reading here will work to understand, because we are doing a disservice to our readers. Please see the samples here, and look at the actual citations to see what our readers see in each case. Medical journal articles all have a Pubmed identifier (PMID); medical citations can be generated from the PMID. Some journal articles also have a PMC (PubMed Central, free full text) which are automatically included by the citation tool. And then, some other journal articles have free full text that is accessed elsewhere (not PMC), which cannot be automatically included because they are not standardized. PMIDs and DOIs generally go to the abstract only-- not free full text. PMC free full text links are automatically bluelinked in the article title, so on medical articles with PMIDs that have PMCs, our readers see that the title is blue linked (just as on any other kind of article), and know they can read the article (it is not paywalled). For consistency, I indicate when free full text that is NOT PMC is also available, so the reader knows they can access the text. On any article (but moreso an article with 300 citations), we shouldn't expect our readers to know how to or to click through to each DOI to see if free full text happens to be available, when our readers already know what a blue-linked title means. The bot has an inconsistency in how PMC free full text is handled compared to non-PMC free full text.
    What User:AManWithNoPlan has still not answered, although I keep trying to ask in different ways, is how I can get articles I edit, and where he is changing citation style, removed from his sandbox. If he puts a list of articles for the bot to target into his sandbox, can't those be placed on a page I can edit, so I can remove the articles where he is changing citation style? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) NinjaRobotPirate referred to the |url-access= parameter, not |access-date=. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AManWithNoPlan tells me on his talk page that the issue I was concerned about has been corrected. I don't speak bot language, so I am taking his word for it. He has also taken on board the "lying" issue, in case anyone is inclined towards unblocking him. I would suggest, though, figuring out whether he does receive pings would be a good thing. Please see the discussion on his talk, since he is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    if the problem isn't fixed, you could tag the relevant articles with {{bots|deny=Citation bot}}. That should stop people from being able to invoke Citation bot on that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, to continue with how frustrating this has been, I tried that YEARS ago, and multiple editors kept removing the bots deny, saying I could not do that. The frustration for me (I had used manual citations on FAs for over a decade to avoid these problems) is explained on AMWNP's talk. I hope we can get bot operators now to understand the need to dialogue clearly with editors. In the past, the only solution I had was to manually format citations, and I only moved all Tourette syndrome-related articles to citation templates recently, to prepare for mainpage TFA. I thought/hoped that the bot issues I experienced for a decade had been resolved, and it was now safe to use templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I didn't realize there was so much drama going on here. Some of the drama could probably be alleviated if the citation templates were tweaked. For example, if the templates explicitly allowed you to do the sorts of things you want to use them for, Citation bot wouldn't try to fix them. Then you wouldn't have to clash with bot owners. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing to do here: Citation bot is acting according to established guidelines and help pages. AManWithNoPlan has been extraordinarily patient and accommodating in response to users who appear to disagree with established practices; he worked overtime to code the bot differently and use it on different sets of pages and, as far as I can see, he maintained his cool most of the time. Aggressive users who breached civility to attack the well-meaning AManWithNoPlan should be given a hard look. Nemo 09:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the bot had been modified so it was clear who was activating it? If this still hasn't happened, I'd support a block of the bot until it happens. It became clear last year this was needed and it's disappointing this still hasn't happened. If this happened and AManWithNoPlan is indeed the one activating the bot, then I'd support a topic ban on them using the bot. Anyone who isn't willing to take responsibility for their use of the bot has no right to use it. I don't give a flying flip if you own the bot or maintain it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nil Einne yes, the bot does indicate who is making the edits. It is not clear to me where the disconnect was in the communication, but who was activating the bot was indicated all along in edit summary. I suspect the problem was that AMWNP was not receiving pings. The underlying bot problems (at least those I was having) were also corrected, and I hope all fences mended. See User talk:AManWithNoPlan. [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @SandyGeorgia: I've tried to clarify my points in a rewrite, unfortunately I got edit conflicted. If the main problems have been resolved that's a good thing. That said though, communication problems between editors and each side getting annoyed as a result is one thing. That can result in problems but these can generally be resolved as happened here. But I still find it highly concerning that the maintainer or owner of a bot does or did not appreciate the requirement that they take responsibility for when they were activating it. As you highlighted, the idea that other editor's need to take responsibility for their use of the bot (as stated in the bot's documentation), but the owner or maintainer does not is just bizarre. A key reason why the change was requested last year was because the bot was being activated inappropriately and we wanted the ability to restrict this when necessary and knowing who was activating the bot was part of that. However as I said in my clarification, this is probably a discussion for another place. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nil Einne:, I hope that RexxS's post to AMWNP finished driving these points home (the need to take responsibility), although my sense was that AMWNP had already taken on board the problem(s) after his discussion with Boing. And I also have to accept responsibility that my earlier communication was all via the dreaded pingie-thingie, and it probably is not ever wise to assume another editor has received pings. As to the "discussion for another place", every time I go near a bot talk page, I find I have no idea what language the participants are speaking :) I seem to keep asking very direct questions, and getting back answers that are Greek to me. I think the problem I have been having for years is now resolved. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide evidence that 1) removing |url-access= indicators and 2) reinstating edits reverted by a human is "is acting according to established guidelines". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought the bot had been modified so there was a record somewhere of who was activating it? I recall there was some initial confusion since this was misunderstood and instead the edits were carried out bu the user's account which meant that the bot's edits couldn't be tracked etc. I had thought that after the confusion was clarified the plan was to record who activated it without carrying it out on the user's account as was originally intended.
      If this still hasn't happened, I'd support a block of the bot until it happens. It became clear last year this was needed and it's disappointing this still hasn't happened. This case would seem to be another example of why it's needed if someone else is activating the bot and not AManWithNoPlan.
      If last year's requirement has happened and AManWithNoPlan is indeed the one activating the bot, then I'd support a topic ban on them using the bot. Anyone who isn't willing to take responsibility for their use of the bot has no right to use it. I don't give a flying flip if you own the bot or maintain it.
      I don't understand why someone who own's or maintains a bot doesn't understand their need to take resposibility for edits by the bot when they activate it. Frankly I'm not convinced we can trust such a person to own or maintain a bot. But that's probably a discussion for another place.
      Nil Einne (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I've struck the parts of my post which are no longer relevant given SandyGeorgia's comments above and my read of the other discussions suggesting AManWithNoPlan now understand's the need to take responsibility for their use of the bot. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Template causing false error messages on huge scale

    Hi, a recent change to Template:Sfn is causing red error messages on a vast scale, including many that are entirely false. See, for example, Hearts (card game), where all the short references are fully referenced under Literature. I would revert the change under WP:BRD, but the template is locked down. Whatever they are trying to do, it needs to be properly tested before rolling it out and affecting thousands of articles. Bermicourt (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not a template editor, but that change looks as if it's introduced a recursive call. Narky Blert (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Trappist the monk may have short-circuited. EEng 14:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a recursive call; were that the case there would likely be glaring red lua script error messages saying something about lua running out of time.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The error messaging that Editor Bermicourt is complaining about is discussed at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting. For the particular case of Hearts (card game), I have answered editor Bermicourt's similar posting at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting where I noted that yes, each {{sfn}} template appears to have a matching long-form citation but, none of those long-form citations are configured to provide anchor IDs. When there are no anchor IDs for the {{sfn}} templates to link to, they emit an error message announcing that something is wrong. The error messages at Hearts (card game) are legitimate.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime (and before I saw TTM's message), I tried reverting the change and it merely converted all the sfn errors to harv errors, so I've put it back. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These errors are known false positives that have been introduced along with the daylighting of long-standing sfn and harv-related errors (short references without corresponding full citations). We are seeking creative, clever solutions that would help eliminate the false positives while keeping the useful error messages. Anyone with a good idea is welcome at Module talk:Footnotes § Getting error messages when things are working fine. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but, as I've said at Module talk:Footnotes § broken harv link reporting, it's not acceptable to impose new rules retrospectively that result in red link chaos across Wikipedia. When I and other editors started using Template:Sfn there was no requirement to link it to another specific template and it worked perfectly well. Articles like Hearts are properly referenced and there is no mandate on editors to use templates for the long references, so not using them is not an error. So this change should not have been introduced without a wide consensus and an agreed plan to avoid having thousands of new red links. Editors who have special rights to edit locked-down templates need to be particularly careful not to roll out changes that have a major unwanted impact. The edit should be reverted until there is an agreed way ahead that doesn't involve mass manual changes to articles that are displaying references correctly. Bermicourt (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW someone's just changed all the references manually on Hearts (card game) which just hides the problem. But other examples include Black Maria (card game), Black Lady and there are even a couple at the topical article of Wuhan. Meanwhile I have a DYK article in the pipeline which this change has screwed up, so I'm going to remove the Sfn template entirely and stick to plain text. Bermicourt (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This error is appearing on many, many pages. I've spent a lifetime in IT support and the persistence of such a change would never, ever be tolerated. The strategy would be immediate, unconditional reversion of the change. Any attempt by an over-enthusiastic junior developer to try to persist with the bad change would be refused; an attempt at such persistence would definitely be a negative point in their annual review. Following such reversion, we would then consider an alternative way of trying to make progress. In this particular case, we would probably write procedures to look ahead for the places it is going to cause problems and addressing the vast majority of them. In the case of Wikipedia, this is probably straightforward: write a bot to find and transparently fix as many as possible, logging the rest for human attention. Then, and only then, re-introduce the change. (A further run of the bot can then identify (and probably fix) errors that were introduced by edits that were made during the process.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Template:Sfn page itself is full of red error messages -- none (well, maybe one?) are deliberate demonstrations. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, because the template transcludes the doc page which transcludes yet another template: {{Harvard citation documentation}}. This is the can't-see-into-a-template problem. When {{Harvard citation documentation}} is viewed by itself, most of the error messages go away except for the multiple target errors. This can probably be sorted with a parameter equivalent to the cs1|2 |template-doc-demo= parameter.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Error messages no longer displayed in template namespace. Purging of template doc pages may be required.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mixed blessings. I've had many instances where I've had to fix sfn citations that don't work (usually because they aren't anchored to a full citation, occasionally because no full cite has been provided). The red glaring error message should get the point through on how to use sfn properly. Those errors existed long before they became an eyesore. No issue with having a bot run through and fix as many of them as possible (no idea how you'd do that), but it's infeasible for the thousands, nay tens-of-thousands, of instances where sfn has been used and no corresponding entry in the bibliography (or elsewhere) exists. Those are going to be between difficult (if you're literate in the article's subject) and impossible (esp. if you're not) to verify, even by human hand. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So why has this poorly-considered change not been rolled back? Why is it acceptable to break thousands of articles, without a plan to correct the problem by something other than brute force manual editing that simnply corrects formatting issues? Acroterion (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That there are so many errors shows that the links between short-form citation templates and their long-form counterparts have been broken for who knows how long (false-positives excepted). If the purpose of the short-form templates is, as is noted in the template documentation, to link to a long-form citation and that link does not work, then surely, as an editor concerned with the quality of the articles that you maintain, want to know when there is a problem. If you do not see that there is an error, you won't fix it. You cannot now see that there is an error without the use of special tools or without you personally and periodically test each and every short-form link in every article that you maintain. Seems like a lot of work to needlessly impose on yourself.
    So yeah, there will be pain until these errors are fixed but once fixed, then the only time that you should see an error is when a new one is introduced.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this need a red glaring error message? It looks remarkably cryptic, and it gives no indication of how one might fix it. In other words, it requires people to have editing experience, when correctly formatting references is arduous enough for relatively inexperienced editors. I have no problem with correcting the issue, but we need to do it in a way that doesn't present editors with markup jargon. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the error messages were some other color, I suspect that the messages would go unnoticed. I deliberately toned them down from the standard strong form that MediaWiki uses. I chose terse messages because once you know what the message means, you don't need an extensive red error message to tell you what needs to be done. I included a link to help text that I hope explains what the message means. I have admitted many times that I suck at writing help text. Explanations that make sense to me, do so because I wrote the tool so I already know what it is that I intend to say. That thing that I want to say and think that I have said may not be, likely isn't, wholly comprehensible to others who don't have my familiarity with the topic. When I admit to these failings I almost always ask what it is that can be done to improve the help text / documentation / whatever; I rarely get much of an answer. Still, I ask you: how can the help text for these error message be improved? The text is at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors; feel free to edit it to make it more understandable.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of a bot is, I think, problematic. Where there is no long-form citation the bot cannot invent one. Where there is a long-form citation with not quite the same parameters – different date (common), misspelling (common), mis-capitalization (these templates are case-sensitive), different name order (might be same authors, different source, different author priority) what then? Where the long-form citation format chosen for the article is not templated, a bot should not convert those citations to templated citations per WP:CITEVAR. These kinds of errors require that a cognizant human find and fix them. That there are so many suggests that the current tools aren't getting the job done.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re TTM - and this tool is not getting the job done either. In fact, it makes Wikipedia look a mess and is causing huge collateral damage not related to the problem it's purportedly trying to fix. We can all agree that short inline references should be backed up with a long reference, but this template is falsely flagging up dozens of perfectly good cases where a long reference is supplied, it just isn't using a particular template. Bermicourt (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Folks, please be aware that every time I give an example of the issue, other editors are (deliberately or innocently - I don't know) inserting the citation template so the problem goes away. So you may need to look at the article history to see an example of the issue.Bermicourt (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It's deliberate Bermicourt, because your examples aren't false flags. Sfn creates a short, linked footnote which, when clicked on, directs you to the full reference. It can't do that without an anchor. Citation templates have an anchor parameter built in "ref=harv". If you aren't using anchors, then don't use sfn. Use reftags: <ref>Smith 2006, p. 95</ref> There's no point to a link that doesn't lead anywhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    They are false because they're flagging up a non-problem. All they mean is they can't find a template that isn't required in the first place. It's a self-created problem. Sfn never used to require a second template to be implemented - if it had I wouldn't have bothered, I would have used <ref> instead. It's a shockingly badly thought-through software rollout that does not enhance Wikipedia's reputation with readers or editors. Half our articles look like drafts that someone's in the process of marking. Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I cant blame you for not knowing this, but see the {{sfn}} template documentation, Bermicourt: Corresponding edits to the Reference section required; and also the first point under Possible issues (i.e. Wikilink to citation does not work). Sfn does require a second template to work properly: either cite templates or wikicite (or similar). Check the source code for Module:Footnotes, specifically "Target check". Test the links on this version of the article, and then compare this version. Finally, check to see if other articles you've edited appear in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors – the fixed ones won't appear here, but your most edited page Konigrufen does, because: Mayr and Sedlaczek 2016, p. 26. Harv error: link from CITEREFMayr_and_Sedlaczek2016 doesn't point to any citation. There are currently three errors related to citations on Hearts (card game). I see them, because I have them enabled. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the template documentation is wrong. It is not true that {{sfn}} requires some form of citation template. It is true that {{sfn}} requires an anchor ID. Suitable anchor IDs can be created with {{anchor}} so long as the parameters given to that template match what {{sfn}} needs. Don't want any templates, you can, though it isn't recommended, do this:
    <span id="CITEREFName-list-textYYYY"></span>
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I can't find those solutions mentioned in the template documentation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the template documentation doesn't mention something as possible doesn't mean that that something can't be and isn't done. For example this {{sfn}} links to an {{anchor}} template (added with this edit long ago). I haven't seen the <span>...</span> option in the wild but that may be because, as I recall reading somewhere, html in articles is discouraged.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I said it can't be done? And what am I supposed to see in your diff, the template? I said it needed a second template (note, I never said it had to be a cite template; I said either a cite template, wikicite or similar [I'm not going to list out every template that can act as an anchor]). So why are you showing me what I already know? I didn't know that span could be used as a substitute (I don't really understand span stuff anyway), but that misses the whole point. The sfn template doesn't work alone. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so angry?
    This whole sub-thread descends from Editor Bermicourt's complaint that other editors are ... inserting the citation template .... Your response was Citation templates have an anchor parameter... From there it became second template. But, you pointed to Template:Sfn § Corresponding edits to the Reference section required which discusses cs1|2 'or similar' templates (so 'citation' templates). I then suggested that the template doc is wrong and noted {{anchor}} and noted that templates are not required at all, only an anchor ID. You came back saying that {{anchor}} isn't in the doc. I (mis?)understood you to mean that because {{anchor}} is not in the template doc it was somehow disallowed.
    With the diff I merely intended to show that that {{anchor}} had been in use for a very long time (though I don't know why since the adjacent {{cite book}} can create the necessary anchor ID).
    I agree, the short-form templates don't work alone; that was the point of the whole failed exercise.
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you misunderstood. I was affirming that the documentation doesn't mention those solutions, because I checked to see if I overlooked them. Not to assert that they couldn't work. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about the right indentation level to insert this, but (as I first brought up on Trappist's talk page a few minutes after the change) it impacts widely-used templates of the sort that wrap {{cite encyclopedia}}, of which there are hundreds. In most cases, the short footnote was already correctly linked to its citation, and even fixing those that weren't correctly linked, e.g. by adding ref=harv, doesn't address the false pos. David Brooks (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    This template change is clearly causing highly visible error messages on a large number of pages, visible to all readers of those pages. On this scale, this is, in itself and irrespective of anything else, clearly highly undesirable. I propose:

    1. Immediate reversion of the change to restore the appearance of existing Wikipedia articles for the general readership
    2. Proponents of making a change then outline and detail their proposals at a suitable location. This location might be, for instance, WP:PUMP but for now the exact place for that future discussion is relatively unimportant.

    Might we do the usual "support/oppose/comment" thing below. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well it would be, if this didn't have a bunch of false positives, or had a good way to handle them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I just caught wind of this discussion now. I have a non-technical background and leave such matters to those who know more than I do. However, changes to templates should not be implemented that cause massive disruption to the general readership without 1) very good reason and 2) broad consensus. Absolutely revert for now and address whatever the change was trying to accomplish later. Ergo Sum 22:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I remember the {{cite web}} incident mentioned above. I wasted a good hour trying to find out what the devil was going on, and I doubt I was alone. Narky Blert (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Revert immediately and come up with a plan that focusses on those situation where there really isn't a long reference to support a short reference without causing disruption and collateral damage to perfectly well referenced articles. The solution should not impose the use of citation templates everywhere since they are of dubious value anyway in their present guise. Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. @Trappist the monk: please do this now. I have to say I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the way you've been digging in your heels over this issue in the face of massive opposition. Let me tell you that if you weren't an admin but just a Template Editor, I'd be removing that access level from you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Fut.Perf. This whole situation is basically a re-run of the citeweb thing—both in the original "tiny-consensus-on-a-barely-watched-page" and royal disregard for the consequences, to the subsequent refusal to acknowledge there may be a problem and general stone-walling. ——SN54129 09:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – As mentioned, the first point has been handled already. I personally support these glaring red error messages because many editors don't fully know how to use sfn templates. I didn't either when I first started using them, I had anchoring pointed out to me years ago at milhist. The errors are invisible unless you have them enabled. That's probably why there are tens-of-thousands of entries in Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. It is reasonable, though, to try and eliminate as many of the errors as possible before turning on the error messages. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support although I see the change has indeed been reverted: These error messages are opaque jargon to readers, who I suspect greatly outnumber those editors who have heard of sfn. The help text, even if written more clearly, gives a solution that anyway doesn't work for a huge number of cases, and again we shouldn't be inviting casual users to do a highly technical edit. There are many thousands of false positives coming from stacked templates (e.g. those that call cite dictionary). While I'm thinking about it, ignore-err=yes is a misnomer because I'd want to do that in non-error cases; it should be ignore-false-positive=yes. But can someone research a "hunting" tool, even if it requires expanding the wikitext to html (which is apparently how harverrors.js works). David Brooks (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. There seems to be an idea among some people that technical changes are somehow immune from the reversion that is done for other changes that cause problems. They are not. This change should have been reverted as soon as any good-faith editor objected to it, and discussion should then take place without the change being in place. This should have been done yesterday, but as it wasn't it should be done now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The technical change is not creating errors; it is exposing errors that have long existed. This hide-your-head-in-the-sand approach to these errors, decreeing by RFC that we're going to pretend they're not there, is not the way to solve the problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say is true. There are two complaints: it is (or was before being reverted) exposing huge numbers of false positives that need an ugly edit to fix, and the cryptic error message is meaningless to casual readers. There are other ways to solve the problem, although doing so at the wikitext level is hard (if Trappist can't do it, it's really hard). David Brooks (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say is wrong. The technical change is creating errors as well as exposing errors. My complaint is about the false error messages generated even when there is a perfectly good long reference in place using standard text rather than the citation template that is not mandatory anyway. I'm unconcerned about the real errors, although I don't think highlighting them in red for our readers is a smart way of encouraging editors to fix them unless the number of errors were small, which it clearly isn't. Bermicourt (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're in violent agreement, just have a different take on the definition of an error. I meant existing errors in the sense of missing citerefs, and concede that marking a false positive with a red warning is also an error. David Brooks (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unnecessary drawing attention to a problem. Just stick to a less visible indication of the problem. Personally I thing sfn should be deprecated and replaced by ref tags and cite templates. But that can't be done in a hurry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bludgeoning, disruptive editing by User:Selfstudier

    User:Selfstudier has engaged in a degree of bludgeoning at Gaza War that has utterly and completely halted the discussion. This has manifested in a variety of ways:

    • Repeatedly removing a cleanup tag indicating discussion at the article mainpage, incorrectly claiming that a rationale was not posted on the talk page (it was, by me) and then claiming that there was no issue and application of the tag required "consensus."[27] [28] (This is not policy, as I explained to the editor: Tags, accompanied by a rationale on the talk page, indicate an ongoing discussion. The tag is removed when either the issue resolved or, in some cases, editors decide there is no issue. Neither occurred, and there is an even split on the neutrality issue among multiple editors).
    • Dismissing good-faith efforts to discuss content issues regarding neutrality and use of sources, demanding that an RfC be opened. [29][30]
    • Calling the RfC that was then opened "undue" and "malformed" without any specific suggestions, and repeated complaining about the RfC that the user had previously demanded as necessary.
    • Making combative remarks towards other editors and repeated assumptions of bad faith and POV accusations. [31] [32]
    • The user then opens up another "counter" RfC to ask about the WP:TRUTH of a matter on which reliable sources offer different characterizations. See [33]. This discussion was closed by an admin as obviously WP:POINTY.
    • After the second RfC was closed, editor proceeded to make edits to the page regarding the content under discussion. [34].
    • Posting long, multi-paragraph block quotes repeatedly in multiple discussions, and refusing to respect the Poll/Discussion division in the first RfC. [35] [36] [37]

    I've tried to provide as many specific diffs as I can, but it might just be easier to review the discussion threads. I have consulted the user about this repeatedly. This has not resulted in any acknowledgement of the problem. This isn't just annoying, and this isn't just about a content dispute. This user's behavior has caused the page discussion to grind to a halt, despite a legitimate issue regarding content being raised and a small majority of editors interested in addressing it substantively. This user has engaged in a variety of intentional tactics, listed above, to disrupt the discussion, and persists despite warnings from me and others to stop. This can't go on, and if a more severe warning doesn't compel it, then a temporary block should be applied. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Objective3000 In any instance where I applied a tag, it was after raising an issue on the talk page. This is completely proper according to the tag page policy. What is not, and what you have done at this page and others (and encouraged others to do, like Selfstudier in this case) is to unilaterally declare there is no issue and remove the tag on that basis. That is non-compliant with the tagging policy, and disruptive -- it sends the message to other editors that you don't think their concerns are the least bit valid, and would rather shut down any conversation about them. Further, your only contribution to the discussion referenced above thus far has been to egg on the problematic behaviors described. You have shown a tendency to comment on any thread where I am involved, but I suggest you bow out of this one; your behavior has been an issue here as well, and I'd rather address one thing at a time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look up the word unilaterally. [43] O3000 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for your indeed unilateral removal of a tag, in contradiction of WP:CLEANUPTAG, WP:DETAG. A cleanup tag accompanied by a rationale posted on the talk page should never be immediately removed or assumed to be in bad faith. You did that here, though Selfstudier is just more persistent about it and pairs that with other disruptive behaviors listed above; but trust me, I was considering filing a separate report about both of you for repeatedly removing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have threatened me with admin action now six times. This is become boring and boorish. O3000 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THREAT. I do not have the capability to "threaten you" with an admin action, and use of dispute resolution is not a threat. If you are truly "bored," then stop seeking conflict. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Not really other than to say there's a handful of POV editors around the Gaza/Palestine/Israel topic. I'm keeping an eye on Gaza War. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sounds good. Thanks, EvergreenFir. El_C 20:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the monitoring and warnings, EvergreenFir, particularly the closure of the "counter RfC." I think this was necessary to get the discussion back on course. However, as you noted, this editor continued to make contentious to the page after your closure. And note how they actively refused simple requests to keep block quotes out of the Poll section of the discussion and continued adding them after a polite request not to. Absent an acknowledgement from Selfstudier, I am very concerned the behaviors above will continue, if not immediately, then within a couple of hours or a day or two. This has already caused a substantial amount of disruption. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's no further action called for here, I will close it myself and accept that EvergreenFir will be vigilant about future problems at that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to complaint

    Admin action has already been taken in respect of the second RFC since, following my response to an enquiry by Evergreenfir, it has been closed. The presentation in that RFC of multiple RS and quotes therefrom that could not be edited directly into the article while the RFC was running is what the complainant has referred to as "bludgeoning and disruptive behavior". So unless it is that the complainant thinks that the admin has been too lenient then that issue seems moot.

    As for the rest, this is a case of The pot calling the kettle black. Complainant has spent more time in this forum in the past months than I have in 10 years of editing and has been accused by multiple editors of precisely that of which he now accuses me. See here or here. Nor have I ever been blocked from editing.

    I can agree with the complainant in one respect, that this is no longer, if indeed it ever was, a content dispute, it is a dispute between editors with opposing POV. This is a common enough situation in the IP area and I note that complainant has only recently decided to become involved there. Wikieditors preferred method is to delete material and sources, usually from article leads, that Wikieditor doesn't like and add in material that Wikieditor does like and go from there. Here is how the current problem started (Note that the stricture calling for edits to the lead to be discussed first in talk is also edited out). These edits are typically reversed by one or other editor, by Nableezy in this case. There then follows a talk page and editing fuss at the end of which, having failed to garner a consensus, Wikieditor will apply a tag of some description to the article. Earlier examples 2 tags here on 6 February and here on 10 February A tag should lead to a discussion not the other way about. Usually, there is no satisfactory explanation of what a given tag is for or what the problem is and this alone is sufficient reason for its removal. Here is my attempt and Wikieditor response to my moving the article wide tag to the section apparently in dispute.

    In the particular article here, Wikieditor was asked on multiple occasions to explain the complaint. For example, here, or here and finally by way of my final comment at the now closed RFC. Wikieditor has yet to do so. So instead, complainant was asked to start an RFC formally or otherwise but declined involvement in "bureaucratic procedures". Then editor GreenC made some edits and asked Does this address the tag? to which Wikieditor made no reply and GreenC then decided to establish an RFC (my opinion about this RFC does not seem germane to this discussion). In the middle of all this I was accused of being a troll although it was retracted after an intervention by editor SlaterSteven.

    What's the remedy? I suggest an interaction ban, I will not post on Wikieditor's talk page nor directly respond to Wikieditor's comments on any talk page and vice versa. If the normal course of editing anyway leads to problems we can come back here as soon as it occurs.

    Other relevant Diffs:

    10 February Standard Israel-Palestine notification + Disruptive warning re State of Palestine article
    10 February Untrue accusations re the discussion here
    22 March Disruptive warning re Gaza War article

    Mentioned editors will be notified after this is posted.

    Frankly I think both users have been bludgeoning, and I am not sure a IBAN is really going to stop that. I a warning right now, unless there is evidence of long term issues.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that both users have been bludgeoning, agree that an IBAN is unlikely to correct the problem, and agree that a warning is needed for both; although I think there is evidence of long term issues. But, I would also like to see someone explain to W19920 that you should not tag an entire article when you cannot get consensus for a change to one section, or for that matter even tag one section in this case, or demand that a tag cannot be removed when the inclusion of the tag is against consensus. By my count, W19920 has tagged four articles in this manner. There are methods of bringing more editors into a discussion; and shame tagging an article is among the worst. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you present the evidence for long term issues, because if there is a TABN would be appropriate. I have no wish to see another one of those "every 6 weeks one reports the other" scenarios.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think the issue warrants a TBan for either. It’s bludgeoning over multiple subjects, and therefore could occur anywhere. More a matter of not accepting the possibility that your view is the only one possible. The reason I bring up the quick resort to article tagging is that it is essentially stating that my POV is right and I’ll insist the article remain tagged as “wrong” until I get my way. Besides, if every editor that disagreed with something in an article placed a tag at the top, every article under DS would be tagged and tags would be meaningless. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Selfstudier notified two users that have same POV that he has [44],[45] though he notified one user[46] that have different POV.I think its still don't look good.User:Selfstudier why did you choose those users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)

    In two minds if it s canvasing its crap (as they also invited someone who does not agree with their POV), on the other hand they did not invite everyone. Selfstudier you have to ping any involved editors.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was really ready to drop this in good faith. Selfstudier's response, disappointingly, confirms in my mind that I was right to bring this up and the problem will continue. The editor basically accuses me of "POV" by suggesting this is a ("POV dispute", not a content dispute (maybe this is an inadvertent admission of improper POV?) and suggests I "only recently" started editing the I/P area (untrue -- I've edited I/P for several years) as that's a discredit to me. These all seem like more personal attacks, the same behavior that was problematic at the article talk page mentioned above.
    Objective3000 accuses me in bad faith of "shame tagging" for applying an NPOV cleanup tag to indicate the ongoing discussion/RfC? As for my supposed "bludgeoning," I invite anyone to look at my comments on that page, relative to any other editor, particularly Selfstudier, and tell me who's bludgeoning. I made a limited number of points, responded to pings, and persuaded a majority of editors to agree with the content issue I raised.
    I think EvergreenFir is perfectly capable of watching over this, and I agree with everything they've done so far to handle Selfstudier's obvious disruptive tactics. But I believe, based on Selfstudier's "defense" here, that the problem will persist. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmmm! excluding your self I count 4 clear support "votes" and 3 clear no's (none of whom are Selfstudier, who I would argue also does not support it). I am not sure its quite that clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You "would argue" that Selfstudier doesn't support the RfC above? What gave you that impression? Was it the endless bludgeoning and block quotes, the counter RfC, the calling people who supported it POV pushers, or what? Please. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest you strike the word "tactics". O3000 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Selfstudier knew what they were doing and repeatedly and openly disregarded requests to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you are saying moving an article-wide tag from the top to the section under discussion is a "disruptive tactic", and your requests to stop must be followed? Frankly, the tag didn't belong at all. But please realize that the editor was making a compromise. Every accusation you have made here can come right back at you. Kinda the meaning of boomerang. O3000 (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I listed above together was disruptive, including repeated efforts to hide the tag by either removing it or moving it to a limited section of the article. Selfstudier wasn't "compromising" by moving the tag to another section of the article, he thought he was being clever and causing trouble. You can claim "boomerang" as much as you like, but everything I described in my report above occurred, and the fact that an editor would so relentlessly attempt to completely disrupt a discussion they disagree with and continue after an admin instructed them to stop is indefensible and deserving of a sanction, because this is bound to go on. Their response here basically says they view nothing wrong with what they did, and everyone who disagrees with them, including me, GreenC, and others, are just POV pushers. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another gem where, in the same discussion about sources offering different characterizations, Selfstudier both accuses me of POV and shows a real bias: Wikieditors attempted POV editing and subsequent tagging relate to the ceasefire and what happened during it and in particular his not feeling comfortable with Hamas being portrayed as observing the ceasefire, not the conflict in toto, and that is why we are here now. This has been gone over multiple times over the years and if there is anything new to add, I can tell you that time has not worked in Israel's favor. Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your use of the word "hide" illustrates the problem in two ways. Firstly, placing a tag in the applicable section is not "hiding" it. It's where it belongs. And, it's also why I used the word "shaming". It has very little use if it isn't located near the text under discussion. Secondly, you have no reason to believe this was not in good faith, instead of saying it was a disruptive attempt to hide. I opined above that there should be no IBan or TBan. You are convincing me that a break might be useful. O3000 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-neutrally worded RfCs are a continuing problem in this area. As Slatersteven noted in the comments, this RfC is an example. It would be good if admins could crack down on this violation of WP:RFC. Zerotalk 04:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, since apparently none of the above personal attacks, accusations of POV, pointy RfCs, and all-around toxic behavior raises your antennae, could you clarify how exactly the RfC is "non-neutral?" Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you think it would be to your advantage if I commented on the behavior of the participants. In addition to asking a question, the RfC gave "background" that effectively prompts participants how to answer. I've seen more blatant examples, but all except the question and perhaps a verbatim quotation of the disputed diff should be in the Poll or Comments sections. Zerotalk 08:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can comment on whatever you like. What's odd to me is that you would just ignore that and zero in (no pun intended) on how well-phrased the RfC is. GreenC, who opened the RfC, offered a good-faith attempt to structure the RfC in a neutral way, and I"m sure they would attest to that. Nowhere in the RfC's text does it instruct participants "how to answer." The short, factual background provided in the RfC was included because it is a complex issue. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear to readers, I am confident that GreenC was acting in good faith. To editor GreenC: I'll explain in more detail on my talk page in an hour or two; other duties call. Zerotalk 01:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second reply

    Shrike, I did not choose 3 editors for any reason, they are the names that fell out naturally as I wrote out my response. I took the instructions to mean that I had to notify any editors mentioned, that is what I did and I confirmed it at the end of my submission, "Mentioned editors will be notified once this is posted". I am not sure what is meant by all involved editors, would that include editors at the Trump peace plan and State of Palestine articles as well? Only one of the 3 notifys has commented up to now and I do not see much benefit in notifying many other editors at this point. I would just mention that there seems to be some confusion about my usage of the term POV, by this I do not mean bias. One cannot "accuse" someone of having a POV, all editors have a POV, this is as much a given as all sources having a bias and we try to deal with this by attempting to reflect a weighted balance of sources. Anyway, given that Wikieditor was willing to close the complaint without the benefit of a response from myself, one might reasonably enquire why the complaint was filed in the first place? Might we not move on now?

    Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Fell out naturally?" Why wouldn't you tag GreenC? He was a participant as well. Because you supposed he wouldn't be one of your "defenders?" This editor will never fess up to anything. Also, my willingness to close the complaint lessened when you came here and basically accused me of POV again and somehow criticized me as "only recently" becoming interested in I/P (untrue, and irrelevant? Been editing I/P for 2+ years.). Of course, this isn't just about me: it's about all of the participants in that discussion who had to deal with your behavior here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Read wp:boomerang, Yes this can also be about you. I really suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did tag GreenC here and you have now tagged him twice more. I think that is enough now, don't you?Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also read psychological projection. No this is not a PA; it is advice that would serve you well here. You could spend more time successfully gaining consensus and less time on drama boards. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of POV pushing are indeed personal attacks. See WP:NPA. The discussion was well on-track for consensus in favor of addressing the issue I raised. When an editor engages in a sustained campaign to disrupt a conversation, ANI is exactly the place to bring it. It's also something you don't necessarily need to concern yourself with, Objective3000. You seem to become involved at a majority of threads I've either opened or participated in over the past few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count, you have now made this odd inference or outright accusation six times with me alone. I suggest you stop. I'm too lazy; but someone else might keep track of what appear to be attempts to bully. WP:BATTLEGROUND O3000 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Track" whatever you like, and understand that when you show a pattern of following someone around, particularly when it's to harass, pester, and criticize that editor is likely to take notice. Your involvement here has been exclusively to instigate conflict, namely to encourage Selfstudier to edit-war over a tag, and participate in that yourself, on a content issue you haven't even weighed in on in a substantive way. Learn when to back off and stop looking for trouble. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not say I was tracking. I am not following you around. I am not harassing anyone. I am not trying to instigate conflict (quite the opposite). I am not trying to encourage edit warring. I did not participate in edit warring (I made ONE edit, reverting a newish editor I’d never seen before). I am not looking for trouble. These streams of wild accusations are not helping. O3000 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have already pointed out your claim it was going your way is false. "excluding your self I count 4 clear support "votes" and 3 clear no'" with one other user you admit was also opposed, thats a 50 50 split. With no evidence at all it was "heading your way". Yes I think Battleground is an issue here as well as a heavy does of not here and I did not hear that. I think some form of block may now be in order, this is going the same was as certain other recent ANI's I have been involved with and for the same reason. Users who are RIGHT!!!! and will damn well fight tooth and claw to prove it. This is now getting disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Objective3000, your actions say otherwise, and now you've convinced me to start keeping a log of it. Slatersteven, What you are arguing is irrelevant, and you are not quoting me. I described a slight majority in favor of the arguments I posed. Which there is, according to the vote count. Not that it matters, because Selfstudier's actions were out-of-bounds regardless. Consider whether or not you would be defending the behavior if an editor you substantively disagreed with had acted in the same way (I doubt it). Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the part where I said you were both at fault, and that you should both be warned? If you carry on this way you are gona get a block. I am bowing out now, but I think a block is now in order.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I previously agreed with a warning for both and am also bowing out. At this point, I suggest a block for W19920 WP:IDHT WP:CIVIL WP:AGF. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    And where is the mutual fault here, exactly? I raised an issue with content in the article and began a discussion about it. Another editor agreed and opened an RfC. Then Selfstudier, in addition to the behaviors above, opened a "counter RfC" and proceeded to bludgeon both discussions. I didn't even comment on the second RfC except to note it was disruptive; an admin agreed. Objective3000, Calling for baseless blocks is bad karma. If you have a bone to pick, I suggest you bring it up with me directly on my talk page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingsif reported by 79.109.111.97

    Moved from WP:AIV
     – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism in [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. Hello, I know that I am only one IP address. I would like to report the user Kingsif due to manipulate the nationalities of several people. That user replaces the spanish nationality by others that are not valid (regions like Catalonia or Valencia) because these user has a catalan independence ideology. I would like to warn the user of non-compliance with the rules and that will be restored to the articles referred to above, the Spanish nationality. Also note that the user in bad faith i falsely denounced to provoke me locking a day in wikipedia. 79.109.111.97 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) I Add: If you tolerate that people with Spanish nationality appear in the articles with the nationality of their regions it's the same like if you're English the nationality of Churchill is "South East England" instead of Britain. Or if you are American, is the same as the nationality of Obama is Hawaiian instead of American. No article of a spanish famous (of the most guarded by users) comes another nationality other than the Spanish (and the same with the rest of the nations of the world). 79.109.111.97 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY, which all involved should probably follow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like that you send a warning to the user Kingsif and say clearly what is the nationality of those people (Spanish) to avoid a possible war of editions. I fear that the user take advantage due is a registered user and I only one IP address to impose his criterion even if it is wrong only because of his political ideology 79.109.111.97 (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reported this IP at AIV, and it was quickly blocked, because from the edits it is clear to see that the changes being made by the IP were to people who were Catalan/Valencian in the past when those areas had autonomy. People can also still be ethnically Catalan/Valencian/Aragonese. They also made one edit that was blatantly discriminatory towards the independence movement, rather than treating it neutrally. All of their edits are changing such things to say 'Spanish', which is a form of vandalism when there's been no consideration of context, etc. Regarding that paragraph above; comparing Spain to other countries with wildly different systems of nationality and politics in such simple ways is ridiculous. Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Today it is absolutely false that there is Catalan nationality or region of Valencia. There is only the Spanish. Another thing is the ideology of each, he has already become clear what is yours (Catalan independence - Catalan countries). Why Pau Gasol or Calatrava appear as spaniards and not as Catalan or Valencian people? I tell you i: Because these articles are much more guarded by other registered users and would not tolerate a nationalist manipulation as well. 79.109.111.97 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dude, you wereare editing bios of historical people. Also, per MOS:ETHNICITY, Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability - in terms of Miquel Bauçà, at least, he was a Catalan-language poet from the deprived Mallorca during the time of Franco when these identities were suppressed. That's very relevant to the subject. Are you somehow blind to the fact that you're obviously trying to whitewash (Spanish-wash) these histories? Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • And evidently, since at least two other users have reverted the IP within the last hour, one trying to discuss at its talkpage, it really is obvious. Kingsif (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that the IP is a logged-out editor with a history of changing en masse biographies that are notable for specific regions of Spain (mainly Catalan) and removing the region and replacing it with Spain. I am not bonded to the issue, and I recognize Catalan is part of Spain. But, if a biography of Antoni Gaudí is about how the subject was a student and proponent of Catalan architecture, it makes sense to describe him as from Catalan. Ifnord (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, I didn't know that. But, yes, separate to the Catalan issue, this ANI's purpose is asking did I do anything wrong? I reverted obvious SPA vandalism, reported it, an admin checked the behavior and blocked the IP. The IP is clearly, seen below, pissed about the block. Which is no reason to report someone, neither is my max. two reverts per page of their at least very controversial edits. I only came to add this kind of comment, I don't want whoever is reviewing this to just see debate about the ethnicity thing, so I'll gladly wait now. Kingsif (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surprised, you revert me without giving explanation, you can block and affirm that I am a vandalism. Well, maybe the vandalism with such behavior are you. I put the reasons for my edits, not you. I never wanted you to block, only to be reminded of you that your edits are deliberately misleading due your catalonian independentist ideology. 79.109.111.97 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will repeat as many times as you lack that I refuse to be in wikipedia data are added to false. There today, neither in the past, a Catalan nationality or region of Valencia. In the future, perhaps, but in the past did not exist because neither Catalonia, Valencia, nor neither Mallorca were independent states. In addition there is a clear contradiction that does not explain because don't appear the supposedly nationality "catalan" or "valencian" for another people born in the same region as Pau Gasol or Calatrava instead of Spanish nationality. The user who complains that just modified "Catalan nationality" instead of other regions is very simple. In other Spanish regions there is no independence nationalism and therefore there is no wikipedians erasing the spanish nationality to put that their regions.
    Finally I would like to remind you of bad faith on the part of the user Kingsif, who reverted me without giving explanations and caused me a ban of a day quickly without being able to defend. 79.109.111.97 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At its core, this is a content dispute which WP:ANI cannot resolve. Desist from any and all WP:PAs, do not edit war, do not make mass changes, follow MOS:ETHNICITY, follow WP:BRD, and discuss civilly on talk pages when you disagree seeking WP:DR as neccesary. I noticed that many of the diffs above concerned WP:BLPs accordingly I have issued DS alerts to both involved parties, I advise you to review them carefully. 79.109.111.97 be advised the alert applies to you as a person, your IP will inevitably hop, but your behavior will make it trivially easy for admins to note your awareness of these sanctions. If involved parties want to discuss several articles simultaneously WP:BLPN is available. There is already a thread there on a semi-related issue you can model your discussion after. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    While I thank the Spectrum IP for their comments, I believe that issuing me an alert like that was wholly unnecessary and, in this situation, implies that I did do something wrong, when I demonstrably haven't. It has been removed from my talk page. Please understand this is with the best of intentions, as I do not wish to be marked for one vandal IP throwing a tantrum. Kingsif (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: Those alerts are not meant to be, and should not be taken as a mark of shame, but serve a procedural purpose only. Honestly I don't like them either, but despite several rewording attempts to make them seem less hostile It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date, the overall result still leaves something to be desired, if you have any suggestions to make them better feel free to throw them out there at the appropriate forum. All that said, the current alert is good for one year, but if you wish to avoid them in the future you can use {{Ds/aware}} for whatever alerts you specify up to and including all of them. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D: Thanks - the wording isn't as bad as other template messages (commons is notoriously awful), but I still prefer non-templates in general :) Kingsif (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kingsif: Agree wholeheatedly, if it were up to me placing a short message accompanied by a link to the relevant information would be sufficient. But then again if I were the absolute despot overlord of Wikipedia the entire DS system would be overhauled from top to bottom. Also didn't anyone ever tell you IPs are immune to pings =P (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To breach making this a forum, we've got to say you're not a very IP, IP Kingsif (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation of others' User pages by ธนบดั เมืองโคตร

    Reported user indeffed as WP:NOTHERE - nothing more to do. GirthSummit (blether) 16:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Can anyone take a look at ธนบดั เมืองโคตร (talk · contribs)? They have created dozens of User pages that don't belong to them but to other random(?) people. I don't know what's going on but their own User page strikes me as WP:NOTHERE (or possibly compromised). Nardog (talk) 10:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think you should be allowed to create other people's user pages. I came here to report this same thing. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed by Bbb23. Deor (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Potential CIR issue

    (non-admin closure) TakDin has received a one week block, and some copyright violations have been addressed by admin. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Despite an editing record of nearly 2 years, TakDin appears to be unable to understand that their edits are disruptive or doesn't care. Here you can see them performing the same test edit over and over despite my edit summary when reverting and my attempt at discussion on their talk page. Though they have received prior warnings for unconstructive editing and I can't say it for certain, my suspicion is that this editor lacks the competence to edit here, at least at the English version. Robvanvee 10:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm taking a quick glance over other edits of theirs, not seeing anything as severe. Mostly stuff like this, which, while great, doesn't quite fall into WP:CIR territory. They are editing from their phone, which does make it a bit harder to see edit summaries and may be why they're not seeing how they're screwing up the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, just needed a 2nd opinion. If you reckon it's negligible that's good enough for me. Cheers. Robvanvee 10:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing from a phone does not give someone a free hand to ignaore warings or to edit war. They are continuing to edit war to keep adding their random pictures of some unknown celebrity's feet to the article. Can someone apply a block or suitable protection to stop the disruption?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Has removed the copyright tag from File:Namik Paul 2.png 4 5 times now - clearly doesn't understand the requirements. Also edit wars to keep these strange images in articles - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. I'm sorry if I intrude but this diff is great: [53] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't work out if he's fetishising feet or height. Narky Blert (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    lol well, looks like he is determined to keep those feet...he just reverted again! Curdle (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my concerns were not unfounded. Also, imo, a prerequisite to competence would be the ability to reply to warnings/messages/concerns on your talk page, something this editor has yet to accomplish. Robvanvee 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who can blame him/her. Just look at those feet! And Namik is really THAT tall. Jokes aside this whole thing seems clearly problematic to me but I'm just a bystander.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked for a week, and I've speedy deleted the two several obvious copyvio images (under WP:F11, with a hint of IAR over the seven days thing as the non-permission is so blatant) - one was claimed to be "own work by screenshoting". I've asked them to respond to the issues raised, but if they don't and the problems recur when the block expires, feel free to let me know and I'll deal with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And, having looked back over their talk page and seen copyright violations stretching back two years, I've upped the block to indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Misuse of User Talk Page

    (non-admin closure) The editor's talk page access has been blocked. Nothing more to do here. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has been blocked for spamming their Twitter name and trying to make people look at some nonsense theory about Covid19 and/or the Antichrist (I'm not really sure what it is) on Facebook. They continue to make vaguely/incoherently threatening edits to their User Talk page e.g. this, this threat to kvetch about a Wikipedian off-wiki, this and whatever the hell this is. I suggest yanking their access to the Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed TPA. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

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

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

    Boud, that's only three edits. The second and third edits in your list are the same diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My error. Fixed. Now I see that the third "removal" was not actually a removal; it created hidden-by-default, viewable-with-a-click maps, but Ythlev didn't give an edit summary to explain. I'm not fully convinced that a block is necessary; it depends whether Ythlev intends to continue aggressive editing of a COVID-19 page without letting the active editors come to consensus. Edit summaries and using the talk page to concentrate on arguments for/against are what are needed. There's also a problem with others having to tidy up proper attribution for using ODbL data, but a block would not solve that. Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that if the issues are solely on COVID-19 pages then a topic ban would probably be more appropriate than a temporary block, I’m not sure thats necessary though from what I see here and in Ythlev’s edit history. Do you have any examples of disruptive behavior on pages other than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No; his/her edits (per capita maps) seem to have been accepted on several other COVID-19 pages with no obvious objections. I get the feeling that Ythlev has been involved in some edit conflicts on Taiwan/China issues, but that's a separate topic. Maybe if @Ythlev: joined in the discussion here the temperature might cool sufficiently... :) Boud (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ythlev: does not seem to be willing to apologise for making a personal attack "in front of" the other participants at the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page - the point is not so much for me personally, it's rather to make others feel willing to participate without fearing aggression. Nor does s/he seem willing to come here and discuss with uninvolved admins present: @Grandpallama and Horse Eye Jack: (I didn't actually check, but I'm guessing you're admins since you're watching this page), but s/he does seem to have accepted that there's a structured decision-making procedure ongoing. See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland#New map?. I think that if things remain constructive for another few days, then this incident should probably be closed. (I do admit being puzzled how someone can be unwilling to apologise for having made a personal attack.) Boud (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin. I don't think any admin has yet commented in this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Date changing IPs from Poland

    A date-changing vandal has been using IPs from Poland for at least 13 months. Can we get a rangeblock on Special:Contributions/37.248.210.0/21? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Willy on Wheels sleeper socks

    JavaHurricane WP:SPI is thataway →. –Davey2010Talk 16:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. While going through Special:ListUsers for a few specific cases, I came across a large number of blatantly obvious sockpuppets of the banned user Willy on Wheels, along with a large number of abusive user names. While I reported a few users on AIV, seeing the large number of users still unblocked, I thought it would be better to report this issue on ANI so that admins can take the appropriate actions as needed. -- JavaHurricane 17:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're reporting particular users, which ones? And why report sleepers at all?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A list would be useful. Quietly blocking sleeper socks is productive; it prevents future vandalism and causes the vandal to expend effort with no attention reward, discouraging their efforts overall. -- The Anome (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting at ANI is hardly quiet, and sleepers are normally blocked by CUs with technical evidence when checking other users, not in this manner.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    George Ho acting like the owner of article Second Cold War

    not an admin issue. Disputants are reminded to discuss the matter on the talk page, and seek extra help as described in WP:DR. --Jayron32 15:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:George Ho keeps discouragi g users from adding information that follows WP:RS and removes crucial information like all the North Korea missile launches 2017-2018, the Iran crisis, the US test firing their first missile since the 80s after leaving the INF treaty. Then he removed multiple well sourced information regarding the Sino-Australian tension.. by as with [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=9137000353&oldid=913679160] . To him cold war simply is a military conflict between US vs China/Russia when the original cold war was more a competition between east and west which also included space race, sports, etc. He refuses to add the US China trade war and also does not allow information regarding the fight against ISIS. More of his removal of accurate information to keep it the way he personally prefers: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=923390233&oldid=923386728] and [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Cold_War&diff=937409460&oldid=937393617] and so on. He doesn't even allow editors to reach consensus and acts like what should be included is solely his decision bsased on his personal views just because he has been on wikipedia a long time. Does he have the right to monopolies the article? I won't say anything else regarding the matter. I request admins to review the edit history of Second Cold War since at least 2016 to 2020 and see George His abusive behavior. I won't say anything further here, I leave it completely to admins to judge.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.122.34 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please be advised that while a ping is usually adequate, in this circumstance you are specifically instructed to put an ANI notice on the talk page of the user you are reporting. I have already done that for you but in the future keep in mind the notification requirement at the top of the page is not a suggestion, it's mandatory. Thank you. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh! That article is simply a mass of WP:OR. Anything George Ho might have done pales into insignificance when compared to all of that junk. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Must I further respond to the filer's assertions about me? By the way, the oldid "9137000353" has an extra 0; the correct oldid number should have been 913700353, like this. George Ho (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @George Ho: Must I further respond to the filer's assertions about me? In a word, no. More generally no one can ever compel you to edit. What I'm seeing here is a series of old content disputes over an extremely messy article. Not sure why this was suddenly brought here now, but the same advice applies to all parties as always, discuss on the talk page as part of WP:BRD and seek WP:DR if unable to come to an agreement while remembering to focus on content. Frankly I'm surprised this thread hasn't been closed already. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Report editor because of connection to subject.

    (non-admin closure) Reporting editor has received advice on talk page. Nothing more to do here. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi admins, When browsing drafts I discovered the Draft:Bradeyland When looking at the page edit history and more specificaly the page creator I wasn't suprised to see the username showing strong signs of connection to the subject User:Bradeya888 This clearly goes against Wikipedias guidelines - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

    Note: A very similar username is seen on another website, yet again editing a wiki about himself. Link: https://bradeyland.fandom.com/wiki/Bradeyland?action=history

    Please block this user.

    Thanks, --Cavan Hill (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see my response at your talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pancho and Lefty

    Could I get a little help over at Pancho and Lefty please? I'm a bit too involved and it's become rather a mess. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack by unregistered editor at Talk:San Francisco State University

    Can someone please drop a line with our unregistered colleague who is editing San Francisco State University and its Talk page? He or she is welcome to express an opinion and I don't mind edits and discussion getting passionate at times but labeling me a "bigot" crosses a line. He or she most recently edited from 2605:E000:93C1:5B00:3466:31EC:4BB6:4AB2 but has changed IP addresses several times. (Additional opinions about the underlying content dispute are also welcome but not the focus of this request.) Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recurrence of serious vandalism on band articles by User:188.141.87.103

    (non-admin closure) IP has been blocked for one year Lightburst (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This guy is simply making things up on a depressingly regular basis, and is clearly not going to stop. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for a year by Bbb23. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (non-admin closure) Katanamaru has been indefinitely blocked Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Back in September of 2019, singer-songwriter Sam Smith came out as non-binary and indicating their preferred pronoun choice. Wikipedians at large were fairly quick to update references to Smith sitewide, and I personally updated the page for I Won't Back Down, the 1989 Tom Petty single which led to a brief dispute involving Smith.

    Since then, on numerous occasions (12/31/19 18:19 & 18:20, twice at 08:17 on January 5th, and 01:00 March 25th, user Katanamaru made edits changing Smith's pronouns to "it", in an attempt to demean the singer's identity.

    User's contribution history sitewide is all minor grammatical edits, plus another vandalism incident.

    This has clearly been ongoing since December. It was reverted after all three occasions, however, it remains clear Katanamaru has no intent of stopping. Something needs to be done. KingForPA (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is strange. @Katanamaru: the subject of the articles you've edited, Sam Smith, would like to be referred to as "they/them". Why do you feel it necessary to refer to Smith as "it"? —MelbourneStar☆talk 08:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    (non-admin closure) Editor has been blocked for 60 hoursLightburst (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuvash_people&action=history

    As can be seen from the history page, a user calling himself Vaultralph has repeatedly tried to revert an ethnic gallery on the Chuvash people page, despite multiple warnings against it.

    In his first reversion of the gallery I removed, he gave no explanation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuvash_people&diff=948080578&oldid=947954003

    Second time, he gives this explanation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chuvash_people&diff=948264942&oldid=948158102

    "Returning deleted pictures, that in fact contribute to the quality of the article"


    In his most recent restoration of a gallery, 2 April 2020 he included many of the old images and simply renamed the gallery "Famous Chuvashes". He typed nothing in the edit summary. I am seeking the opinion of the Administrator noticeboard whether this is approproiate or whether it violates MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. - Hunan201p (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Move RFB request

    Hi, Could an admin move User:ZLEA/Requests for bureaucratship/ZLEA back to Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/ZLEA and then delete the latter redirect,
    I assumed all joke RFA/Bs were moved to userspace but judging by the 2019 April Fools page apparently not,
    Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I think your first instinct was the correct one. These have always been moved to userspace when the madness is over. I've deleted th project space redirect. If there are other joke RFX's in project space, I guess you/we should ask first before doing a mass move, but I really don't think that's where they should live. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Floq, Genuinely surprised my instinct was right for once lol,
    Having looked at 2019, 2018, 2017 there seems to be a mixture between userspace and wikispace,
    Once the crisis is over I'll have them all moved (maybe via RFC or RM), I feel like the AFD idiocy is the least of admins worries right now,
    Many thanks for deleting the redirect and for your help, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    82.206.29.66 disrupting Talk:Bates method

    (non-admin closure) Editor has been blocked for 31 hoursLightburst (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SPA ip jumping in and disrupting an already difficult discussion at Talk:Bates_method#"Ineffective"_and_sources, where WP:ARB/PS applies.

    I'm not clear what the proper warnings are for such disruption, and am guessing it might be too complicated for AIV.

    Basically, this ip has come along and disrupted the talk page discussion. I've collapsed it, and reverted the subsequent addition, which ended with You are just pompus, book burning thugs, who bully people. Not science. Thugs. Evil and destructive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Collapse and removal of the worst text endorsed and restored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated. I was considering asking for oversight. I'm not clear where the line is on such disruption. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:ValequezBot

    Do not ever run unauthorized bots. No reason to block Rodrigo Valequez as the damage was minimal and unintentional, but please note that you CAN be blocked for doing this so please refrain from doing it again. Others have pointed you to the proper channel if you want to run a bot in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I don't see an approval for this bot. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ​​Greetings, I’m the operator of the bot. I was running a few tests in order to see if any bugs were present. I’ve been developing the bot for some time now but something happened with the coding, Wikipedia was open in the background and the bot somehow gained acces to it. It made 4 unconstructive edits and I wasn’t able to shut it down, I tried to delete the code which resulted in my computer crashing. I’m sorry about all the inconvenience which was caused by my bot. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot blocked. The explanation sounds strange to me, but it might just be the phrasing of the explanation that makes an understandable mistake sound strange. A bot does not "somehow gain access". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rodrigo Valequez: You might want to go over to WP:BRFA to get a bot approved. Thanks! --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 21:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ​You may as well block the bot, I’ve already deleted it’s code. I just want to state that I don’t know much about bots myself. I only wrote a small portion of the code, I’m not that good of a programmer. That’s probably what caused the bot to make the unconstructive edits. I replaced some of the code and tried to make it clear that “helo” was meant to be “hello” during a test, then the bot started to change every word with “hello”. I wasn’t intending to vandalize anything. Sorry for the inconvenience, Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Puddleglum2.0:, the code wasn’t complete yet. Rodrigo Valequez(🗣) 21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

    Legality of bestiality by country or territory: Germany

    There's a dispute about the legal status of bestiality in Germany that has already run for two months now (29 January to 28 March on talk page). I had contacted WP:DRN in the middle of it, which didn't help resolve the issue (quickly closed, re-opened following my request, discussion began, automatically archived away after moderator disappeared into nowhere, re-surrected following mine and other requests, no one new volunteered to moderate it, hence declared as failed by me, re-opened by someone else to at least prepare an RfC) [54]. The following WP:RfC brought hardly input from editors who had not been involved already anyway; it didn't resolve the dispute. [55] The article was reset to the pre-dispute state by so. else [56] but User:Delderd would not accept it and an edit war (which I had avoided whenever my edits had been reverted before) occurred between him and me.

    The underlying issue is that the law in question is worded ambigously and there is conflicting news coverage about the legal situation in Germany, with superficial English news sources mostly suggesting that it would be illegal, whereas the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany explained in a rejection of an appeal against the law that the prohibition only applies when the animal is forced with physical violence or similarily. Both the German primary source and multiple German secondary sources are available, including a nation-wide news paper and multiple sources specializing in law. Additionally available is German news coverage of a verdict where someone was not convicted of bestiality although proven to have committed it, which clearly stated that there is no law against this (person was fined, but only for trespassing). Sources with quotations for convenience in this diff: [57]. There is no single source that would show that anyone has been convicted for bestiality without injuring or forcing an animal violently.

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

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

    How to solve this quickly and finally?

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

    Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany.
    in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.
    time
    bbc•
    Thelocal.de
    meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal.
    Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal.
    furthermore, their old edits on the zoophilia article (“not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality“), and their recent statement about it being "original research" that animals can't consent to sex with humans, has me questioning their objectivity on the subject. Delderd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No original research. I provided numerous sources, including quotations [58]. There has never ever been a dispute that the Federal Constitutional Court rejected an appeal against the law! This is a total distraction. Why did it reject the appeal though? Because the law only bans forced bestiality and that is justified. The Federal Constitutional Court explains this in their press release for example [59] and it is also in the secondary sources I provided. Here is hoping that someone at this noticeboard can read German, because this is about German law and the German Federal Constitutional Court.
    Side note concerning Delderd's links – The AP quotes the law as to be about forcing the animal and that protecting animals from sexual assaults is legitimate. No dispute there. The same in the BBC article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. The same in the TIME article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. Nevertheless I do recognize that the overall impression of these superficial, short, English articles may be misleading. This is why it is important to look at the thorough German sources I provided.
    Delderd getting personal instead of staying on topic is inappropriate. – Ocolon (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    how is it off topic when the subject is bestiality? you're trying to sound impartial here when your previous comments suggest a bias towards the issue. Delderd (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It should be based on the best available sources as per wikipedia's content policies. I think an outside editor(s) should decide which version best fits with Wikipedia's policies. Shiloh6555 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's an "outside editor"? There is no version that will be allowed after the RfC gets closed with the no consensus except the version that was before the dispute. The status quo ante version.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    aka the version you voted for even though it has less votes. Delderd (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the version that was before the RfC. Before the dispute see WP:STATUSQUO. Also, the amount of !votes don't count.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    • Just a note. I was not part of this editwar. Six days ago there was an editwar between two editors and I decided to revert to the stable version before the dispute happened but I was reverted and I didn't make any revert after I was reverted. I noticed a technical error in that article and went to WP:TVP and reported it (see here and here for more details). After that, in WP:TVP they suggested that I replace flag icons with emojis. I went to the article and replaced the image icons with emojis and I got reverted by Shiloh6555 without even an explanation here so I reverted back and asked for explanation for this revert. I am not part of this editwar. I just made my opinion in that RfC based on discussion of the RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mein Liebchen
    I started the RFC at the request of some of the parties, after no one mediated the dispute at DRN. My main thought is that any claim that any particular German has been engaged in bestiality is probably a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I'm going to try something different. I'll do a soft block that says the account has been blocked to having a username that gives the impression of not being here to contribute constructively. That allows the editor to instantly create a new account. If the new account becomes a constructive editor, that's good. If this person comes back with a new account named something like "CoE sucks and you'll never stop me from editing", we can do a hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @NinjaRobotPirate: Very well; I suppose that works, as I highly doubt they'll be coming back for anything other than soliciting for their lawsuit. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I've deleted several of the hoax drafts per WP:CSD#G3 and left a warning. I feel like this might be sufficient to curtail this behavior, but if another admin feels a block is justified (e.g., if this is related to a long-term abuse case of which I am not directly aware), feel free to do so. --Kinu t/c 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend a one-month block. This user put a lot of effort into the hoax articles that have now been deleted. Which pretty much rules out any excuse based on carelessness or newbie mistakes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rangeblock needed

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

    @Girth Summit: This is an LTA sockpuppet we've been dealing with since late September 2016, and it's possible it was going on long before that. That's just when I got involved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen and User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. IJBall can probably give you some more details in that regard as he is the one who came to me for assistance after he noticed I ran into the sock around that time over on Legendary Dudas. See User talk:Amaury/2016#Need some assistance. And if you do a CTRL + F for "Orchomen," you'll notice plenty of other discussions on the matter, not only in my 2016 archive, but in my archives for 2017 through 2019 as well. Note also that these are only the discussions on my talk page about the matter, it's been discussed elsewhere, too. Amaury • 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amaury, thanks, I saw some of that stuff. If they resurface and I'm around, feel free to ping me for a quick block - although, as noted above, someone with better rangeblock skills that me would probably be a better bet. Black Kite - don't suppose you could point me at a Rangeblock 101 primer so I can up my game? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally use this. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of Manual of Style and WP:NPOV

    Blocked by Floquenbeam.

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


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

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

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

    (Uninvolved) The only behavioural concerns on display here, MusenInvincible, are regarding your editing. Thanks for pointing us to the recent RfC which went against your rather niche interpretation of WP:NPOV/WP:WTW and was closed only last week—wholly correctly and in observance of the consensus against you—by an uninvolved administrator. It was unwise, though, to continue to re-insert the same material that that RfC had decided against including in the article...and filing here half an hour later. ——SN54129 16:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly the point I made on their talk page [[60]] long term edit war, ignoring consensus and bludgeoning. Clearly fighting the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. "You can't do that, cause I already report it" sounds like this is getting a retaliation in first. And I note the warning on bludgeoning from Bishonen and that Doug Weller applied the relevant DS notices. The question, then, seems to be not whether there's disruption, but how widespread it is; and, concomitantly, whether a block from the page or the subject itself is required. ——SN54129 16:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you think It was wise, though, about behavioral concern of several editors who violate NPOV with Manual of Style, and remove well-sourced addition from a professor [61]??? — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out [[62]] MOS does not have a blanket ban on the use of the word terrorist. So we also have cheery picking wikilaywering.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MusenInvincible, perhaps this sort of argument would be best initiated over at the Islamic terrorism article. We have an article with that title for a reason, much the same as we have one for Christian terrorism, etc.--MONGO (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MusenInvincible, Please just accept consensus. This has already been discussed in detail and the thread closed. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your addition was not sourced. No competent source would write "19 suicide aircraft hijackers", as it's a nonsensical statement. Boeing 757s do not commit suicide, and cannot be described as "suicide aircraft", nor then could someone hijack a "suicide aircraft" which is what that phrase would describe. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just blocked them for 1 month for "edit warring and disruptive editing, pretending to be amenable to discussion but ignoring the result when consensus is against you, and wasting the time of other editors. Previous block for edit warring evidently didn't get the message across. See WP:IDHT." No more coddling a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, fair enough. It was rather a litany... ——SN54129 16:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Patapsco913

    A possible case of WP:Canvassing and meatpuppetry, soliciting other editors with likely same views [63] [64] to jump into a couple of articles I A7ed to circumvent the editorial process and remove the tags since Patapsco913 was the creator of those articles. I have nominated all 3 articles for deletion. Maurice Kremer, Milton H. Biow, and Joy Silverman. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=948906418"