Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1033

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

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

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

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

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

Oh the irony of puppetry happening at Frank OzRavensfire (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Jingiby

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am deleting this file sharing-piracy website from articles so why is this person adding them in???he is only reverting all my edits. [1][2] THIS IS ILLEGAL! PROMACEDONIA / KRORAINA ILLEGALLY HOSTS AND SHARES COPYRIGHTED WORKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelTopalov (talk • contribs) 17:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes, I am, Beeb. The first thing I told Parabellus, four days after they started editing, was that I thought it obvious that they weren't a new user.[3] But it doesn't sound like you've found a master for them, I guess? PS, I've just blocked another sock who edited this thread,[4] and rolled back their edits. Bishonen | tålk 19:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC).

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations of bad faith-editing on article with sanctions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack from CaradhrasAiguo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Please response to personal attacks against me from CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs) on national basis. See diffs: [5] [6] 94.178.235.125 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

This is probably relevant background for people evaluating this [[7]]. Could they be nicer probably but I think more is happening here. Irregardless the comments didn't excuse the edit war. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

(edit conflict) The user in question has also used language like "scummy IPs" ([8]) and uses warnings as intimidation. I understand things may get heated, but Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --MrClog (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats just CaradhrasAiguo being CaradhrasAiguo, genuinely unsure why they’re still around [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Given that HEJ has a well-documented history of irrelevant interjections (notice the focus at Talk:China was STSC's edits and Aman's reverts) [22] with the appearance of being all "buddy buddy" (while in fact being condescending), it would be difficult to see the above post as being made in any good faith or constructive spirit. Your disruption has on at least one occasion extended across scores of articles. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kunal Kamra

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone please change the visibility on these edits. Unsourced defamatory content on a WP:BLP. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Magna19

We have a majority who support specific wording here.

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

They continue to change the wording despite the above consensus.[23]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Liz: Except it's not, it's pointing out his own words (linked above, I'm assuming you didn't follow the link): [...] and incorrectly present COVID19 as an airborne disease. This will trigger the general public to use all the N95 masks (when non or a simple surgical mask is enough). Which will mean that health care providers will not have N95s for situations that need them (ie intubation).. That's not a decision based on the sources, that's a decision influenced by fear. It's also a conflict of interest. We don't make editorial decisions based on how the public will react, we never have. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

User:TTN reported by User:Herostratus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result: DarkKnight2149 blocked for one week. Closing this discussion early to minimize Wikidrama.

The original discussion –- Herostatus complaining about TTN nominating TV & comics related articles for deletion –- was in essence a content-related dispute. (IMHO Michepman’s comment fairly summarizes the underlying issue of this discussion.) At one point this discussion appeared to be coming to an inconclusive end; no sanctions were proved to be needed against anyone at that time. However, an editor who had not participated in this discussion, but had a vested interest in the discussion -- DarkKnight2149 –- closed it with a puzzling summary. When challenged about this close, DarkKnight2149 acted rashly & irresponsibly, escalating the matter, which led to the result described above.

I strongly recommend to DarkKnight2149 that, when or if he returns from is block, he refrains from mentioning his intended case against TTN until such time it is actually submitted. In fact, it might benefit them to consider focusing on some of the other 6 million + articles on Wikipedia needing work for a while. In any case, deleted articles on subjects which do meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability can always be recreated. (I in fact did this just the other day, not knowing it had been previously deleted.) Failure to follow this sincerely offered advice could result with further blocks or an indefinite ban. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

No. No, he hasn't.

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

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

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

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

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

What's the admin corps? Is it some sort of secret society known only to initiates? Do they have passwords and secret signs, and are they issued with rings which fit every size of finger? Narky Blert (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

All I see here is, "Hello, I have a massive battleground mentality and need to be topic banned since I can't interact with people who have opposing viewpoints." (just to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about Herostratus) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the majority of TTN's deletion requests have been successful and a recent related ANI request by Eagles247 seemed to demonstrate this prove this. I've had a quick look at his more recent deletion requests and, with a few exceptions, also seem to have been mostly supported by the community. So, I'm struggling to see what the specific complaint is here. Do you consider the error rate to be too high? Even if you consider in the case of Timber Wolf the behaviour was egregious, it doesn't follow that they need to be removed from the entire area, unless it's shown to be a recurring trend. Is the frequency overwhelming the community? There were some mentions of this in the project discussion you listed, but this didn't appear to be the universal perception. Is TTN being uncivil? It's worth being clear, because my impression at the moment is that he's starting deletion discussions that after community review mostly result in non-encyclopedic articles being removed from Wikipedia, which is a good thing. You need to make a case that they're being being disruptive, because articles being appropriately deleted isn't in itself destructive. Scribolt (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Yes, because AfD is not a good venue for discussing long-term patterns of destructive behavior. This page is. And also, I mean this page is supposed to bring alleged behavior problems to the attention of the admin corps. It's not the "get insulted by random editors" page. So, I mean you're not being helpful. (Nobody who's responded yet has been an administrator, so let's wait and see what some admins have to say.)

So let me point out that this editor was prohibited by ArbCom from doing exactly this. It is true that the prohibition was for only six months. I assume it was six months rather than permanent because the ArbCom doesn't want to be excessively harsh, and figures that someone can learn and move on without having a lifetime cloud over their head. I don't think that ArbCom's reasoning was "Well, this is unacceptable behavior, but after six months he's welcome to start doing it again." Do you?

Right, I get that the editor is successful in suborning deletion of objectively good articles. This makes the matter more serious, not less, though. Why he is successful I don't know, and part of it is aboveboard (I get that a lot of people don't like comics and television), but on the other hand there are some odd elements here. It's highly unusual for good articles that meet the WP:GNG and are otherwise above-average articles to be deleted, and for my part I'm not convinced that simple snobbery is all that is play here, considering that editor was specifically admonished to avoid underhanded methods such as recruiting other editors to be catspaws.

It's really a simple question: the editor was prohibited by ArbCom -- but only for six months -- from nominating articles like this for AfD, or converting them to redirects, and similar behavior. After the six months was up he continued to do it, and in fact put it into overdrive at times. Is it the considered opinion of the admin corps that this is how its supposed to work, that following temporary bans a person is permitted to go back to the disruptive behavior? If it is, we can close this and move on, but... if that's to be the general policy going forward, that's... kind of a big deal. Herostratus (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues are, first that per the original FAIT principle, TTN is not supposed to be making these Afds at too fast a rate to overwhelm the wikiproject, and compared to the rate from the random case years ago this rate is tame. Second is it has been well known that many of the comic pages violate notability and NOT:PLOT principles. They were made before these concepts were in place and have needed to be dealt with for years. The project wasn't doing it themselves. TTN is helping in that regard. --Masem (t) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Herostratus, That's a nice example of begging the question. When someone nominates cruft for deletion and there's consensus to delete, they are not degrading the project, they are improving it. Consider working with TTN and coming up with a framework to cover these subjects without falling foul of WP:NOTDIR. In many cases a list article for minor characters can work. Guy (help!) 09:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• I was pinged, so I'm going to leave a comment here. I have been tracking TTN's AFD nominations since my last ANI post about this subject here, and his December through February nominations still exceed a 90% "success" rate. The number of nominations have decreased each month, as have the "success" percentage (slightly), which I assume is because there are now less and less articles that warrant nomination. I understand Herostratus' frustration here, it absolutely sucks when a topic you have interest in is being targeted as failing to meet notability thresholds, especially since these articles for the most part survived the last 10-15 years. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

But they don't fail to meet notability thresholds. They just objectively don't. ("Meet" here includes "Can be easily made to with a bit of googling or access to a specialized encyclopedia", and notability thresholds means "WP:GNG" for a start. At least, some of them don't, and the examples I've seen don't.

I mean, Timber Wolf (comics) doesn't. It might be saved, but maybe not -- Dragonmage was destroyed even though it easily sailed thru WP:GNG. User:Eagles247, I don't get the deal with User:Eagles247/sandbox... it's unusual to have pages where one editor is spending energy documenting another editors "work", I'd say. How many other editors need minders to follow them around and keep stats on their rampages? How is it useful to the project for editors to have spend time doing that? I don't have the time or interest for that kind of work. Isn't that what the mops are for?

I mean, right, the endgame here is presumably to discourage editors from working on this subject altogether. It's probably working. It does on me, for one.

Well, you know, things like this happen. The Wikipedia is large and complicated and has a number of vulnerable points. It looks like User:TTN has found one (a vein of snobbery) and is going to hammer on it, and he doesn't appear to much care what ArbCom thinks of that, or whether its destructive to what we're supposed to be doing here, and if the admin corps doesn't either, well, I guess nobody can stop him.

In which case its a political issue, and fine. Some things are. Maybe a political solution can be found, if we alert the larger community to what's happening here. It's be better if the admin corps would pick up the ball and enforce (the clear spirit of) ArbCom rulings, but if they don't want to I guess nobody can make them. =/ Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That is but, in my personal opinion, your very skewed view of Wikipedia and notability. Even the Comics Project wanted little to do with you, so I think you're flying solo on this one. Feel free to go start a RfC if you want wider community opinion, but I doubt you're going to find much support with your current way of acting. Current AfD consensuses seem to show I'm generally correct, and honestly, many of these current keeps will likely be challenged again by other people opening AfDs down the line. That's the case for a very large amount of the keep AfDs from the last ten years. TTN (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If they don't fail to meet notability thresholds, then participants in discussions likely need to do a better job of convincing !voters that this is the case. Clearly that is not a widespread belief, as evidenced from !voters to administrators who close the discussions, to now at least the third or fourth discussion about this same topic.

There is a certain editor who promised to take TTN and me to ArbCom seemingly in response to my opening up the ANI thread linked above that resulted in their forced/unforced wikibreak. If/when that case opens up, I've compiled this list of TTN AFD nominations so that the group from November 2019 that I brought up in that ANI thread does not seem arbitrary and out of date. I don't agree that digging up an ArbCom ruling from 12 years ago is relevant here when the issues are not the same and Wikipedia has evolved so much in that time.

I'm sorry you feel discouraged by these nominations, and I don't blame you. However, there are still over 45,000 pages for the Comics subproject, and I hope the deletion of a few hundred does not deter you from contributing further. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, I understand that. However, it's self-evident that insisting on a special requirement to exceed the WP:GNG -- which articles on most every other subject does not have that requirement -- is prima facie evidence of hostility to the subject in general. I think that editors of that mind should not lurk the Wikiproject Comics boards and discussions, and I believe it's highly unusual for Wikiprojects to be in part hijacked by people who are hostile to the intent of the Wikiproject. I haven't seen that elsewhere and I consider it a problem.

If you look at User:Herostratus/The Hundred, you'll see that about 30% percent or our articles don't even meet the GNG (or can easily be made to). You'll see that articles being destroyed are better than our average article in terms of length, depth of coverage, format, referencing, and so on.

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot trump community consensus, which is that the GNG ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list") is the operative test of notability. That is clearly accepted by the community as a matter of practical fact. And is an important rule. And while I get that some people are hostile to covering comics to the same level that most every other subject is covered, and can make up personal standards about in-universe this or in-universe that -- a requirement not applied to films and so forth -- for whatever reason (snobbery I suppose), it still is only WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.

I don't know if this all coordinated inappropriately, or that a tag-team of snobs -- be honest with yourselves, guys -- has spontaneously gathered itself. Probably the latter, in which case yes it's a content dispute. But whether or no, User:TTN is the ringleader of all this, even though ArbCom told him not to and blocked him twice for it, and he's been taken to ANI several times for this [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and that'll do altho there are several others.

Apparently he's skated so far, but isn't twelve years enough? How many scores or more of editor man hours do we have to waste on this? What does it take to show a clear pattern of behavior that the person is obviously not going to change and will remain WP:NOTHERE to build but rather to tear down?

Again, I request the admin corps at least consider this seriously, and I request relief. If the admin corps is not willing to enforce ArbCom sanctions in this case, for whatever reason, and would prefer that we spend more scores of man hours on another dozen ANI discussions to likely be opened on this editor as time moves forward, they should clearly state this, and we can move on. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind TTN is no long subject to the E&C2 case. The only thing that hangs on from that applies to all editors and that is the WP:FAIT concept - is TTN doing this "irreversible" step at a rate that puts too much onus on a small group of editors? And here, I think the answer is no. Compared to the rate TTN was nominating at the time of the E&C2 case, this is glacial in speed. TTN is clearly putting effort for the expected BEFORE search that should be easy to do for these types of fiction topics (eg the Internet should have this information easily available). Ask yourself if any other editor was doing the same AFD nominations at the same rate, would you consider that an issue? If not, then you're improperly focusing on TTN for something they are no longer restricted by.

We can talk if FAIT is an issue, but given the high non-false positive rate of AFD that end in deletions, there does not seem to be a problem here. And as I noted before, comics pages like this are part of walled garden fictional areas that were created shortly after WP was created before around 2006 when WP started establishing its notability concepts, and there has been plenty of discussion over the years of what is expected to be of fictional character articles. There has been little movement on these by the associated Wikiprojects, so editors like TTN are breaking that logjam. They could be doing it faster, but FAIT does limit that. --Masem (t) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this most recent response further illustrates the problem with the comics related articles. The repeated accusations of snobbery and other attacks are not helping, but at its core I think both sets of users are passionate and dedicated to improving the project. There is just a lack of agreement on what makes a good standalone article on a comic book character or topic. This might be something that a WP:RFC would help, but if the underlying incivility and accusations of bad faith (e.g. that one user is WP:NOTHERE, or that one user is potentially coordinating inappropriately to take down articles) persist then it's likely that this will end up going in a regrettable direction. Michepman (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Roger. If "Keep in mind TTN is no long subject to the E&C2 case" means that admin corps' policy is "if a person has waited out their ban period before continuing the toxic proscribed behavior, and taken care to violate only the spirit and maybe not the letter of their ban, they can skate", well okey-doke then. Read you loud and clear, admin corps.

"is TTN doing this 'irreversible' step at a rate that puts too much onus on a small group of editors? And here, I think the answer is no"... well maybe you think wrong, which is why we are still getting notices like "Massive slew of comics-related deletions from one editor". And look, we have 91 deletion requests in December, 52 in January, at least 22 in February (count incomplete). All for comics characters and comics-related stuff.

I can't keep up with all that. Can you? I have other things to do. This is an admin job. If an admin is willing to follow this person around and erase all their deletion noms (let thoughtful people who aren't single-minded deletion robots make them), well OK. Who's stepping up?

If it's not snobbery, then why. I have asked, and haven't got an answer. There isn't one apparently. And disengenuous protestations of "gee what a coincidence" aren't one. It's an aspect of why we have this rather remarkable situation, and it's probably a useful data point for figuring out why LOCALCONSENSUS isn't enforced for this particular subject, and how we can look at steps for fixing it. We're not required to be willfully blind for goodness' sake.

If we wanted to fix it, that is. Doesn't look like it. Okey doke then. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You point to a past discussion at the comics group from in the last year where the only two editors that seems concerned about TTN's actions is you and the filing IP, none of the members of the comics wikiproject. I read their input as TTN being a net benefit. Someone had to prune poor articles from the project, TTN stepped up, they're satisfied. If there was a FAIT problem (the one this that we can hold TTN to from the Arbcom case) it's certainly not from that discussion.

A point was made above, in that it seems you have a unique stance on what is qualified as an allowed standalone article. There are standards we expect from the GNG and when they aren't met there's things we do like deletion or merge or redirect (preferring the last two since content can be returned without admin intervention). The fact in that diff conversation you equating "redirect" with "destroy" is extremely troubling and missing the point of why we seek these softer resolutions when a standalone page doesn't make sense. --Masem (t) 14:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, one problem is that the comics Wikiproject has been infiltrated by people who aren't really comics people. Are these people contibuting to useful new content in the area? They're not. They're not interested. And if they are interested, they're only interested in their narrow crabbed view of what comics are or what they're supposed to be, which is fine, if they didn't be about destroying the work of others who don't share their narrow crabbed view. and dominating the project message board with material inimical to what the project is trying to do. It's odd, and I consider it a problem.

As to "destroy", I mean would you prefer "erase" or "delete" or what? That is what converting a page with many paragraphs of good ref'd material into a pointer to nothing, or maybe a sentence or two, is. You're destroying the text. This is plain English, why use euphemisms. Own it, at least, for chrissakes. Herostratus (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Is this close correct? "Herostratus has been notified that a larger case is being built against TTN", I seem to miss this part in the above discussion, and it gives the impression that there is some support here for Herostratus' position, while the general agreement seems to be that TTN did nothing wrong and that this or ArbCom will not result in any sanctions. Fram (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. The close as written is not clearly representative of the discussion. Administrators (and others) were not "uninterested" in taking action, the consensus was that there was no wrongdoing that required action. Also DK, is clearly not-uninvolved in the context of AFD discussions in this topic area so a NAC is really inappropriate. This should be reverted. Scribolt (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It's quite clear what's going on here. Darkknight2149 has been threatening proceedings against TTN for months now, but has not and likely will never actually do it. The idea is that an open ANI thread or a pending ArbCom case work like kind of a restraining order- continuing to crank out AfDs while there's proceedings in the pipeline is extra double problematic. And you can keep the restraining order in place indefinitely by just saying you're going to ArbCom but never actually doing it. Reyk _YO! 08:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Reyk: You continue to push this narrative, yet the case I am working on is almost finished. In fact, I posted a screenshot of what I was typing in the last thread. Herostratum was notified on his talk page, both sides have called for a close, and administrators have indeed stated that they aren't interested in taking action. The only reason you're complaining is because the closure wasn't lopsided in your favour. It's easy to dictate the discussion when you, Masem, and Eagles247 show up to the rescue every single time TTN's behaviour is questioned. Seriously, if you go into the discussions that Herostratum linked, you will quickly see that it's the same users defending TTN in nearly all of them. You are not a neutral uninvolved party either.

I'm also perplexed as to what the "restraining order" is that Reyk is referring to. His whole rambling is pretty bizarre. TTN hasn't stopped cranking out AfDs, even in the midst of this ANI report. So he isn't talking about that. I haven't filed any AfDs, so he obviously isn't referring to me. And as of right now, I'm not the one filibustering, so it can't be that. I'm finding it very difficult to discern what Reyk is accusing me of, exactly. All I know is that he seems emboldened by the last thread, and has chronically mistaken my busyness for bluffing (my busyness and lack of time on Wikipedia has been pretty well known since 2018, by the way). Right now I'm house-guaranteed and have more time to spare, so let's see if he still feels that way within the next few weeks when the report is finally filed. DarkKnight2149 09:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Speaking as a complete outsider who AFAIK has never interacted with you or TTN and has no opinion (positive or negative) on comics, this close is so bad as to be sanctionable in and of itself, as your summary in no way reflects the contents of the thread. Please strongly consider reverting it yourself; if you are considering taking this matter to Arbcom, telling lies in the summary of an ANI thread is the kind of thing that will lead them to summarily siteban you by motion. ‑ Iridescent 09:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

If an uninvolved administrator wants to revert it, they have every right to do so. (EDIT: Case of point, though Serial Number 54129 should be advised to let administrators make reversions in the future) In fact, you don't need me to tell you that. Given the fair and sideless way that I worded it, I wasn't expecting anyone to dispute the closure (closure that both sides requested). Ultimately, it's their decision. And yes, it does represent what took place. 1) Administrators have stated that they aren't interested in taking action. This is a fact and it's the ultimate result. 2) Herostratum was notified. This is a fact. 3) Both sides requested closure. This is a fact. What did I miss? DarkKnight2149 09:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

What is even more concerning is that DarkKnight2149 has just taken a "30-90 day" Wikibreak to avoid the consequences of this ANI thread Persistent disruption by DarkKnight2149 and has returned (after 28 days) only to throw themselves into the exact area of dispute that caused the issues in the first place. I actually hope for DarkKnight2149's sake that they don't take this issue to ArbCom, because I suspect it may go very badly for them. Black Kite (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, Darkknight is now making spurious accusations against me on my talkpage. ‑ Iridescent 10:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Llywrch - For your consideration, I believe this constitutes a return to earlier, problematic behavior.1 Mr rnddude (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone looking at Iridescent's diff? I closed the discussion in good faith, and Iridescent came at me with outrageous accusations of lying and implied threats. When I clarified the situation and left him a message on his talk page, he responded with more outrageousness and is now claiming that I made "spurious accusations". While I believed that he was acting in good faith beforehand, this is now beginning to feel like a calculated attack. Iridescent is completely out of line and this is uncalled for. If he had an issue with the closure (which I made in good faith and that a few different users requested), he could have reverted it himself (as an administrator) or calmly brought it to my attention. He decided to cast WP:ASPERSIONS and fan the flames instead. My blood pressure is now through the roof. DarkKnight2149 10:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggest that telling Iridescent to "cut the attitude right now" and that he's "throwing a tantrum" and causing "disruption" isn't going to help either. In fact, take this as a warning that continuing down that road will lead to a sanction. Meanwhile, in this and the various linked discussions, there are a significant number of editors, including a non-trivial number of admins who are very experienced in deletion policy, telling you that you're wrong here, and you don't seem to be able to internalize the concept that you might be. I'd suggest you think about this for a while. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to accept when I may be wrong. However, the way that Iridescent handled the situation was unacceptable. Incidentally, I extended an olive branch on his talk page just before seeing this message. I myself am very familiar with policy, and this isn't exactly my first rodio. Likewise, from our interactions, I don't believe that you are at all familiar with what has been happening at the AfDs and you only have TTN, Reyk, Masem, and Eagles247's narrative to go on. Rest assured, I know exactly what I'm doing as far as the upcoming report is concerned. There is another side to this that you are not aware of. Scribolt and Fram expressed their concerns a lot better than Iridescent did. DarkKnight2149 12:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, deep breath. Am I correct in my understanding that TTN is nominating lots of comics-related articles for deletion, and that some of the Comics project, particularly Darkknight2149 and Herostratus, are objecting to these nominations or at least to the volume of them, and feel victimised by TTN's persistence because he's been doing this for many years? And this has all developed into an ugly interpersonal dispute between the three editors, which is why we're now at ANI? I get that people have strong feelings but the walls of text here are unnecessary. This is not a complicated dispute, even if it is long in the tooth.

So, I have a suggestion. How about TTN creates a section at WT:COMICS where he can list articles he has notability concerns about as he comes across them. He then leaves them there for, say, a week, to allow project members to review and decide whether the article is salvageable. After that week, if the article hasn't changed or TTN and the comics folks don't agree, he can take the article to AfD and allow the wider community to decide its fate. Hopefully that will give the project members enough breathing room that they don't feel they're being overwhelmed while still pruning material that doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @HJ Mitchell: The only reason this conflict still exists is because TTN refuses to engage in dispute resolution. Ever since multiple users have spoken out against TTN (including myself), we have asked him to stop what he's doing and open a discussion at WT:COMICS, WP:DRN, or another appropriate venue. He always responds by accusing us of ownership for demanding that he engage in the consensus/DR process. I have stated before that I would happily drop the stick if he opened a community-wide discussion at WP:DRN or the project, and I even made a lighter secondary offer at one point. TTN always responds with strawmen and aggression, and refuses to make any compromises. DarkKnight2149 11:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that fully encompasses the circumstances. Rather than a simple content dispute, it's more a personality dispute. For Herostratus, they have a very specific view on how Wikipedia works, displayed in this WikiProject Comics discussion, where they were at odds with the opinions of the project members themselves. This whole report stems from the idea that the simple nomination of these articles for deletion is an affront to Wikipedia itself. Darkknight2149 is a major personality clash where I don't really even know what they think or want anymore. You can see in the above linked thread about them that they've been holding an ANI/Arbcom report as a looming threat for nearly six months now. I don't think this is a "me vs project" dispute, but I'd be more than happy to allow someone else to hunker down and actually apply a critical look at these articles. I've just found that self-policing of articles by project members is a very hit or miss thing. TTN (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid responding to Darkknight2149 directly at this point, but you'll see in the above-linked discussion on Notability (fiction) that they refuse to accept any other viewpoint than their own, dismissing all dissenting opinions. TTN (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a "personality clash", we have pointed out and explained very demonstrable problems with the way you conduct AfDs. Nobody has a problem with removing fancruft. I spent my first few years on Wikipedia monitoring hundreds of comic book-related articles, and reverting fancruft, original research, etc. I also sought out these problems in other articles with less than 30 watchers, and at times would remove paragraphs of unsourced speculation at once. The only real demand that has been made (both at the AfDs and at WT:Notability (fiction)) is that you engage in dispute resolution, and we have been clear about this from the beginning. But you always refuse, and then you resort to weird strawmen, playing the victim when it spills outside of the AfDs, and then accusing everyone who speaks out against it of being some radical inclusionist. Even now, the claims you are making here ("This whole report stems from the idea that the simple nomination of these articles for deletion is an affront to Wikipedia itself", "I don't really even know what they think or want anymore") should come across as disingenuous to anyone who has followed this conflict from the beginning. Therefore, I will make you this final offer - Open a larger community-wide discussion about this over at WP:Dispute resolution, and I will drop the case against you and never confront you over it again. That's all anyone has asked. DarkKnight2149 11:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong direction. TTN hasn't been doing anything that the project doesn't know about, and the speed at which he has nominated stuff for deletion has not been overwhelming, else the project in the discussion mentioned multiple times in this thread at WT:COMICS would not have been so 1-sided against Herostratus. I do endorse TTN's summary above that this seems to be two specific editors who have issues with it and specifically is not an issue with his behavior (right now). If the broader community did not agree that the content being deleted shouldn't be deleted, then there would be keeps galore at AFD (based on policy!), and there aren't--in fact, multiple actual consensuses demonstrate general approval.

So, I would rather go the ban direction and 1-way interaction ban the two from discussing/commenting on TTN (+- the usual caveats about appeals or Arbcom or similar.) The end of my patience has been reached, TBH. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I suggest Darkknight2149 should actually finish his long-awaited ArbCom case if he's actually got any intention to (which I have come to doubt). On one hand, I am hesitant to suggest someone waste ArbCom's time with a clearly meritless filing. On the other hand, I believe everyone has a right to their day in court. And on the gripping hand, this has gone on long enough. It isn't fair on TTN, or myself, or Eagles247, or anyone else dragged into DK2149's ever expanding vortex of belligerence. Continued threats of ANI threads and ArbCom filings that never materialise absolutely do have a chilling effect, though I'm sure DK2149 will continue being coy about whether that's the intention (it is). Just because this sword of Damocles is blunt and floppy doesn't mean we should set a precedent that indefinitely deferred litigation is OK. So I suggest that DK2149 actually finish typing up the ArbCom case and not mention this issue anywhere else: no more angry rants at ANI, no more long-winded accusations at other peoples' talk pages. It's been months and the procrastination is getting disruptive. Reyk _YO! 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hm, it seems they got blocked while I was typing this. That makes my previous comment sort of moot. Reyk _YO! 13:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

DarkKnight 2149 Blocked

Following on from the previous ANI at Persistent disruption by DarkKnight2149, which involved a number of occasions on which DK2149 attacked other editors and avoided a consensus for a sanction by promising to take a "30-90 day Wikibreak", they have taken that break and immediately dived straight back into the fray and have continued to attack others who disagree with them. I gave them a warning above to stop doing so, and when they continued attacking two other editors at User_talk:Iridescent, I asked them to self-revert or be blocked. They responded with another aggressive post and so I have blocked them for a week. Patience can only be extended so far. Black Kite (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good block, they are clearly being disruptive and wasting editors' time.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• I believe it is appropriate to also enforce the community consensus from the previous ANI discussion for a one-way topic ban between DK2149 and TTN as well as a topic ban for DK2149 at AFD. This means no discussing TTN anywhere on Wikipedia, and no discussing or participating in AFD. DK2149 seems to be a good content editor, and given how busy they say they are in real life, it would be better for the editor, project, and community that they spend their time in areas they can be less disruptive. I want to thank Llywrch for their very generous wikibreak offer following the previous ANI discussion, and it's a shame DK2149 did not take full advantage of it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• If there's going to be an AFD restriction, I'd suggest a "one comment per AFD" restriction would be more workable than a blanket ban. Whichever area he chooses to work in, it's not fair for someone to have no recourse whatsoever when something on which they've worked is nominated for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good block- unfortunately, the unblock request at their talk page suggests there will never be an end to the disruptive behaviour from this editor. They've already been treated more generously and leniently than you or I would have been if we carried on in that way. Reyk _YO! 13:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I posted this on DK2149's talk, but I'll quote-post it here for the record in case he removes it (as he's entirely within his rights to do): Note to reviewing admin (or arb if Darkknight is foolish enough to tilt at that particular windmill): the thread in question is here. Under normal circumstances I'd early-archive it to avoid Streisanding, but in this case I'll leave it standing for the moment and let you judge for yourself whether it's myself or Darkknight who's lying here. As you (whoever you are) presumably know I'm not a great fan of civility blocks, and provided Black Kite doesn't object I have no problem with the block being lifted provided DK2149 doesn't take it as some kind of carte blanche to continue making things up. For the record—since DK2149's recent comments seem to suggest I have some kind of agenda—I have no interest (positive or negative) in comic books or in fictional character biographies more generally, and to the best of my knowledge have never previously interacted to any significant degree with Darkknight2149, TTN, Herostratus or Reyk. ‑ Iridescent 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I was slammed at work yesterday, so I was forced to be offline for most of this during the day & once I got home to my family I decided to stay offline. (FWIW, I am a contingent worker at a Fortune 50 company most of you have heard of, whose job is considered "essential": I help keep the computers up & running so the regular employees can continue to work from home, isolate themselves, & not spread the coronavirus.) I was monitoring things, but since BK2149 was not actively involved in the AN/I discussion about TTN, I was letting that drama play itself out. This morning I happened to peek in to discover all of this had blown up. I'm not taking any stand on any of this until I have read everything that happened, but I am disappointed that it has come to this after trying to extend a bit of understanding & community fellowship to those involved. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unacceptable personal attacks by Senegambianamestudy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Normally I try to let incivility go, but being directly accused of being a white supremacist [30] and [31] is beyond the pale. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter why they made this claim, but it is completely baffling to me that they stated it was because I (1): removed a factually inaccurate tag, and (2): argued that we should continue to describe Hitler's ideologies and actions as universally regarded as evil. I don't know how arguing, and providing sources that state, that Hitler is universally viewed as evil in in any way indicative of white supremacist views. I try to keep my personal life separate from my editing, but as someone who has lost family to the actions of white supremacists, I find this accusation incredibly offensive. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. If anyone wants to up that to an indef please go ahead and do it, I did consider it myself. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  Nothing to add here except ... good grief! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I think and indef or a least an extremely strict topic ban on issues in the area that caused him to attack other editors needs to be enacted I encountered this editor for the first time today, mostly regarding two NPOV violating categories he created that I nominated for discussion. I only encountered a slight insult (according to them I nominated them only because I "took issue with them") but appears that in the past 48 hours he has made personal attacks against User:SharabSalam (accusing him of purposefully being untruthful), User:Sandstein just flat out going out of his way to do nothing more than insult him for an AfD closure from two years ago and adding a single source maintenance tag on an article with twelve sources and accusing anyone who tried to remove the inappropriate tag of alterior motives in addition to the message left on AmbivalentUnequivocality's talk page. Even his AfD nomination for Black supremacy includes a second unnecessary attack on Sandstein. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Yup definitely an indef. It's a shame too as Senegambianamestudy appears to have made a lot of great contributions prior to this recent episode. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• As response to the block, the user called Black Kite and AmbivalentUnequivocality white supremacists again ([32]). Please block indef and remove talk page access, this is going nowhere. MrClog (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed TPA. Since I was the target of his ranting, perhaps someone else should alter the block if they find it necessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• Seemingly unrelated, but maybe not. This terminology cropped up a week and a half ago on Talk:Stephen F. Austin#White_supremacist. I'm not debating whether or not the accusation was accurate about a historical person, but the one above is not the first recent head-bang over the term. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Indeffed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
• Question: regarding two deletion-related subjects. 1) should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black supremacy (3rd nomination) still stay up? I'd probably actually vote to delete but and argument can be made that it was nominated in bad faith or at least for extremely WP:POINTy reasons. 2) Should Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Category:CIA_fabrications and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Category:FBI_fabrications also stay or should the categories just be speedy deleted as they are clearly in violation of WP:NPOV? Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've closed the AfD. I'm thinking both categories should be deleted per G10, as they exist purely based on the creators negative personal opinions and don't seem to have any academic credibility. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

120.29.67.231

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kindly remove the edit rights of this IP on its talk page. The IP was already blocked for two weeks but continues to post inappropriate Filipino expletive edits in their talk page. See 1, 2, 3 for evidence. -WayKurat (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Widr removed talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template Death numbers incorrect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins, I noticed that Washington death number at Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state is incorrect. After looking at the history, I noticed User:StayingClean changed the column order. It should be U.S. state or territory, Cases, Recov, Deaths. |See Mar 25 15:46 diff here. That means numbers entered after this time could be in the wrong column.

Please revert changes prior to Mar 25 15:46.

Thanks,SWP13 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

>>Please ignore. We are working this issue in the Template:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic data/United States medical cases by state talk page. SWP13 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RexxS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have been engaged in a debate with RexxS at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions.

Sadly, RexxS has taken to removing or editing my posts, making threats against me and personal insults.

Rexxs claims to be upholding WP:INDENTMIX, but I am using the same indenting style as used other editors on the same page. Rexxs has not altered their posts or remarked on them: he is selectively weaponising a minor style issue as a tool to bully me.

For background, see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#INDENTMIX.

1. Rexxs remving my post from a the CFD discussion, in each case replacing with is own reply: [33] and [34].
2. Rexxs renoving all identation and para bvreaks from my post:[35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
3. Rexxs making a personal attack: You are behaving like a spoilt brat[40]
4. RexxS making clear threat to silence me: I'll take any and all steps necessary to ensure that your posts no longer pollute discussions. [41]

In 14 years of editing, have never been on the receiving end of this sort of conduct even from a clueless newbie. RexxS is an admin, and is abusing his position to try to gain advantange in a debate. Please can someone apply some brakes to him? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that RexxS has now removed a para break and indentation from my post for the the 5th or 6 time within a few hours: [42].

I will not revert him again, but this absurd. He cites WP:TPO, but nothing in TPO justifies removing all indents and joining up paragraphs.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Umm... how many reverts have you both made in the past hour? I count no less than 4 from RexxS (3 by revert, 1 by partial-revert) and 5 from BHG (4 by revert, 1 manual). That's just the past hour, I count at least another 2 each from 23:58 on the 25th to 00:53 on the 26th. 3RR applies to all namespaces, and you should both be blocked for edit-warring. I am somewhat sympathetic to BHG's reverts here as she has acted to restore her comments and formatting, removed and modified by RexxS. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this from an admin, to be honest. RexxS is messing about with BHG's posting claiming "policy" (and, indeed, edit-warring over it) - but neither TPO nor INDENTMIX are policies, and this is well over the line. Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. These comments about BHG are not necessary and is well over the line. Outright removing the comments is also not acceptable. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Black Kite: see also User talk:RexxS#Stop_it, where RexxS posted[43] a quote from TPO which explicitly says preserve the content as much as possible ... whereas RexxS twice removed my whole post, and 5 or 6 times removed my para breaks.

And if you look at the markup for WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions, you'll see that the indenting style which I use is widely used my other editors (e.g. Oculi[44] and Gerda Arendt[45]). The selectivity makes it very clear that RexxS has not chosen to uphold INDENTMIX; he has chosen to deploy it a weapon solely against me, and in doing so he appears not to have even read the guidance which he quotes.

@Mr rnddude, I would be very upset to be blocked for restoring my own posts. They were on-topic, conventionally formatted, and they were civil. This rampage by RexxS comes after the same discussion saw two other editors kick off wildly (see my closing comment at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Sorry_... (permalink), and I am sick of the aggression which has been directed towards me over this issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And I would be more than upset to be sanctioned for doing nothing more that upholding our accessibility policy in the face of severe and deliberate provocation. BHG's comments were chronically malformed and contrary to the guidelines we have in how to post in a discussion. I clearly fixed the formatting in the thread I started' of two editors other than BHG, and she needs to stop peddling lies about me. The only rampage is BHG's deliberate failure to meet accessibility standards in her posts. I often find myself reformatting other editors' errant formatting and pointing them to MOS:INDENTMIX, as any of the regulars at WP:ACCESS such as Redrose64 will also do. Usually my efforts are met with a "didn't know that - I'll fix it in future". In fact I have done this so often that I created an essay explaining it more detail, and it can be seen at Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks for those who are interested in just how much problems can be caused for screen readers by inattention to reply indenting in a threaded discussion. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's be clear, none of BHG's malformed posts contained paragraph breaks and I did not remove any of them. --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to RexxS:

1. RexxS's 22:11 statement[46] that none of BHG's malformed posts contained paragraph breaks and I did not remove any of them is untrue. As shown in WP:THREAD, the indentation markup causes para breaks, and the complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e.g. this edit[47] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph.
   If RexxS is unaware of the effects of indentation then he has no busness appointing himself as a one-man indntation hitsquad.. And in this case, he amost certainly was aware, because I had posted about this at 22:08[48], which is before Rexx's comment. So he is probably not just wrong, but intentionally lying.
2. My posts were not chronically malformed. They were formatted as I usually post them, and as nearly everyone else posting on the same page (and other CFD pages) formats their posts.
3. RexxS has both a complete loss of perspective and a deeply unhealthy fixation on seeing me as some of miscreant woman who he must chastise. (If this was in meatspace, I'd seriously concerned for my safety).
4. How dare RexxS call me a liar for not spotting his comments to two other editors. I posted in good faith about what I had seen, and I am happy to clarify that I missed something.
5. However, now that RexxS has noted how he challenged the formatting or Oculi and Marcocapaelle, I note that he challenged only the formatting of editors who disagree with him. So I stand my point about how RexxS weaponising this issue as a partisan tool.
6. WP:INDENTMIX is not policy. It is a guideline. RexxS is an admin, and has a responsibility to know the difference.
7. Neither WP:INDENTMIX nor WP:TPO permit the removal of posts because of a formatting issue.
8. RexxS is WP:INVOLVED, so his claims to be upholding our accessibility polic simply reinforce that he is acting inappropriately.
9. RexxS's is the third editor from the classical music project who has behaved aggressively towards me over this CFD nomination (see the other two at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Sorry_...). What on earth is up with them all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to BHG's reply.

As explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Multiple paragraphs within list items, the list markup used in our discussions does not create paragraph breaks. You have to insert them yourself using {{pb}}, as I regularly do. There were no paragraph breaks in BHG's posts, so I could not have removed them.

Your posts were chronically malformed. Every single one of your replies to me in that CfD thread broke the list formatting for screen readers. You only have to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24 #Musical compositions survey start and check your last post which is still breaking the thread for screen readers.

I am getting a little tired of BHG's personal attacks. How dare you try to play the gender-card as if you are some kind of victim? I have a well-deserved reputation as a defender of women's rights and you simply make matters worse for female editors when you try to pretend that your gender has any bearing on the dispute. Shame on you.

I called you out on your repeated untruths about "singling you out". You need to be apologising, not doubling down on your mistakes. If it's not the truth, it's a lie. Own your errors.

I only changed the formatting of the posts in the section of the debate I started – my oppose !vote. Marcocapaelle was agreeing with me that the four mentions of "musical" in WP:NCM you made such a big deal of were inconsequential. Unlike you, I kept my editing to a single section. You, on the other hand badgered everyone who dared to oppose your proposal.

MOS:INDENTMIX is a guideline that enjoys community-wide consensus, and editors are not free to ignore it on their whim. In addition, accessibility is a non-negotiable policy of the WMF and applies throughout the projects. You breach policies and guidelines at your peril.

WP:TPO clearly states "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments are: ... Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read ... Examples include ... fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance). The very edits I was making are specifically given as examples in TPO with the "avoid disruption" linked to MOS:INDENTMIX. BHG is demonstrably wrong.

WP:INVOLVED is about admin actions. I have scrupulously avoided using admin tools throughout this sorry saga, so that point is codswallop. I suppose BHG is counting on "throw enough mud and some will stick". That's getting pretty desperate. You don't have to be an admin to uphold accessibility. I expect every long-term editor to understand how their edits affect disadvantaged readers and do their best to keep accessibility in mind.

I can't speak for the other editors at WP:Classical music, but we all know how Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) requires us to name articles and categories, and it's diametrically in opposition to BHG's proposal, so I guess it's little wonder we all opposed. Hope that clears up that bit of mud-slinging. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Removing the comments entirely would be my main concern, fixing formatting of comments is more understandable. Perhaps RexxS was concerned about the visually impaired user who would have been having problems with their screen reader. Perhaps the visually impaired user (I do not know their username as I was not involved in the discussion) could comment. Did they complain to RexxS as an admin on or off wiki? Did the visually impaired user previously raise this problem without success with BHG before contacting RexxS? Need more background in this dispute....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I object to the naming of this thread as non-neutral.

For background, as a member of WP:WikiProject Classical music, I opposed a proposal that BHG made to rename over 1300 music categories. She has badgered each editor who has dared to oppose her proposal.

I have indeed been upholding MOS:INDENTMIX

Likewise, do not switch between initial list marker types (colons, asterisks or hash signs) in one list.

This is essential for users of screen readers who otherwise have to listen to each stage of the previous list type being closed and another list type being started up, for each level of indentation in the thread. This is not a minor matter for the visually impaired and I am appalled at BHG's dismissive attitude toward the problems she has been causing for anyone who has to use a screen reader to access Wikipedia.

Let me quote from WP:TPO:

Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup (to avoid disruption of screen readers, for instance) ...

The last sentence references INDENTMIX (as MOS:LISTGAP) and clearly explains that editors should fix list markup to avoid disruption of screen readers. That is exactly what I have been doing.

Initially I simply corrected Oculi's errant markup. This shows that BHG is demonstrably lying when she states "Rexxs has not altered their posts or remarked on them".

I later made a second correction to both Oculi's and BHG's indentations and asked them to "Please observe WP:INDENTMIX; it is an accessibility requirement." I do not believe that was impolite.

I refactored Marcocapelle's indentation along with BHG's in this edit and again drew BHG's attention to INDENTMIX.

Her very next post seemed to be a deliberate violation of INDENTMIX as if to provoke me. The same pattern of my removing problematic markup and BHG continually restoring it can be seen in her next seven posts:

1. Special:Diff/947382748
2. Special:Diff/947391046
3. Special:Diff/947515321
4. Special:Diff/947516472
5. Special:Diff/947517202
6. Special:Diff/947517731
7. Special:Diff/947520082

I have tried politely drawing attention to the guidelines INDENTMIX and TPO. I have tried refactoring her posts as an example for her. I have tried removing the posts and I have tried removing the wrongly formatted indent markup, but nothing has got through to BHG.

For the specific complaints:

1. See the full sequence in the CfD history for the attempts I've made to fix the problems she has caused, all to no avail.

2. I have latterly simply removed BHG's faulty formatting per WP:TPO. It is untrue to claim I removed paragraph breaks. None of her posts contained paragraph breaks for me to remove (and that's part of the problem). See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Multiple paragraphs within list items for a description of the solution (or just examine my posts in the thread for examples as BHG could have).

3. My use of "spoilt brat" was in direct response to BHG's "You are behaving like a angry-but-clueless newbie".

4. I meant that. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I am willing to take any and all steps necessary to stop BHG from causing problems for the most disadvantaged of our readers and editors. She cannot be allowed to continue to flout common decency in the way she is treating them.

As a very long-time contributor to accessibility issues on Wikipedia, I am disgusted at the way BHG has felt entitled to ignore every piece of advice and rebutted every attempt to fix the problems she causes. She thinks that our accessibility policies don't apply to her. Well, it's about time we said "enough" and started sanctioning editors who "don't get it" after it's been pointed out to them a dozen times. Please help me defend accessibility in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS's claim that None of her posts contained paragraph breaks for me to remove is false. The indentation markup causes para breaks, and the complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e,g. this edit[49] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph.

I might consider changing my indentation style if my style was something other than the norm ... and if the request came from someone other than an abusive, threatening bully who is weaponising a widely-ignored guideline on formatting .. and who doesn't even see a problem in wholly removing the post of an editor with whom they are engaged in a discussion.

As to RexxS's claim that my posts are a deliberate violation of INDENTMIX as if to provoke me ... wow!! I can only read that as Rexxs having some anger management or ownership issues. I simply continued to do what I usually do and what everyone else is doing, ignoring the aggression. RexxS's choice to interpret that as a personal provocation to him is an indication of nothing other than his own mindset. INDENTMIX is not policy, and RexxS should stop editwarring to use it as a hammer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

BHG's claim that her posts contained paragraph breaks is false. I quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Multiple paragraphs within list items:

Normal MediaWiki list markup is unfortunately incompatible with normal MediaWiki paragraph markup. To put multiple paragraphs in a list item, separate them with {{pb}}

and it gives examples. This has been drawn to BHG's attention and still she repeats her falsehoods. The indention does not create paragraph breaks, it merely makes a list item, and that's the source of the problem for screen readers when BHG switches willy-nilly betwen different list types. And she know that.

I believe that if BHG refuses to change her list style to become problematical, she should be sanctioned. The norm is documented at MOS:INDENTMIX and she must abide by it.

"an abusive, threatening bully" - this is the sort of personal attack that I have been constantly subjected to from BHG, and it needs to stop.

When BHG has been shown INDENTMIX and had her posts formatting corrected three times, to repeat the problem a further seven times or more certainly looks like deliberate provocation to me. I am well known as an advocate of accessibility on Wikipedia and BHG is assuredly trolling me deliberately. INDENTMIX is a part of accessibility, which is a policy – at the Foundation level, and is non-negotiable – and BHG should know that it is not a "widely-ignored guideline on formatting"; it is part of the trouble we take to make sure that all readers and editors, regardless of disability can participate without being subject to the completely avoidable problems that BHG is wilfully causing. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS, how dare you say that BHG's claim that her posts contained paragraph breaks is false. There is more than one way of making aparagraph break. As I noted above: The indentation markup causes para breaks, and your complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e.g. this edit[50] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph. You repeated this 5 or 6 times.

I am not trolling you. I am bullied by a roguee admin who is WP:INVOLVED, and who cannot even read the guidance he quotes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

And how dare you repeat that untruth? None of your posts contained paragraph breaks, so I could not have removed any. The indent markup most certainly does not cause paragraph breaks. It only creates list items. In a threaded discussion such as the one we were considering there is just one recommended way of making a paragraph break: {{pb}} as is explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Multiple paragraphs within list items which I drew your attention to earlier. I assume you didn't bother to read that either? Or bothered to look at the formatting in my posts which makes extensive use of them? How are you going to learn anything if you ignore every piece of advice given to you? --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I have at no point used my admin tools as part of the dispute so you can cut out the cheap smears about "roguee admin". Nor am I bullying you; I am doing no more that defending multiple readers who are using assistive technology from your appalling disregard of them. There is no shame in that. --RexxS (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(ec) RexxS, you bully .. STOP YOUR BOGUS ACCUSATIONS THAT I AM REPEATING AN UNTRUTH. I AM DESCRIBING THE REALITY.

This is utterly ridiculous nonsense. I use successive lines indented with colons to produce separate paragraphs of text, as shown at WP:THREAD.

Your edit[[51]] made all those lines run together. And you repeated that 5 or 6 times.

I am sick to death of your arrogant, bulling, timewasting mendacity. I come to edit Wikipedia for contribute to human knowledge, not to waste my time dealing with some wannabe formatting cop who repeatedly accuses me of lying for accurately describing the effects of his busybody edits. What on earth is wrong with you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you both are pretty daring at times and that daring is doing neither of you any service here. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BrownHairedGirl: List markup, as used in that threaded discussion, does not produce paragraph breaks. It only produces list items. That is a simple fact. There were no paragraph breaks in yours posts, so I could not have removed them. Calm down and try to comprehend the reality of how wikimarkup works, and the effect of your indent style on those using screen readers.

"you bully", "your arrogant, bulling, timewasting mendacity", "wannabe formatting cop", "his busybody edits". Is that how you think you should debate issues? Personal attacks like that don't help your case, and I refuse to be baited again by them. I come to Wikipedia to help create a world in which the sum of knowledge is made freely available to every person on the planet. And for me that includes the visually impaired. I'm truly sorry you don't seem willing to share my vision — Preceding unsigned comment added by RexxS (talk • contribs) 16:37, March 26, 2020 (UTC)

Literaturegeek, speaking generally (I'm still thinking about the details of this specific problem) I don't think saying that we should only make things conducive for the visually impaired if we know someone is visually impaired is the right frame. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

RexxS,

You call my posts "pollution".

You call me a "spoilt brat".

You cite guidance in support of your actions which explicitly does not endorse your actions.

You repeatedly mislabel a guideline as policy.

You repeatedly remove my posts from a discussion and replace them with your own.

You repeatedly remove from my posts the indentation markup which causes the paragraphs to be displayed as as separate paragraphs. The effect of your edit was that text which i had written as 4 paragraphs was run together. You did that 5 or 6 times!

You then repeatedly smear me by denying that that easily visible effect, and maliciously repeated a claim that I am posting an untruth.

So yes, I have had enough, and am now being blunt. But don't you dare try to distort the sequence of events by claiming that your successful goading of me into being blunt about you make you some sort of victim.

That's why I say that you are a vile gaslighting bully who has edit-warred to censor an opponent in a debate ... and I am sick of your timewasting, bullying, mendacious crap. When it gets to the point that you call me a liar for pointing out the clearly visible effects of your edits, then we are in very ugly territory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

BHG

Your posts polluted the list markup. It's a common technical description of when somebody breaks the regular code with an aberrant piece of content. That's an accurate description of what you did, except that usually the culprit breaks things accidentally, whereas you did it wilfully.

My use of "spoilt brat" was a direct response to your calling me an "angry-but-clueless newbie". If you want to count the number of personal attacks made, you're winning by about 10-to-1.

The guideline does support my actions.

You still don't understand that INDENTMIX is a guideline and accessibility is a fundamental policy. As you're not prepared to accept either, the distinction is rather moot. Nevertheless I understand the small difference between policy and guideline.

I fixed the formatting of your posts three times; I removed the posts twice; and I removed the flawed formatting four times. What does it take to get through to you that you're doing it wrong? You, on the other hand, breached our accessibility guideline nine times, at least eight of those wilfully. Are you proud of that?

You posts had no paragraphs. I don't know how else I can say that: No paragraphs. I couldn't have removed any. I quoted the guideline at least twice, but you're afraid to read it because I shows that what you think is incorrect. Formatting discussion threads for accessibility is not a matter of what it looks like to you; it's what other readers, including screen readers, see or hear.

"you are a vile gaslighting bully", "your timewasting, bullying, mendacious crap" – make that 12-to-1. I won't rise to it.

When will you realise that all of what I have been complaining about is not a visible effect? It's about how folks using assistive technology receive those effects. You could have stopped this escalation at any point by conceding the importance of INDENTMIX to the visually impaired, and sorting out your posting style to avoid the problems you have been causing them. I would have been more than happy to help you with any issues you faced or didn't understand if you had asked. But instead you deliberately ploughed ahead repeating those same problems for what? To spite me? To see if you could provoke me? Why take it out on the disadvantaged just to try to get at me? --RexxS (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS, this more rubbish.

Nearly everybody's posts to that page are formatted in the same way as I used, as they are on every other CFD page. Your language of "pollution" is an attempt to falsely portray me as having introduced a variation into a consistent style. Your repeated smears that I am pouring sewage into a pristine pond derives are demonstrably untrue. They reinforce my concern that you have unhealthy fixation on chastising this woman. STOP LYING

You are lying about guideline, and the evidence is there on your talkpage at User_talk:RexxS#Stop_it. You quoted from WP:TPO a passage which included the words "fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible". But you removed the whole of my post, twice, replacing it with a post of your own. The guideline does not permit that. STOP YOUR LYING

The guideline also does not permit you to alter my post so that it ceases to display on-screen as separate paragraphs. STOP YOUR LYING

You edited my posts several times, and you ask "What does it take to get through to you that you're doing it wrong?". Simple: when I'm doing it the same as nearly everyone on that CFD page and on every other CFD page, then your repeated tweaking of my edits coveys only that you have some fixation and/or are trying to harass me.

You claim yet again that my "posts had no paragraphs". Not true; there were clusters of sentences which each started on a new line. That's a paragraph. You edited my post to remove that effect. STOP YOUR LYING

Yes, you may have issues with the underlying markup. But what you did was to screw up the layout for he overwhelming majority of readers who do not use that technology. That is what I am objecting to.

As to your question take it out on the disadvantaged just to try to get at me ... as we say in Ireland, Jesus Mary & Joseph. That is a viciously disgusting and disgraceful smear for which you have no basis whatsoever. It is a piece of bizarrely sick narcissism of you to claim that my restoration of deleted posts or removed paragraph separation was some sort of attack on you. It was about my posts, not about you. I was not trying to get at you, I was just trying to restore my posts so that they displayed as I posted them. And as for your take it out on the disadvantaged -- that is a truly despicable, vile and vicious smear. It is as bad in my book as maliciously calling someone a racist. I was not in any way taking anything out on anyone, let alone the disadvantaged: I was just posting as I usually post, and as everyone else posted on that page. Of all your vile, smearing bullying stunts, that attempt to portray me a some sort of malicious persecutor of the disabled is by far the most despicable yet. STOP YOUR LYING AND SMEARNG

You started this whole shitstorm, yet now you are claiming that me restoring my posts and restoring paragraph separation is somehow picking on you, or that it is setting out with an intention to hurt disabled people? That's just a straightforward manure-spreading exercise at character assassination. You really are an utterly vile gaslighting bully. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Imagine my surprise to see BHG complaining about RexxS "abusing his position" as an admin, only to discover that they were against his adminship from the start. There seems to be a clique of people on here who have never accepted his adminship and are allowing it to weaponise disputes. Cassianto^Talk 22:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • For goodness sake, Cassianto, that's just a cheap and lazy smear.
    I had no recollection of that RFA or that !vote until you mentioned it here, and cannot recall encounters with RexxS since then. So it formed zero part of my response.
    And I am not part of any such clique. Go off and throw your bogus smears somewhere else, because you have chosen the wrong target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, I am sorry, I had no idea that you were the arbitrator of this page, I do apologise. You are aware that AN/I is not an echo chamber and people with all viewpoints are allowed to take part, right? Cassianto^Talk 22:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Low point of a thread full of low points so far. Cut it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh cut the whining, Cassianto. You made a blatant and unfounded assumption of bad faith, and decided to have a go at smearing me. You accused me of being part of some clique, with zero evidence to support that ... because there is no evidence to find.
      No, I am not the arbitrator of this page, and I didn't claim to be one. I just responded to your malicious fabrication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• If someone with enough time investigated the history they would probably find this started with comments by RexxS where he provided BHG with important accessibility advice. The fact that RexxS has had to resort to removal of BHG's comments indicates that BHG is unwilling to consider the problems her commenting style creates, and is unwilling to cooperate. BHG has provided a diff of RexxS combining BHG's comments into one paragraph, apparently in the belief that RexxS is obliged to run a free clean-up service by extensively editing each of BHG's violating comments so they comply with the simple guidelines. There are two possible outcomes: delete the accessibility guidelines or require BHG to comply. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, he did not have to resort to removal of BHG's comments. Quite the opposite: per WP:TPO he is not allowed to remove posts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• We have two admins here whom I admire very much. I haven't looked at all the diffs, so I don't know if there's personal attacks in there--the "pollution" note, while curt, is not a personal attack IMO. RexxS work on accessibility issues is very important, and I have learned that if someone with some weight and knowledge corrects me, I should listen. Sorry BrownHairedGirl; I hope you can see past this. RexxS, as far as I can tell you haven't done anything that went across the civility line, but you know standards vary on where exactly that line is. Wait: "spoilt brat", yeah, that can count. Please don't say that again.

  I'm sorry, I really do not want to be patronizing either one of you, but it's ANI and here I am with my big mouth. The place would be much worse without either one of you. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Drmies, in other circumstances I might take the time to assess such advice. But when it is selectively weaponised against me by an editor who is trying to bully me into withdrawing an CFD nomination, then I'm not playing.
    The fact is that as well as being repeatedly insulting, RexxS has been selectively weaponising a widely-ignored guideline as a tool to gain advantage in a debate, even going so far as to twice wholly remove my post, despite the guideline which he cited clearly not permitting that.
    I am utterly disgusted that hours of my that have been wasted by this bully's antics, esp coming on top of two other drama-mongers who tried creating a shitstorm around the same discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know, edit warring to modify or remove someone else's comments is never a good idea. Probably would of been best to bring it to a notice board instead of fighting over something like this. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• BrownHairedGirl: what efforts have you made to take the feedback regarding formatting in consideration of those who might use screen readers onboard? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: I may consider such matrers at some other time, when they are not being selectively weaponised against me by a bullying an editor who has carefully and systematically created a shitstorm to gain advantage in a debate. He repeatedly removes my posts, contrary to WP:TPO. He edits my posts to remove the paragraph separation, and then gaslights me by accusing me of making false statements when I describe the effect.
    I don't acquiesce to bullies, and am not going to acquiesce to this gaslighting, smearing, insulting bully. I just want RexxS to turn off his shitstorm and his censorship efforts, so I can get back to editing instead of wasting previous hours of my life on this crap. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, aren't you glad you asked?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I mean I'm not unhappy. BHG answered my question: she has given no effort at present but might in the future. Been looking into this more and will have more to say in a bit. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Really? I guess your interpretation of BHG's charming remarks is quite different from mine. Anyway, I have nothing really to say and will stop watching this thread. I do wonder what would happen if BHG gave a party and no one came.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
        • So describing how I have been bullied and censored and threatened and gaslighted makes me the baddie? Wow. What a world. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• RexxS what efforts have you made at dispute resolution for this before it came to ANI? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: As I stated initially, I began by drawing BHG's attention to the accessibility guideline she was breaking, and for the first three times, I even fixed her malformed indenting for her in case she needed examples. Unfortunately she simply ignored that and continued to break the formatting another six times despite my protests. I engaged on her talk page asking her to abide by INDENTMIX. All to no avail. I don't think it's possible to resolve the dispute when BHG simply refuses to adhere to our accessibility policy and the specific guideline she breached nine times.

• How many people use {{pb}}? It's hard for me to see how BHG, who has 1.7 million edits and 14 years of experience, wouldn't know how to indent on a CFD discussion. Like AFD and ANI, there's a traditional way of posting cases & comments at CFD and so I'm wondering if this is selective enforcement. We might have to adjust how we edit for those who use screen readers but I can't imagine that BHG is doing anything that isn't done by most other editors in the these types of discussion. And adjusting formatting doesn't allow removing comments entirely, like here Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  Well, Liz, I don't know how many editors use {{pb}}, but I do, and it's part of our WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility, so the only reason not to would be not knowing about it. But that excuse can hardly apply to someone who has been pointed to that multiple times, can it?

  I'm sorry, but BHG with her 1.7 million edits and 14 years of experience patently doesn't know how indent a CfD discussion. Or at least deliberately chooses to indent it in a manner that causes problems for the visually impaired. That can't be right, can it?

  I wrote Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks a year ago because of the many times I've explained the issues over the years, It's simply untrue to claim that I'm in any way selective in championing the cause of accessibility on Wikipedia. Look at my contributions: I do it all the time.

  There is no "might" about having to adjust how we edit for those who use screen readers: we either adjust in line with INDENTMIX or we cause problems for the disadvantaged. That's really no option.

  The thing that BHG is doing that all other editors don't do is deliberately breaking the discussion for screen readers eight times, after having had it drawn to her attention. In all my years of working for accessibility on Wikipedia, I have never come across such recalcitrant behaviour, from someone who clearly should know better. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• I like and respect both editors here and it's a shame to see 2 great editors bash heads over this, FWIW I butted heads with Redrose64 a good few years ago over this exact same issue and to date I've still never changed how I comment however I've always left it open that if people really wants to modify the colons etc on my comment then they can.... It's how I've always commmented and it'll probably never change,

Whilst it would be nice if BHG changed their style we can't enforce it and it's not exactly fair to make someone do something that half of EN don't do anyway......,

If you write it the way you do and allow others to change it then we have no problems. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Here's [52] RexxS doing precisely the awful horrible terrible mean thoughtless unforgivable thing he excoriates BHG for, and used as an excuse for removing her posts. Huh. EEng 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• This entire dispute is massively overblown. RexxS' point that BHG is indenting her posts incorrectly is valid, but it would only justify fixing the indentation, not resorting to removing or de-indenting posts. Given that BHG doesn't appear to mind edits that just fix the markup, that would render the entire rest of the escalation moot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
• The inconsistency cited by EEng is not great and RexxS should have handled this through discussion instead of removal. Even if the removals were within policy (I'm not sure if they were), it's generally a good idea to refrain from policing comments made by an editor with whom you are in a dispute. BHG was recently desysopped for bullying other editors and should not be surprised if she doesn't get much sympathy here. Indeed, she's still making personal attacks that would get most rank-and-file editors blocked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CIR concerns over "grammar fix" edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Edzm12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rejected by @Materialscientist: at WP:AIV

I am concerned by the tenor of this editor's contributions. He has basically done nothing constructive, but he has "fixed" sentences by removing key words and turning them into terse, incomprehensible phrases. He also consistently "fixes" wikilinks by placing a space after the namespace-colon: e.g. "Wikipedia: Protection policy". This turns out to be harmless, but certainly against consensus as this is not in our manual of style. A lot of edits are marked "minor" which is, arguably, proper for the intended grammar fixes, but helps fly under the radar on people's watchlists. Elizium23 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accusations at AfD

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

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

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

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

Ohnoitsjamie - thanks for acting on this.

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

User:Capankajsmilyo and infobox templates

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

They made 7 such proposals in a row yesterday:

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

They also voted with the identical reason "Merge per WP:INFOCOL" at 14 discussions over the last 2 days, no matter if there had been significant opposition against the proposal or not, as if that essay was a convincing reason and not some "argument to avoid" in such discussions: [53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] and [65], where they also added one of those long comparison tables[66]

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

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

They didn't answer, but continued with the identical voting[67], and created 5 more of these "discussions" or "proposals" or whatever they are supposed to be:

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

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

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

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

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

Hounding of User:Ckfasdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMO, it's your deletion request edit is the one matter most, it shows someone who's willing to look up another editor past edit history all the way to edit in 2017 to find his fault. Did you ever consider the other "new editor" feelings on that matter. Anyway, this is going nowhere. You've brought your case. I've put up my defense. So, we'll just wait comments from admins. In the mean time, I'll refrain myself from editing airforce/aircraft/aviation-related pages. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Hijiri88 and PAs at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)

Once again (this has not been unusual in the past) we have Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) favouring attacks on editors, rather than on the subject of discussion. They are also continuing to self-appoint as a gatekeeper as to who may edit, and the scope of their permissible editing – as a means of excluding their opponents altogether, rather than from any relevance to the debate. I've seen them doing the first across a number of target editors, the second only aimed at myself, where I've noticed it, but it might be broader.

• " Possible sockpuppetry involved in this page's current status aside "
• "stayed away because one of the ILIKEIT !voters was engaged in a harassment campaign against me at the time"
• " I was forced to stay away due to James500's harassment,"
• " your slimy indirect harassment"
• "One of the "keep" !voters has been engaging in pretty blatant counter-policy edit(-warr)ing on the article itself."
• " their apparent lack of understanding of policy "

I raised this with them "this is not the place for casting aspersions and making vague accusations of sockpuppeting." and also on their talk: "your slimy indirect harassment" Their reaction was a simple "stay off my talk page.", and to revert their talk and the most actionable of their insults at AfD. [68]

They've also been repeatedly blanking a sourced section from this list [69] [70] (Like many list articles at AfD, there's a question of whether individual items needs to be either bluelinked, WP:N or individually sourced, or if transitive sourcing via another linked article is adequate. Deleting one of the few with on-page sources obviously skews the overall sourcing level of the article, and is also against the spirit of the no-blanking warning on AfD itself.) They've pursued this article for a long time; a year ago they went to 3RR to simply blank it altogether: [71][72][73] and a little later, again [74].

Hijiri also seems to see me as some sort of personal ward and has taken to telling me what I may and may not do, to the point of threatening blocks:

• "RESTRICT"
• Out of curiosity
• "borderline ban-violations on your part."

None of this is acceptable editing and Hijiri needs to stop it, or to be stopped. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is calling an obvious sockpuppet an obvious sockpuppet a PA? (I didn't actually accuse Andy or anyone else of being the sockmaster -- it was @Drmies: who apparently made something similar to that accusation, but I'm guessing Andy thought he would have more trouble "going after" Drmies.) Or stating why I had stayed away fom the previous AFD? What's more, this appears to be a case of Andy refusing to drop the stick, as I've already retracted the "slimy" part and explained how the rest is not a personal attack. Andy is apparently just angry because I told him to stay off my talk page (the only thing that's happened in the last 24 hours). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC) (edited 10:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC) )

I wouldn't mind someone blocking or warning Andy for the above baseless personal accusation Once again (this has not been unusual in the past) we have Hijiri88 (talk · contribs) favouring attacks on editors", mind you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Andy is apparently just

Here's a clue for the future: stop trying to mind-read what other editors are thinking and stop assigning motives to other editors. Comment, if you must, on what people have done, not for explanations that you have invented as to why. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Same to you, my friend. At least when I speculate as to your motives, I am struggling to find the explanation for the facts before me that paints you in the best light -- indeed this is required by policy. Are you telling me that the actual explanation for your actions is worse? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley bringing an editor to ANI for "favouring attacks on editors, rather than on the subject of discussion", that's rich, but that very means of Wikipedia editing "has not been unusual in the past". Drmies (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  --qedk (t 心 c) 15:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have very little patience these days for this type of bullshit behavior between two highly experienced editors and urge both of them to back away, knock it off, and go do useful things staying away from each other. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

+1. El_C 16:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Both of you- neither of you are going to get the other blocked for low-level snark and general grouchyness. Both of you should stop being grumpy and stop trying to get the other sanctioned for being grumpy. Reyk _YO! 17:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• I really don't see how this article is worth fighting over. Someone should shut this down and advise both individuals to move on. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
• Response to most of the above As indicated here and here, moving on was very much the only action I wanted to take here. I think the AFD should probably be speedy-closed as this ANI thread appears to have streisanded it (in that it has attracted a large amount of not-necessarily-desirable attention, not necessarily in the sense of that attention being undesirable to whoever attracted it). I appreciate the above opinions from several editors I very much respect. I am probably going to step away from the project for a few days/weeks. Look at my contribs and it should be obvious that this was the way I was going before Drmies pinged me (I had last edited the article in question almost a year ago, and remembered it only as just another unfortunate case of me probably being right on the policy but not being able to do anything about it). If/When I get back, I will do my best to avoid Andy Dingley, and if we cross paths I will of course remind myself to behave in a civil manner rather than the uncharacteristic and unbecoming one that has been on display in this ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moving of Abdur-Rahman As-Sudais

Hi.

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

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

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

@MarkH21: This is the second time it has been moved to "r" unilaterally. We can leave off protection this time, I reckon, but if it happens shortly afterwards again, I'd think locking it would be warranted. Would you be willing to move the associated pages back to "l", or should I? -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Avraham: I can move it; but with the "l" in "Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais" as well or just "Abdul Rahman As-Sudais"? The former seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME to me. Perhaps we should also move this to the article talk. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reinstating Black July Pogrom Image

I have reinstated the image related to Black July at the Sri Lanka page; the image was there for nearly 4 years (accessdate = 20 October 2015) and deleted by Admin Fastily under F7 without clearly stating the rationale and under which section of F7.

I suspect the image was nominated for deletion under suspicious motive; there are Editors on Sri Lanka related Wikipedia articles trying to create a good image of Sri Lanka while it is not true actually at the ground level.

Even in the midst of the Worldwide Coronavirus outbreak, Today Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa who himself is a war crime accused, released former staff sergeant Sunil Ratnayake on presidential pardon even though the Supreme Court affirmed conviction and death sentence imposed on Staff Sergeant (Mirusuvil massacre).

I hope Admins will have a close look on this subject since we don’t want another Black July once again in Sri Lanka. Hope other editors Pharaoh of the Wizards, Obi2canibe will have an eye on these pages.Lustead (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You have to fill in a detailed fair use rationale, which is not present in the current version. If you did not fill in that section last time, Fastily deleted it on good grounds. If you fail to provide a proper rationale this time, chances are it will get deleted again. Complaining about it here is useless. Kleuske (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, Thanks for your advice, I have mentioned in the Permission section - “Fair use rationale: Unique historic image of Contemporary Sri Lanka which can’t be reproduced by other means”.Lustead (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg is the image in question, which I'll (briefly) hold off from re-deleting to allow people to see what's in dispute. As it stands it's a clear-cut fail of WP:NFCC as the rationale does nothing to explain why this particular photo is essential to readers' understanding of the topic. ‑ Iridescent 17:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You pasted a template, but did not bother to actually fill it in. There are two requests for information on that very page. You ignoring those two banners and making emotional appeals here makes me wonder if WP:CIR is an issue, here. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Iridescent, Kleuske, I have expanded the rationale - “The Black July image is important to depict the beginning of the unrest in Contemporary Sri Lanka; the image can’t be reproduced or replaced by copyright free image”.Lustead (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You posted a brief text under the heading “other versions”, which is not where it is required, but at least your gave some details on ownership. Please go to the section marked “Licencing” and read the instructions in the big, blue box. Right where it says “To the uploader”. Having done that, follow those instructions. Kleuske (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, Thanks. I have changed the template and added details. Please advise me whether I am right.Lustead (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m not a fair use patroller, so I’ll defer to their opinion, but I suggest you read WP:NPOV, carefully and, while you’re at it, read WP:SOAPBOX, too. Kleuske (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kleuske, noted.Lustead (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

”Noted” does not suffice. You are either being willfully obtuse in order to promote your cause, or you are actually obtuse and you have a serious competency issue. Either way, Your decision to bring this to ANI, does imply your behavior in this is scrutinized. This is not a helpdesk, after all, and this sort of behavior can easily be construed as disruptive editing. Also, stop pinging me. Kleuske (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I acknowledged you by saying, ‘noted’, I will act on at my earliest possible, and I need some time to grasp what you have referred to me.Lustead (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the details at the image to the previous version complying WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Lustead (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info by user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@برسام: keeps removing large parts of the Gorani language article arguing that the language is not part of the Kurdish languages, but they proceed to remove a lot of well-sourced information on the close relationship between Gorani and Kurdish/Kurds (which includes the fact that "Gorani" means "song" in Kurdish (which is, again, significant since Gorani was a prestige Koiné language for Kurds) but they also removed the mentioning of the speakers being ethnic Kurds. But that is getting removed by the user arguing that the language is not Kurdish (I assume that means there should not be any info on the relationship.[75] One admin did intervene and try to push for the use of the talk-page, but I still want an explanation from them on most well-sourced information on the historical relationship between Gorani and Kurds/Kurdish should be removed. --Semsurî (talk) 10:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: This was not a good move. Firstly, what you a decribing is a clear cut content dispue, and that is not the purview of this noticeboard. Moreover it is a content dispute in which you have both been edit-warring for the last three days. Even moreover, while it is good that you have both been discussing the problem on the talk page, you—not the other party—have coninued the edit war even after notifying them that you were making this report.

Neither a good look nor strategy. ——SN54129 11:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

If a user cannot give a legitimate reason for their edits, why should those edits remain? Not letting those edits remain (in a DENY manner) would (hopefully) push that editor to the talk-page. The last revert was me returning to the version before the warring began so they could explain thoroughly the issues they have (on that version). --Semsurî (talk) 11:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Semsûrî: I do not think WP:DENY means what you might think it does. Have you read the page? It's a very serious accusation. And, no, you don't edit war to force someone to a talk page that they are already using. ——SN54129 11:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll take responsibility for that, but the core issue is the "Gorani is not Kurdish, so there should not be any info on the relationship between the two"-argument. And their use of the talk-page was regarding a third user adding the category Category:Kurdish language which I agree can be misleading IF not explained. --Semsurî (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Semsurî: The meaning of the Gorani has not been mentioned in the resource you introduced. There is nothing in page 127 abut the meaning of Gorani. Resource,page 111 : "Its former literary ascendancy is possibly still reflected by the fact that the term gorani is the common word for "song" in Sorani." This sentence does not show what you mean. برسام (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@برسام: Can you be more vague? That quote clearly indicates that "Gorani means 'song' in Kurdish. You still haven't explained why you removed that or the fact that it is spoken by ethnic Kurds. Not here nor at the talk-page. If you won't explain your edits why should your version stay? --Semsurî (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@برسام: Why did you remove the information on the speakers being ethnic Kurds? Or that some linguists consider the language a Kurdish dialect? --Semsurî (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

If the user won't give a fulsome explanation to his removals and admins won't intervene, I don't see why is version should remain. I will return to the old version until they can explain the issues. --Semsurî (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

103.217.167.147 Calling another editor "a biased scumbag"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This [76] Bacondrum (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure how that diff relates to your accusation Bacondrum? --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 00:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Here in the edit summary. Altho technically not the correct diff, it did show in the given citation, Puddleglum2.0. John from Idegon (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks John from Idegon. Sorry to you Bacondrum!

Sternly warned. El_C 02:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for attempted outing. Favonian (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:I will infect you with my coronavirus!!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please remove talk page access from this user. Interstellarity (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they are being given the option to request a new user name on their talk page. And they haven't utilized their talk page yet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The user has been indef'd for user name violation. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's obvious who this is. I have revoked talk page and email access. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Boing! for doing that. Interstellarity (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2405:9800:BC30:4C28:0:0:0:0/64 (talk)

Resolved

I believe this is banned Bertrand101, see also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: You should probably report requests for blocking at WP:AIV instead... --Izno (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just my two cents on this matter. Perhaps it would be better to rename (and expand to include) the general sanctions page to something like pandemic related articles and not just the current pandemic like the name alone (without looking at the page) implies. Any thoughts on this? Sakura Cartelet^Talk 18:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User Bernardjtaylorfan

Could someone re-review Bernardjtaylorfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) their edits to the Bernard J. Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. They have already had copyrighted material revdeled at least twice and their current edits may be adding more copyrighted material. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• Sakura Cartelet did you mean to link to a disambiguation page? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops wrong page linked. I've fixed it. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 19:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning for the violations of the copyright policy. They likely have a conflict of interest as well. I will watch their edits— Diannaa (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Krish990 edit war

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

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

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

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

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

And in other words, Ravensfire was so angry that he used swear words at a post in Krish990 talkpage, saying that Krish990 can do whatever he wants. Krish990, we keep telling you to stop doing this but you still don't care and keep making these edits? Can you pleae tell us why? We are the Great (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC) We are the Great (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

His points till now are: "Arora and Priyam play pivotial role or supporting role or crucial role with a significant amount of screentime and in plot; Thus they are also the main leads of the series; DKP (Director's Kut Productions) who produces the series has considered them also as leads even before premiere." His above mentioned points especially about DKP is totally unacceptable. Even before its premiere, there is no such promotion of Arora and Priyam; only Sheikh and Sharma were promoted throughout as evident by reliable sources. Arora and Priyam were just stated playing supporting roles of the series starring Sheikh and Sharma. If seen, the opening of series credits only Sheikh and Sharma as main leads along with the show's montange, promotional poster and with the overall description of the series which features only Sharma and Sheikh everywhere including the official streaming platform Hotstar-https://www.hotstar.com/in/tv/yeh-rishtey-hain-pyaar-ke/s-2049?utm_source=gwa. Every where it is evident that Sheikh and Sharma are billed as the 'main leads' of the series and there is no mention of the other two. And I agree that Arora and Priyam play pivotal roles. MOS:TVCAST states "main" cast members are not determined by popularity, screen time, or episode count. As in this case, since they play pivotal roles would they become the main lead of the series? Recurring cast or alternatively Supporting cast is the correct section for them as per MOS:TVCAST. It is also evident by the award won by them for best actor and actress in supporting roles. Thus, when I added them in recurring section, he kept on adding them under main section repeately. He also kept challenging saying that he have many Wikipedia users to disagree my point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia built on its policies and reliable sources while these words of Krish make it sound like a debate area for providing information not adhering to policies. User:Noobie anonymous (talk)

Krish990, who are your Wikepedia friends that agree with you putting Arora and Priyam in the main cast section? We are the Great (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I think Krish990 would not reply. For my last discussion in both Krish990's talk page and Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke's talk page, there was no reply from the user's side for few days. Thinking inactive, when I reverted the article to stable version, they once again reverted it to thier version, but did not reply for the discussion. Seems that they are not ready to listen and reply to the discussion. Noobie anonymous (talk)

Will give you a list of hundreds of wiki users who have supported me in order to establish correct facts without any adulteration.And no one is edit warring as I remember I was the first person from the start of this Yeh rishtey page to modify ,write the story and cite the cast section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krish990 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Noting that Krish990 has [continued today to push their preferred version despite objections from editors and this ANI thread. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a debate area for adding contents based on majority or minority. There are certain rules and policies to be followed and here according to which supporting roles does not come under main lead section. Recurring or alternatively titled supporting cast section is the correct section for mentioning them, despite how much pivotial or supportive they be. This is what said under MOS:TVCAST for which I moved Arora and Priyam from main lead section to recurring. And also, it is evident that from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yeh_Rishtey_Hain_Pyaar_Ke&oldid=929188283, on 4 December 2019 is their first edit in that article which was also adding Arora and Priyam as main leads by them. How can they say that they have edited Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke from the beginning of its creation. Noobie anonymous (talk)

• I did a month-long partial block and told Krish990 to seek dispute resolution. If there's disruption after this, I guess it's time for either a topic ban or a "not here" block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

IP Address switched from Israel to Amsterdam

I have been deaing with a editor on Baba Ghanoush who i have warned multiple times to stop vandalisng and removing a reliable source. The user had changed the detail from Lebanon to Armenia[77] to Unknown[78], to East Med [79] to The Levant [80], for which I subsequently removed as no reliable source was given (cookbook) and was vandalism as per WP:TRUTH and WP:RELIABILITY

I originally explained to the user about an Armenian topic [81] and how they could be confused to which I would have hoped to met with good taste but was quickly shut down with a childish respone [82] which exposed the fact that this was not interested in finding the truth but was moreso interested in removing Lebanon from the origin section.

The thing is when I orginally checked the IP it was located in Kiryat Bialik, ISRAEL but when I rechecked it it was in Amsterdam. I have both pages with me with both the same query - 63.250.56.42 (https://tools.wmflabs.org). This is concerning for me and this seems to me suspicisously coincedental. Espicially noting the relationship Isael has with Lebanon specifically and wider Levant. Please advise. JJNito197 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The address field in the WHOIS data should not be relied on for accurate geolocation, as it is the location that the owner of the IP space has chosen to give the registrar. It is also not a field that the end user has control over. The discrepancy is due to a recent(ish) change, it looks like that particular IP range may have changed hands recently. In any event, it is a cloud services provider, meaning it is likely being used as a proxy. I'll block the relevant ranges as a web host. ST47 (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ST47, appreciated JJNito197 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé

I am reporting an account who continuously deleted awards from the page List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé. According to him, those awards he deleted are not relevant because they don't have a page on wikipedia but those awards are well-referenced from reliable websites such as Billboard Magazine and Variety but he still deleted those awards (a total of 100+). I am requesting if he could be blocked from editing the page or suspend his account since he is using it as a propaganda for his hate train against artists that rival his favorite singer, Taylor Swift. He is biased and not a good influence, he even reported my count and both of us got suspended and he continued his mass deletion on awards. I already sent countless message on his talk page but seems to be ignored. His account is Cornerstonepicker. Thank you and I will wait for response from you. Regards. Beyhiveboys (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and the only real admin action here is the edit-warring between both of you. Probably best to stop that. I don't know what the MOS is for musician award pages, but using a similar example for films, we have this line "Awards included in lists should have a Wikipedia article to demonstrate notability". Maybe that's a starting point for a discussion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Beyhiveboys: (You did not notify the user you reported as is required. I'll do it for you this time, but please don't forget to do it next time.) You just got of a 31h block for edit warring, and instead of engaging in a talk page discussion, you once again start reverting to your preferred version. This goes for you and the others involved: stop reverting, start discussing. MrClog (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to temporarily impose 1RR on the article? --MrClog (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Recidivist edit-warriing should result in the immediate imposition of longer blocks as well as be subject to 1RR. For two reasons. The block ensures that they do not get to disrupt the consensus-building process, while the subsequent 1RR prevents edit-warring recurring. ——SN54129 10:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I tried discussing the matter with him but he is closed-minded, he is firm that those awards are non-notable on his basis even though I gave him valid publications publishing about the awards.I promised I won't revert the page again until the investigation is over. Thanks for your time and I hope to solve the problem. Beyhiveboys (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Explained all reasons on WP:AN3. Btw the first paragraph is full of accusations... Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Repeat edits on Josh Olson from a person claiming to be Josh Olson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the past few weeks, the IP user 45.48.22.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly edit the Josh Olson page, saying that the person editing themselves is Josh Olson himself. Since the edits were more of blanking of article content with citations, I initially reverted the changes due to the possibility of a COI (and since the paragraph he removed had a source), and placed a COI notice on the IP user's talk page. (revert | warning)

Despite this, 45.48.22.150 has still repeatedly edited his own page. His edit summaries usually contain unsourced claims presumably to have come from him, and includes legal threats, along with the allegation that the editors are trying to "defame" him. Relevant edit summaries are seen here: 1 2 3.

I added information about WP:LIBEL on the IP user's talk page, but there was no response from them, and kept editing their own page.

Last Friday, a user named JoshuaROlson (talk · contribs) placed an edit request on the Josh Olson talk page, requesting the removal of a part of the article since it was "libelous". A Wikipedia steward removed it, saying it was WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Despite that section being removed, the IP user (who even if they were the actual Josh Olson, would then be editing with his IP again instead of his account) still removed page content with no edit summary nor any notice as to back their claim.

Upon inspection of the version history for the Josh Olson page, a person claiming to be Josh Olson had also been editing the page since 2014 as the IP user 2605:E000:1318:C0EC:2095:1420:C4C4:D571 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). WHOIS reports show that 45.48.22.150 and 2605:E000:1318:C0EC:2095:1420:C4C4:D571 are the same (see IPv4 IPv6). There are more IP users who have edit the page with the same WHOIS information, which leads me to believe that the page has substantially been written by the same person.

The IP user now has notices of COI, disruptive editing (due to their behavior regarding the page), and a level 4 page blanking warning on their talk page. Multiple users have already been involved in this back-and-forth for a while. I've come to this noticeboard to finally report the following:

• User (possibly) edited their own page, in violation of WP:COI (if they are the actual person themselves.)
• User switched between multiple IP addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) to edit the page.
• User has engaged in disruptive editing, repeatedly removing page content already restored, with no summary or reason as to why.
• User made legal threats in their edit summary, citing libel and defamation.
• User (may be) editing while logged out to avoid being blocked (despite 45.48.22.150 already having multiple warnings, including a level 4 warning).
• User repeatedly ignored talk page messages, leading him to believe that there was no possible way of contacting Wikipedia regarding libel.
• User has edited the page over time (since a few years back) to shape it to their liking, thus placing the neutrality of the page in question.

All edits made by 45.48.22.150 are below:

• 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

As JoshuaROlson, he has made one edit, which was essentially his initial edit request that he took into his own hands.

All users that have the same WHOIS information with 45.48.22.150 that edited the Josh Olson page are listed below (most edits made by them contain no edit summary, and just add fluff or remove content that would be "defamatory"):

I understand that making the allegation that all the IP users mentioned above is far off my league and requires CheckUser analysis. If there were to be any investigation regarding the cited IP users, including the JoshuaROlson account, I just thought that the above would hopefully be useful (since I don't want to report on two different noticeboards either way.)

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Have a nice day! Chlod (say hi!) 02:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't, and most won't. Now if only someone would put as much work into the article in question. I don't even see how the guy is even close to notable, but other's opinions may vary. One thing for sure though: deletion would likely solve what I think the OP's complaint is. John from Idegon (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is a mess, but I'd say he is notable, as he was nominated for an Oscar (among other major awards) for writing A History of Violence. - DoubleCross (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since editors with a COI are only strongly discouraged and not forbidden from editing articles on themselves barring a topic ban, we should always take care and ensure that their edits are harmful to the article before reverting them per WP:DOLT and WP:BLP. I had a look at some of the most recent changes, and many of them weren't necessarily wrong at least in part. The most obvious unnecessary edit which highlights why we should never just blindly revert an editor for having a COI seems to be the restoration of the completely unnecessary 'whatsoever', the whole thing appears to be uncited anyway. (The older edits by the editor with an apparent COI did look more problematic although I didn't look carefully at the sources. So I can understand why there may be frustration. Still even with frustration we shouldn't put aside our BLP responsibility to article subjects.) The legal threats are definitely not on, and the editor will need to withdraw them if they want to continue to edit. That said, as per DOLT, we should also see if there are problems with the article that we can fix, which may discourage editors from making legal threats. As mention by John from Idegon, it's possible the subject is not notable and therefore the problems can all be solved via deletion. As for the the IPs, since none of these were blocked AFAIK, it's difficult to say anything about them. It could easily just be normal dynamic IPs and editing from different devices. Likewise without looking more carefully, it's difficult to be sure there was intentional attempt to avoid scrutiny when they edited logged out. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I have lbocked the IP and the account. Any evasion, please report. El_C 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An attacker is afoot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Directorjones12 (talk · contribs)

This user is obviously a blatant sockpuppet of User:Kingmoron1. A user with a history of belittling other users. These edits prove its guilt. DawgDeputy (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the following are  Confirmed to WorldwideBallcaps:

• Directorjones12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Kingmoron1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ShadyOasis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Humanhatred (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'll block and tag everyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yikes. Some facade. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment from Psychologist Guy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was reluctant to post here, but things have now been going on for a few hours (and may continue yet) and I feel a line has been crossed. After a disagreement at an AfD led to comments that bordered on the offensive, I attempted to disengage. Psychologist Guy (talk · contribs) subsequently had a look around the web to find some information about me (I've always been open about who I am) and made comments about me across several venues, despite my repeated requests (on my talk page) to be left alone (afd, my talk page, COIN), as well as dropping some unwelcome talk page notices here and here. Psychologist Guy's comments contain name-calling, threats, and insinuations. In general, they are deeply disparaging, as he implores others to ignore me. He makes a lot of claims about me, some of which are straightforwardly false. For example, I have never met Ed Winters or knowingly communicated with him (though, yes, we were due to speak at the same event - against each other, as it happens), and I do not work for The Vegan Society (though I am a member of their Research Advisory Committee, as I am an academic with a research area relating to veganism). I believe Psychologist Guy's comments constitute harassment, and I do not know if they will continue. I would have liked to have gone to bed over an hour ago, but his actions have kept me awake. I am politely asking for help; would someone be able to intervene? Josh Milburn (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't harassed this user lol, harassment is name calling or posting private details. I merely pointed out he works for Research Advisory Committee for the vegan society which he openly admits and is public information. He never declared this on Ed Winters afd discussion though. Ed Winters is a vegan activist and a member of the same Vegan Society that Milburn belongs to. There is conflict of interest here and Milburn should not be editing veganism related articles or Ed Winters one. I suggested this user should be stopped from commenting on Winter's afd, that is all I said which may be considered "harassment" but it's still a valid point. There is blatant WP:COI here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

"LOL"? That's not a good look. You are completely out of line here. WP:OUTING is quite clear on this point. And as for name-calling, how about this, with "Yes you are ignoring guidelines because you are a biased vegan. You are not being honest with people here." and accusing J Milburn of being a meatpuppet for Winters? I would strongly suggest to you that you desist from this line of editing. Black Kite (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vegan meatpuppets??? EEng 23:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In this case, the terminology would be "tofupuppet", but Wikipedia doesn't have any rules about the tofu underground. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll second Black Kite on that. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to WP:OUTING: "The fact that an editor has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse to post the results of "opposition research". Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be." Psychologist Guy has continued in the same manner, again making the false claim that I work for The Vegan Society. This is most unwelcome. I am going to bed now. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it considered digging around online when you link to your website from your userpage, where you say "I am also a member of the Research Advisory Committee of the Vegan Society."? This is less black-and-white than it first appears. Natureium (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not work for the Vegan Society but you do research for them and you are listed on their Research Advisory Committee. You are a funny guy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@J Milburn: You said you do not work for the Vegan Society, but are a member of their Research Advisory Committee. From the about page, it says

The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) supports staff and trustees of The Vegan Society by conducting and sharing academic and other research relevant to veganism. Committee members give advice, recommend references and speak on behalf of The Vegan Society at external events and in the media.

So I am a bit confused as it seems that you are clearly connected to and associated with the Vegan Society. Am I incorrect about that? EvergreenFir (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Milburn has been involved in hosting events for the Vegan Society so he is heavily connected. He has admitted in writing to being a member of their Research Advisory Committee. This means he does research for them and is an active member. Ed Winters is a member of the same Society and last week they planned to do a public talk together. Yet Milburn says there is no conflict of interest which does not make sense. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Okay, but in academic circles being on the same panel or roundtable as someone doesn't make a conflict of interest. I am a member of the Division of Women and Crime with ASC, but that doesn't mean I have an automatic COI with other members. I would likely tread very lightly, but on an AFD vote I'd think a mention of an editor's relationship would be enough so that the closer can take that info into consideration. It seems unnecessary to make a big deal out of it. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I get what you are saying but I think it goes a bit deeper than that in one of his edits Milburn stated his belief that the Vegan Society and other vegan websites are reliable sources to be using on vegan biographies, so there is an obvious bias here. Milburn is cited on the vegan studies article and two other vegan articles on Wikipedia. He publishes good academic articles in this field no problem with that. The problem is that he is not declaring this on Wikipedia, he is not neutral. I called him out about it then he claims harassment. He has created some articles on animal rights activists and vegans similar to myself but as he is associated with the Vegan Society there is a COI here. I do not believe he should be editing this topic because of the COI but someone else can look into that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Are you able to provide any evidence for your repeated assertion that Winters belongs to the society, other than your own speculation? They may have conducted an interview with him and planned to host him at a talk they had organised, but that doesn't mean he actually has membership of the society. And even if he did that should not generate a COI unless he were personally acquainted with J Milburn, which the latter has already denied. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes Winters is likely a member he talked about the society in one of his videos and he was interviewed on their website and features in their magazine. Milburn and Winters were scheduled to speak at an event called "vegan vs vegan" last week. That's an obvious conflict of interest but he turned up on the afd and never declared it. I point it out then he shouts "harassment". There is nothing else I want to add here but there is COI and it is not coming from me. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

It's quite common for someone to be associated with an organisation without actually belonging to it; you'll need to do better than just assert that Winters is "likely" a member, especially given that you previously unqualiably stated that he was with nothing to back this up. That Winters and Milburn were scheduled to both attend the same event (that ended up not going ahead after all) is certainly relevant, but it doesn't establish a COI, much less a "blatant" one, nor does it invalidate Milburn's vote in the AfD thread. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 WP:ABOUTSELF says we can use pages from the Vegan Society to describe facts about themselves (e.g., president, foundation date, etc.). Milburn doesn't need to be unbiased, he just needs to be upfront about it and avoid editing on the main space for areas he has COI in. I see no edits in the main space that pop out as problematic. The only edit that is remotely related to the society is on Living on the Veg. I see no disruptive or problematic editing other than !voting on that AfD. Milburn should use the COI template on their's user page, but your mention of the COI in the AfD was sufficient to alert any closer of the issue. Further the IP editor's comment is a good one; it does not appear that Earthling Ed (Ed Winters) is a member of the Vegan Society ([83]). That you are WP:OUTING Milburn is of more concern to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@Psychologist Guy: Give us diffs on COI, or give us all a break and stop this. So far, all I've seen is a bit over-the-top on the vegan connection. Using your arguments as a standard, nobody would be able to edit on Wikipedia, give a "Keep" or "Delete", or anything else, if you found out they were somehow connected to the subject matter - not just someone who was a paid consultant, but someone who was interested enough in a subject to join a group, or such. Your ongoing wall of text here and at AFD really come down to your POV. Put up substantive diffs to prove your accusations ... or stop it. — Maile (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Update Here is the conclusive evidence of COI. Milburn is an animal rights scholar who writes on the topic of veganism and animal rights, let me just say I have no problem with this as I have followed this field for over twenty years and I admire his work. He has published a lot of good stuff and created a tonne of good articles on this website. He's published in peer reviewed journals usually related to animal rights. However, on Wikipedia he has created articles for Between the Species (journal), Journal of Social Philosophy (journal), Animal Rights Without Liberation a book, Political Animals and Animal Politics. Now you can check some of these articles and he has published in these journals or written reviews for these books. I cant help feel he has created these to promote himself because he cites himself on some of these.

For example the Political Animals and Animal Politics book he created the article but he has inserted his own review for this book on the article as a citation about six times. Click on the academic section. There are two paragraphs dedicated to Milburn added by himself. He has done the same on Sentientist Politics, he uses his own citations to promote himself on there. He has also created the An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory article.

Now all of the above books were written by Alasdair Cochrane "who is currently a senior lecturer in political theory in the Department of Politics at the University of Sheffield". Click on Milburn's Wikipedia page, he says "Outside of Wikipedia, I'm a philosopher, and I currently work at the University of Sheffield." So this is COI.

Milburn has created a bunch of other articles for animal rights people, yeh and guess what? He has co-written articles with some of them or reviewed their books in academic journals. The list is here. You can go through each one. You can find a connection between him and the articles he creates.

Milburn has created the vegan studies article which references himself, so more COI. Milburn has also created the Res Publica (journal), he has published in this journal. All of the journal articles Milburn has created on Wikipedia he has published in. There is massive conflict of interest here and I do believe he has been using Wikipedia to promote himself. Users should be thanking me of spotting all this. Instead of "harassing" him I am actually pointing something that has been overlooked. This is serious. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy against academic experts editing on topics relevant to their professional activities. On the contrary, WP:EXTERNALREL states: Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance below on financial conflict of interest and on citing your work. SMEs are expected to make sure that their external roles and relationships in their field of expertise do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

Josh Milburn's extensive contributions in his area of expertise, which include multiple Good and Featured Articles, are not evidence of wrongdoing. They are a sterling example of how academic experts can improve the encyclopedia, by fairly and even-handedly explaining ideas and disputes they are uniquely positioned to understand. FourViolas (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Psychologist Guy: How about you give all of us a short explanation of your understanding of the harassment policy. If your understanding is deficient, we should be blocking until such times as you can demonstrate your understanding of the policy is in line with community expectations. If your understanding is acceptable, then a simple admonishment to dial down the rhetoric, drop the obsession with Josh and return to productive editing should suffice. The concerns regarding Josh and any COI issues can be reviewed further by uninvolved editors from this point forward, needing no further involvement from Psychologist Guy. That would be my suggestions. Nick (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ditto on what @Nick: said above. Untold numbers of members of WikiProject Military history are military veterans of diverse nations. The various projects on Women are actually run by, and contributed to, by women. Not entirely veterans or women, but probably the majority in those projects. By your standards, those members should never edit articles for their projects. You need to knock it off @Psychologist Guy:. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I think you do not understand. Milburn is adding his own vegan papers and book reviews to articles as citations to promote himself, he's also created articles for vegan people he works with and for journals he has published in, this has been going on for over ten years. I listed the evidence above. Users have been banned for this sort of thing it's against COI policy. It's conflict of interest and a way to promote himself but it's being going on for a while and it's embarrassing to this project that I have uncovered it.

But the fact remains you can't come onto Wikipedia and create articles for people that you work with, or publish with or are associated with. I am published in peer-review but I have never done this and wouldn't think of it. Check the Political Animals and Animal Politics article he created which is a book his colleague wrote, he references himself on it in two paragraphs. He's done the same on many others. It is not "harassment" to point this out. I have given Milburn a compliment above. I actually applaud his research, I have followed this field for over twenty years but unlike him I have no COI I am not associated with the Vegan Society, nor do I create articles on Wikipedia that reference my own papers. I do understand the harassment policy I have broken the hounding rule. I do apologise for that, I admit to being in the wrong. I have never been blocked on this website before and rarely have any issues but this did need to be raised. You can temporality block me if you like, I do apologise. I have nothing against Milburn I was just trying to report his COI. BTW I never started this conservation at this admin board and I have given this user multiple compliments, nowhere have I attacked this user in writing, so this is not personal I just have an issue with his COI. I will not further engage this person or his associate Ed Winters article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please explain to Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco that it's not necessary to reply at length to every single delete !vote on his pet article? Guy (help!) 23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for someone else to tell me, and a message on my talk page was enough. That's the problem with not discussing the article before nominating it for deletion. Actually the nominator was aware that I requested a previous talk, but this article was nominated anyway. With much respect let me express that I sniff that support is sought to end the discussion in AfD, but I would not be against it. I just want to say why emeritus professors, publishing houses, and international/university libraries cannot be taken as reliable sources. Thanks in advance for your help and valuable time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem has occurred, not to mention those who have commented "keep": 1) Someone has said that these sources are not reliable without saying anything else. 2) I have tried to ask why they are not reliable and nobody has answered. 3) Another editor adds to say that the sources are not reliable. 4) Users who have not responded again argue that the sources are reliable without saying anything else. 5) I have asked again why the sources are not reliable. 6) No one explains why the sources are not reliable. 7) Another user argues that the sources are not reliable. 8) Comments are triggered by first and second users who have already said that the sources are not reliable without additional support. 6) I have asked again. I take this opportunity to request again that you explain why the sources are not reliable. Sorry for the inconvenience caused. I just want the comments to be more critical because there is no prior discussion, but I also don't object to every recommendation that can help me become a better editor.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It is quite evident from even a superficial reading of the AfD discussion that the issue isn't reliability, but notability. I suggest you spend less time repeating yourself, and more time looking at what Wikipedia policies require: in particular Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If the material cited to Gertoux himself was removed from the biography (as would be appropriate for much of it) there would be next to nothing left but a list of people who have cited him. All academics get cited. Not all academics pass Wikipedia notability standards. 2A00:23C7:B701:A101:34B6:39D4:23ED:88E7 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I have asked Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco not to post again to this deletion discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent disruptive editing / probable sockpuppetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is persistent disruption going on at Conor McGregor. This involves consistently changing the article in a manner inconsistent with the guideline in Wikiproject Mixed Martial Arts re style. There is a discussion taking place but the user has not participated. I believer the user is a sock of this user, who has been banned for making the same edits.

Recent diffs:

1 2

I also believe these edits to have been made by the same user:

1 2 3

I think the contributions of 81.200.82.120, for which they received a temporary ban, indicate that they are probably the same editor as User:81.200.82.126

I have warned / attempted to discuss with the IP here, here, here and here. The editor continued making the same edit, in spite of the clear request - as here

Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newslack

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

I’ve been ignoring their personal attacks and trying to move forward on reaching a consensus but its just getting out of hand. Now they’re making lists of “lies” I’ve told [84] and thats more than I can tolerate. They also said "You really need to stop with the false claim of the resolution/consensus.” (despite the fact that I explicitly claimed there was neither resolution or consensus) and then accused me of being post-truth [85]. They’ve also repeatedly levied accusations of COI at me [86][87] but they don’t seem to understand what COI actually is. They also accused me of “disruptive editing” for adding a citation needed tag to uncited information [88] (also noticed that they accuse me of both edit warring and wikistalking in that same comment). Their most recent attack is "Stop typing on my talk page when you aren't serious with reality.”[89]. The discussion has been constructive besides for the personal attacks and Newslack doesn’t seem to be taking my word for it thats these are actually personal attacks so they seem to need someone else to tell them that. They definitely have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia and I’m not at all suggesting that they’re not here etc, they just need to tone down the personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous editor who repeatedly makes unfactual statements and doesn't respond to any factual rebuttals, only repeat their accusation again and again. (1) Spamming my talk page, (2) arguing for weeks on end on Talk:Taiwan News without any contribution, merely wanting to delete passages that's unfavorable to that news org's credibility. (3) He escalates to OR noticeboard, which didn't resolve the issue in the way he wanted, he then unilaterally delete passages a week later after the discussion died down on the noticeboard. Then make up excuses about how reliable sources as unreliable. Then when I demonstrated how that source was reliable, no admission, the editor ignored it and went right ahead and jump right into yet another argument... (4) Then he went on a separate wiki page containing a similar passage and then deleted it, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Misinformation_related_to_the_2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic&diff=947810860&oldid=947810252, saying "OR and Synth per the discussion at Talk:Taiwan News and on the OR noticeboard", which is total and complete misrepresentation of the discussion, nobody, I repeat nobody said that particular passage he deleted was OR or SYNTH. The contention was NEVER about that particular passage. It's very much a bold face lie, which the editor refuse to admit and now accuse me of PA when I call this out as a lie... Are we just going completely crazy and adopting the modern Post-truth politics flavor of discourse here? This is trolling, not wiki consensus reaching discussion process.

It's a whole lot of headache and if you guys want to dive into this ridiculous drama, read the following LOOONG threads, although I bet you will get a serious headache.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan_News#Controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#SYNTH_and_OR_March_18

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newslack#March_2020

Also, some context from before which I raised on the OR noticeboard: "I said the editor is disruptive, because over the past week, this editor followed me over multiple wiki articles (almost every single one I edited on) to revert my edits, which is a big wiki violation IIRC, engaging in edit wars/instant undos against my edits, examples: [90][91][92] and engaged it excessive "citation needed" tags when it was in the middle of my editing process[93]... Looking at the editor's talk page, the accusation of disruption, mass blanking and edit warring seems to be a common complaint with many other users."

Tell you the truth, maybe I should put up a complaint on here first so he would stop bothering me and spamming my talk page and wasting my time with no real contribution to wiki.Newslack (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I started looking into this, but I don't have time at the moment to go fully into it. Newslack, saying others are lying when there's not a clear falsehood is bad practice. Also, COI doesn't mean bias. I'll look into HEJ in a bit, but be aware that COVID-19 is under general sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a clear falsehood... Actually many... Would have to read into the ridiculously long threads, or I will be repeating myself.Newslack (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: turns out it was actually a falsehood, I thought Newslack copied mostly their own text from Taiwan News over to Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, turns out I had it backwards and was giving them the benefit of the doubt in error... They copied Loned’s text [94] from Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Taiwan News [95] with zero attribution. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you "attribute" a passage on another article which is reused and edited to suit the new article? Many wiki passage of different article but similar topic share similarity, and I have not seen attribution to each other. And falsehood isn't just this one. This is just the most recent contention. We have been on this one topic for *2 weeks*...Newslack (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I just checked the policy on this. I apologize for not writing an appropriate edit summary. Honest mistake. I will rewrite the passage in my own way. I have not seen prior examples of shared passage within wiki that had a special edit summary. Newslack (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. As I thought the passage was not attributable to a single author due to how fast that misinformation page was updated a few weeks ago, I did not include the appropriate link in the edit summary. I apologize. I think my fix now satisfy guidelines on WP:COPYWITHIN. However, this is offtopic to the present discussion, which is how to stop this editor from trolling my talk page and dragging on an argument that should have been settled based on the OR noticeboard.Newslack (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t troll your talk page, two of those posts are notices of noticeboard discussions. The other one is [96] which would have kept you out of this whole situation if you’d just reviewed Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia like I suggested, instead you launched into personal attacks. This is why its important to WP:AGF and stay WP:CIVIL. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Because I didn't copy a passage to that "misinformation" page and merely restored your deletion of the passage (which was denoted by your truly false edit summary ie "OR and Synth per the discussion at Talk:Taiwan News and on the OR noticeboard" this was a real lie). So you are accusing me of something I didn't do on my talk page, so I thought you are intentionally lying and trolling me, based on your behavior over the last *2 weeks* (way too long for an argument), sometimes clearly misrepresenting some ground facts (such as the status of discussion on OR noticeboard or forcing me to loop back to the same arguments over and over for 2 weeks...) to push through an edit. Since you aren't intentionally trolling me on this one issue but it's an honest mistake, then ok, I apologized already and I fixed this particular WP:COPYWITHIN issue.Newslack (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Got a chance to look over more diffs. Thank you acknowledging the WP:COPYPASTE issue. You can always just make a dummy edit and specify the time stamp and diff of your first edit and then give attribution for it.

That all said, it appears this started with a series of edits March 8 by Newslack ([97]) which were undone by HEJ and then partially restored in this edit ([98]). The following day, Newslack restored the original text ([99]), which HEJ reverted ([100]). In my WP:3O, HEJ's edit is far more balanced. The text Newslack added was WP:UNDUE at the least. I agree with HEJ that certain elements were WP:SYNTH: :::::# Say calling Taiwan News is "Taiwan News is known for sensationalism and unreliable reporting" in this edit is not supported by the citation offered ([101]). Newslack attempts to provide a better source here, but that is not a good source imo.

1. The use of wikivoice to call Taiwan News' falsehood "egregious" should have been attributed to the source instead (see [102]).
2. In these same diffs, Newslack is cobbling together instances of falsehoods, and supporting their falseness with decent sources. But to cobble them together is WP:SYNTH. We need a WP:SECONDARY source that says these are notable and typical for the publication.

Perhaps more concerning is the non-mainspace behavior. I am particularly surprised that Newslack continued edit warring after this ANI ([103]) and after I notified them about WP:GS/COVID ([104]). Previously, Newslack failed to heed WP:BRD. Both parties engaged in mild incivility with accusations of POV, but I see some good faith attempts at resolution by HEJ, including a post on ORN. But Newslack saying the following are beyond petty slights:

• "Looking at your talk page, you have engaged with many other users to purge any edit that is perceived as "anti-US" or "pro-China""
• "It's more of an indisputable fact that when you didn't get your way on the OR noticeboard to whitewash the whole controversy and essentially delete the whole section, you begin to unilaterally edit this page contrary to consensus, which makes this whole editing process excessively difficult."
• "You can't biased the judgment of a source's reliability with how closely it fits the POV you wish to push. Why do you want to defend taiwannews against the quite common perception that it is sensationalist?"
• "As I said, the only reason there is extra scrutiny is because you want to defend taiwannews against the quite common perception that it is sensationalist. Personal conflict of interests?"

All this said, Newslack's behavior has been poor, their lack of understanding of fundamental Wikipedia policy (attribution and synth), and their continuation of an edit war after GS warning and ANI post ([105]) lead me to issue a block under WP:GS/COVID for disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

IslamBro edit-warring, accessibility issues

• IslamBro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gal Gadot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For all the years we have been working on filmography tables and other wikitables that are sortable and accessible to the disabled, we have avoided rowspan due to its detrimental effect. Most people are on board with that, and relent after a discussion of the relative merits. IslamBro has a case of WP:IDHT here. He has also exhibited edit-warring tendencies and he's made nonsensical edits to Gal Gadot's infobox image without discussion. I and others have left plenty of warnings on his user talk. It's time for the community to address the issues. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I left a message at their talk. Please notify me if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

IP spammer again

• 202.84.95.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

After the three-month block had expired, 202.84.95.41 keeps adding spam links to multiple articles. I think it's a block evasion of Akisuto Zeniko (talk · contribs), as with 2001:318:e011:f::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 210.131.158.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 202.248.40.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 114.160.220.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 106.185.153.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). 153.205.237.119 (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for six months this time. XLinkBot might need to be updated to watch for these URLs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Compulsory purchase

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

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

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

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

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

If you can do all that, and make it a palindrome at the same time, then great, knock yourselves out, and add one of your hilarious images as well. Otherwise, could you maybe not? Thanks very much.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Not true. There is these edits, here[106] and here[107], where you tried to rewrite MOS to suit yourself. Those edits were reverted by another editor here[108] and here[109] the second of which with the edit summary- 'you need to get consensus at MOS's talk page before changing it and using your change to justify changing articles'. All because I removed See also redlinks from an article he created. He then unsuccessfully tried to change MOS at this talk page discussion[110] but I didn't participate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  So I have read the evidence twice now. The first time was shortly after reading and again just now. A handful of others have read it as well judging by the pageviews. It doesn't seem that there's much appetite to impose a sanction here. I understand why you came here - it seems you came here because you don't like getting into the agitated state that you have with William. That's to your credit. Edit warring is to neither of your credits. I think the hope here is that the two of you can act like the mature people you both seem to be and find ways of avoiding each other or resolving conflicts short of edit warring should another incident occur. But twoish incidents over 4ish years just isn't enough for a community sanction (or indeed much community interest which I understand is its own kind of pain for you but for which I can only offer my own time and thoughts). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2020)

  Well, I suppose I'll just have to hope the community shows more interest the next time. I do find WilliamJE intensely annoying and difficult to deal with and that's likely to be an ongoing problem.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: If you find William so irksome, why not take the first, least melodramatic step and stay away from him. You need not seek admin intervention to do that. And perhaps, @WilliamJE: you could reciprocate ? Hmmm? @Levivich: I find your poetic restraint in this thread admirable. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 03:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can't bear to see their face
And would their edits all erase
Avoid their presence and so give space
And go not to ANI apace
Burma-shave

--Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 04:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that as a personal defect of mine, I'm simply unable to disregard net-negative edits to material that's on my watchlist, and I can't unwatch everything WilliamJE edits because he's an MOS person so he edits everything.

You might think that rhymes are fun
But you only make it worse
When someone's come to ask for help
And you just take the piss in verse
Burma-shave

—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Welp, I guess you missed the non poetic advice earlier. And I think this is a view shared by others. Just avoid WilliamJE . I'm sure he will be happy to do the same. It is not needed to make a formal case of it. Just avoid each other. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• William doesn't listen to what other editors say. He was advised multiple times to change his confusing signature and he refused (see [111]). I have a feeling that if William changed his signature he will become more flexible with others.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive promotional account

• KingZhaxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Promoting non notables, disrupting existing articles. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - account blocked. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Mgdyason

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mgdyason is an editor who has made many edits that seem to be well-intentioned, but unfortunately also many edits that appear to be simply vandalism, for instance this at Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and this at Phrenology (the latter edit was reverted as "unsourced changes", which is putting the matter too gently). Other inappropriate changes include changes to other people's talk posts at Talk:Maurice Merleau-Ponty, here and here. I have warned the user for vandalism a number of times; see here, here, and here. The user vandalized my talk page here, was warned here, and repeated the vandalism of my talk page here. I hesitated to bring this to WP:ANI, but following the repeat vandalism of my talk page I'm doing it anyway. User needs at least a temporary block to get them to stop behaving this way. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

the user Usertalk:Freeknowledgecreater, should say regurgitator, is violent and stalking me: i want him, him, off my back! i do not know every single policy of wiki, and i do not speak nicely all the time to people such as Usertalk:Freeknowledgeregurgitator the reporter. i will be reasonable with reasonable people see my trail of history with WJ94 (talk) for example, she, i reckon, is reasonable although makes decisions quickly. if you ban me, or whatever the nomenclature of the Wiki project, that is your choice and your loss. i have access to encyclopedias and databases designated as reliable sources, and i will forget the existence of wikipedia. but i trust given there is a committee of admin you shall make the better judgement: quantity of regurgitated summaries of 2nd to 3rd or maybe less than primary sources are not encyclopedic topics. an encyclopedia is about concepts, not summaries of books written by people who have written about other people's concepts. i edeit mostly in good faith, and if i do not i give my reasons for Mgdyason (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

Still more vandalism by Mgdyason here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a mix all right. But even apart from the attacks on you, Freeknowledgecreator, I don't think we can leave an editor who makes edits such as this on the loose. Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

PS. Well, I was going to indeff, but NinjaRobotPirate got there ahead of me. Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC).

The edit summary here should probably be concealed, as it is a form of a pure disruption. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry Investigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was just looking at the Skeet (Newfoundland) article's edit history. I noticed that someone made the account "RebekahSwainNL". Given that there is a user named Blackmagic1234 who, in the past, created accounts and used various IP Addresses to harass another user (he also had another account named "Moukity"), I think he may have been behind the account "RebekahSwainNL" since he has harassed this person in real life, and on here. This person is afraid to come on here given his past behavior. I think if a sockpuppetry investigation was done it would reveal that he is indeed behind the account "RebekahSwainNL" and possibly other accounts, as well as IP Addresses. Could someone please look into this? I hope that's not too much to ask (I know the person he harassed and was told, by the person, whenever they would ask for help on here they would be ignored and shut down by other administrators who would also blame that person for his accounts).

I hope something is done about this. He needs to be punished - he is supposed to be banned from Wikipedia (according to the Talkpage for "Blackmagic1234"). 99.192.8.34 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Who are you? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy block please (done)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Contribs: Special:Contributions/Виталий_Шарманджинов ~ R.T.G 07:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Speedy is my middle name. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I hope your last name is Gonzales. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

LOL well done, ~ R.T.G 07:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ross Upshur

Persistent copyright violations and addition of unsourced content. I can not dissuade the WP:SPA from these edits, and would appreciate help, including rev/deletion and page protection, if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:DC8C:D31D:1DDB:9A1A (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• concern The end result is that NO EDITS in the article history are accessible(plus article entirely Unsourced). Doesn't this fail our attribution requirements and as this is a BLP, shouldn't the article be nuked until such time it can be properly sourced and editors properly attributed? Perhaps could solve with AfD but trying to understand the policy concerns or lack there of, when an entire article's history is revdeled. Slywriter (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Tfondie

I'm not sure what to make of User:Tfondie. From the rejected drafts on their talk page, they appear to be trying to make articles about non-notable, or non-existent, places. A number of their other edits have been reverted as clearly bogus.

Stadium Village, Middlesex, which they created, has just been speedily deleted (at my suggestion) as an apparent hoax.

I have nominated Verdo, another of their creations for deletion, as it to appears to over-egg a couple of planned tower blocks as a "settlement".

A number of possibly related IP addresses (User:92.236.200.58, user:89.242.133.16 for example) have also made dubious edits elsewhere, for example on:

• Christopher E. Rudd
• Dobrich

suggesting either they keep forgetting to log in, or are trying to obscure their activities.

It would perhaps be sensible for an admin to review their deleted articles and other edits, to see whether they are being mischievous, or are just a new editor needing support and guidance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Verdo is clearly cobblers, so AfD is a good call, but what's Chris Rudd or Dobrich have to do with it? In the first case, the IP's edit—while unsourced—seems to have been a good-faith attempt at adding a DoB, while in the second, only one anonymous edit has been made this year, and that was definitely a good edit (and in any case, was also over six months ago). In any case, one IP geolocates to Surrey...the other to Bulgaria. ——SN54129 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

see here, for a more recent example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I now also have evdidence linking the named user and their edits, and Dobrich, on an external project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

AIV is locked

• 174.234.129.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) WP:NOTHERE, with a racist slant. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

AIV is not locked. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, 331dot; it was when I tried to report this a half hour ago. A template came up explaining that unregistered accounts could not edit at that time. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandal on the run

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please look at his edit history and act quick. And act quick, thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Was that quick enough? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, faster than moi! El_C 20:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Very fast. And clearly fast enough. Thank you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List page moved to article name in violation of RM results

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An RM which closed on the 30th with No consensus to move. A split of material defining the general concept may be warranted. (Permalink to RM), was summarily and singlehandedly ignored without any discussion when Anthony Appleyard moved the page from List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, without leaving a redirect.) This is in spite of the page being fully protected from moves, and ongoing discussion occuring.

This move in addition broke a large number of redirects and links, leaving them non-working.

• 19 redirects

• 143 direct links from article space

Requesting a speedy resolution in lieu of a new RM, posting here due to high visibility and readership in the 10,000+ per day with multiple media mentions, user is offline (no immediate request for sanctions).

Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Moved back by initial mover. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor parading as pending changes reviewer without rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Vivek ji123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, while not having received pending changes reviewer rights is adding the icon to their user page and is editing accordingly. Here, for example, they have removed (using the pending changes review tool) seemingly good edits with the summary "Good faith", a summary they often employ though I doubt they really know what they are doing.

They have also added an admin userbox though this has since been removed. I did attempt a discussion with this editor regarding an edit they made but to date have yet to receive a reply. Several other editors have also attempted (1 & 2) discussion regarding this on their talk page but have had as much success as I did. Could an admin perhaps remind this user that certain rights need to be applied for and edits made until such rights are accepted should remain withing the sphere of one's permissions.

I may be at the wrong venue and if so, could someone point me in the right direction for this. Robvanvee 07:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• This editor seems to have attempted to mislead admins when making a request for new page reviewer permissions and claiming that they used to have the right. More than a reminder may be in order. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Twinkle can be used by any autoconfirmed user, not only pending changes reviewers. The request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer refers to patrol via Special:NewPages where the reviewer right wasn't required; it looks like patrol from there isn't available now. Peter James (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a very problematic editor. It's not just the deceit on his user page. In addition to his repeated inappropriate requests for more advanced user rights, he reverts almost blindly without reading or understanding what he is reverting. Sometimes it's vandalism, much of the time it is not—like a broken clock being right twice a day. He also inappropriately tag bombs pages. His command of English is very poor. I have been trying to advise him repeatedly about his behaviour for weeks to absolutely no avail. And not only me. He has deleted large parts of his talk page but it's still in the history. Observe: [112], [113], and even the current one [114]. Observe his article "creations" [115] and this draft and this conversation on my talk page. Because he doesn't have pending changes reviewer right, he attempts to edit those pages anyway resulting in even more pending changes to review for those of us who do have that right. He's also using up administrators' time with his eternal quests for advanced rights Pending changes x 3, Account creator, Rollback. Voceditenore (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also Page mover rights - which attracted a relevant third-party comment. Narky Blert (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one. I note that there, as at his request for rollback, he simply copied the wording used by a previous successful applicant regardless of whether it applied to him [116]. It's a reflection of the fact that he cannot write intelligibly in English. Voceditenore (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Their reverts are bad, and probably a reason to block. I should have checked the patrol log - it's empty for that account, so if they have occasinally marked articles as patrolled, another account must have been used. Peter James (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, he considers it "patrolling" and calls it that, but it's obviously not. I've been to several new pages which he claims to have patrolled and has indeed edited but the "mark this page as patrolled" link remains. He also uses up admin time with inappropriate taggings for speedy deletion in the course of his "patrols". Just adding that he also pesters admins on their talk pages when the rights are not granted: [117], [118], [119]. Alexf has borne the brunt of this with multiple requests and badgering. Voceditenore (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's par for the course for anyone with the wanna-be admin userbox. A short block might force a self-reappraisal; and have the added bonus of moving them slightly further from their stated goal. ——SN54129 09:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for rv. fatfingers on touchscreen. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 10:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• We don't have time to baby sit. I would recommend an indef block until they can communicate clearly that they understand the problem and pledge to stop reverting material they do not understand. While putting fake tags on your user page isn't against policy, per se, I would require him to promise to keep it honest. The unblocking admin may choose to have a "no revert" rule as a condition of unblocking. There is a serious competence issue here, which may be language related, or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Meechu1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As requested by Cahk on Oshwah's talk page, please revoke TPA for this user. Interstellarity (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Koridas harassing others and violating WP:Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Koridas persistent harassment against people involved in the April Fools edit war telling them to stop saying he has more experience since he has more edits than any of them, User:Moonythedwarf even came to say we could edit, and after Moony's comments, his harassment got worse. Here is an example. Wikipedia talk:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 OcelotCreeper (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• I must add that on her own talk page he is attacking users and is threating to violate WP:POINT and is violating WP:Consensus. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  JustAnotherWikiUser0816, I'm a girl, not a boy. So don't use he or his. Koridas (Speak) 19:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry, there was no indication of that, I've changed it.JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Aww, I was hoping to just back out, but the fact i'm included as part of the statement forces me to show up. Well, to put it simply, I checked the revision history, and found that Koridas' most recent reverts were removing people's content from the joke lists, not actually reverting vandalism, despite their edits. From there, I told them about it, and attempts to discuss it with them quickly spiraled to personal attacks. I hope that an editor like them can right this behavior quickly so we don't spend forever in ANI over 4/1, the one thing you should never go to ANI for. To the admins who have to deal with this: Super sorry it's spiraled out of control. Me, and many other editors, been spending time trying to keep things so that everyone can have fun, but some times this stuff happens despite people's effort. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf, How does it force you to show up? This isn't court. Koridas (Speak) 19:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Koridas, I am involved, and I was mentioned, so it's generally good practice to respond. And, alongside that, it's still pretty close to court. Welcome to the bureaucracy. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Important note: Original nominator has been blocked until 00:00 2 April 2020 (UTC) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A good thing too. I suppose we have to put up with people making unfunny "jokes" on April Fools' Day (I certainly haven't seen any funny ones this year), but when such things spill over to noticeboards like this one and take up the time of uninvolved editors and admins then everyone involved should be blocked for the day to allow people to get on with building an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I must note though that this user is violating WP:Consensus through her attempts to block editing of the april fools page and when asked to stop became aggressive. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@JustAnotherWikiUser0816: As she stated above directly to you, Koridas is female and does not want to be referred to with masculine pronouns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to fix that part, my bad. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, Please actually check the block reason. Nom was not blocked explicitly for April fools, they were blocked as they haven't done much else. I'm all for April Fools, but the last thing I want nor need is it disrupting others, or editors being exclusively here for it. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:52, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Alongside that, the person you really should be complaining about is whoever's on the front end of the nom, Koridas in this case. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: Take a step back and breathe, yeah? You're getting worked up about this, but it's being taken care of now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes it isn't funny

Diffs

• Vandalizing User:Jimbo Wales (final warning)
• Blatant WP:IDHT: Special:Diff/948560255
• Being dismissive
• Shouting and belittling other editors' concerns
• Inappropriate redirects —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple users (including OcelotCreeper, Moonythedwarf, and a few others) have stated to this user that they find this behavoir disruptive only to be met as above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that OcelotCreeper made a report, too per my guidance. Woops! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Message from defendant

I have apologized for actions and behavior here. Koridas (Speak) 04:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I hope any reviewer takes their apology into account. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 05:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Admins are blocking editors who are making April jokes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:1D (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked while he was just making April jokes. I don't know much about this April joke but it seems to be an acceptable joke in Wikipedia. This IP shouldn't be blocked or say it explicitly that April jokes are now not acceptable in Wikipedia, don't allow April jokes then block those who make jokes. Currently, April jokes are acceptable in Wikipedia so don't block editors who make jokes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

They're acceptable within bounds, and are not an excuse to go on a tear through Wikipedia space. The IP was taking things too far. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like that would be a good reason to start a discussion on the user's talk page, and no the earlier let's jump straight to a 4th level warning doesn't count. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Acroterion, This seems like it'd have been better to discuss with the user. (Non-administrator comment) —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 04:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Endorse block This is not a time for disruptive self-indulgence. One joke is excusable though immature. Going on an April Fool's rampage in 2020 is not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Cullen328, you also have removed a joke made by EvergreenFir. Do you think editors should not make a joke at all in this day?. Currently Wikipedia policy allow April jokes. Your removal of EvergreenFir is disruptive unless it's also an April joke.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You may want to look up the definition of joke. They are supposed to be funny. Those posts aren't and neither is this. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: the notification was procedural only, the blocking admin should be alerted so as to provide the opportunity to defend the action, and the alert does not imply wrongdoing in any way. On the other point, I don't think that joke removal is necessarily disruptive, context as always is key. (Non-administrator comment)Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

And how was Fastily supposed to now what thread you were referring to? MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD:Because I provided a link to the thread in my edit, something you may not have noticed in your haste to remove the post see [120] (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Worth bearing in mind that most vandalism is "a joke". If you have something harmless and clever to post, then by all means, but I'll join the chorus of voices strongly condemning the "delete the main page"/"block Jimbo" tropes on vital noticeboards. We've been doing them for 15 years or more... take a break while the world collapses around us. It'll make it all the more funny in 2021. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

While we are at it can someone explain why an IP is using a signature that makes it look like they are a registered editor? MarnetteD|Talk 04:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: It's complicated and very off-topic, I can open a talk page thread about it if so desired (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Juliancolton, you have been doing this for 15 years? I am new here. This is the first time I see these jokes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but EvergreenFir has been here for nearly a decade. Plus, you can catch up on everything you've missed, going back to 2004, right here. This clearly isn't fun. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• This IP was given the 4th level warning immediately and was reported to WP:AIV. Then Materialscientist gave the impression to the IP that his jokes were not vandalism here. Then he continued with other funny jokes and was immediately blocked.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, SharabSalam, so there are rules for April 1st. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Liz. The IP was given the fourth level warning. There was no first, second or third level warning. The IP was also given an impression that his jokes were not vandalism by Materialscientist here. The IP should be unblocked.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, the IP followed all the rules, Liz. Show me one case where the rules were not followed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

• As Wikipedia's unofficial court jester, I encourage all jokesters to exercise additional discretion in these difficult days. EEng 05:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

April fools jokes are a particularly stupid and unedifying part of Wikipedia at the best of times, but especially this year. Anyway, the time for making them finished four hours ago. What's that? YOUR time zone is the only one that matters? The fact that we are a global encyclopaedia, involving dozens of different time zones and cultures, makes them even more stupid. They should be deleted on sight, and banned for all time. HiLo48 (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Heh good joke. PackMecEng (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef-blocked user trying to return under a new account

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Current account: Tombolaka5308 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Former account: Thesciencenewsonline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here Tombolaka5308 admits to having been Thesciencenewsonline. On his userpage, he now discloses his COI with Jack Turban. However, this is a violation of WP:FRESHSTART, since he is under an active block. He has to address the issues that caused him to be indefinitely blocked in the first place. Here is the ANI report that resulted in the original block. He can't just pretend the deceptive behavior didn't happen in repeatedly ignoring requests to disclose whether he had a COI and continuing to edit, as well as his improper focus on using primary sources in violation of WP:MEDRS and WP:PSTS. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Bbb23 has handled it via a CheckUser block. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creation of others' User pages by ธนบดั เมืองโคตร

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

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)

Indeffed by Bbb23. Deor (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot

• Citation bot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AManWithNoPlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prior discussion at user talk:Citation bot, User talk:AManWithNoPlan (which AManWithNoPlan blanked), a very odd exchange at User talk:SandyGeorgia, and User talk:Rexxs

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)

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)

Apologies, HJM, I should have known that you would have already. ——SN54129 10:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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,[121] 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:

• March 18: [122]
• March 22: [123]
• March 23: [124]

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

(after edit conflict) NinjaRobotPirate referred to the |url-access= parameter, not |access-date=. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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. [125] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @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)
      • @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)
  • 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)
• 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)

  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)

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)

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."[126] [127] (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. [128][129]
• 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. [130] [131]
• 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 [132]. 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. [133].
• Posting long, multi-paragraph block quotes repeatedly in multiple discussions, and refusing to respect the Poll/Discussion division in the first RfC. [134] [135] [136]

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)

• EvergreenFir, do you have any advise or suggestions? El_C 19:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• On the tags, Wikieditor19920 has an annoying habit of adding (and re-adding) article-wide tags on heavily edited articles when discussions don't go their way.[137] [138] [139] [140] This is what happened the first time I saw them make such a complaint to an admin page on this subject: [141]. As for bludgeoning, could be. But, WP:GLASSHOUSES. O3000 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Please look up the word unilaterally. [142] O3000 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

You have threatened me with admin action now six times. This is become boring and boorish. O3000 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Okay, sounds good. Thanks, EvergreenFir. El_C 20:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

Comment Selfstudier notified two users that have same POV that he has [143],[144] though he notified one user[145] 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Suggest you strike the word "tactics". O3000 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Selfstudier knew what they were doing and repeatedly and openly disregarded requests to stop. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Zero^talk 04:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 08:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 01:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looks like Trappist the monk may have short-circuited. EEng 14:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

If the error messages were some other color, I suspect that the messages would go unnoticed. I deliberately toned them down from the standard 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)

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)

• We just went through a nearly-identical situation six months ago at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313#Is there a semi-automated tool that could fix these annoying "Cite Web" errors?. Are we really going to do this again? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hmm... I can't find those solutions mentioned in the template documentation. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support (as proposer) Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• The first point is moot Feline Hymnic. Headbomb has already done that, see Module_talk:Footnotes#Error messages. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Mr rnddude: Thanks for the update. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware of this discussion, but thanks for the ping. I've updated the guidance at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Displaying the error messages too. There is currently one reliable way of displaying error messages: Using User:Svick/HarvErrors.js. You can also use User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js if you'd like to be warned of other problems, which can be useful in certain cases. The Module:Footnotes implementation is so far, the worst of them all. It would be useful to have it enabled by default, but only once the kinks have been worked out, better support for anchor-generation in CS1 templates is done, and false positives able to be handled in a much more streamlined fashion than this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what is shown on the articles in that category, but I'll note that according to TreeViews those 47k articles receive something like 600 250 million pageviews per month. Nemo 14:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support both and thanks to HB for doing 1 already. Harv errors are a problem, but turning harv errors into red errors is not the solution to that problem. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

Kingsif reported by 79.109.111.97

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism in [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151]. 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)

The relevant guideline is MOS:ETHNICITY, which all involved should probably follow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

Potential CIR issue

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

LOL. I'm sorry if I intrude but this diff is great: [152] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't work out if he's fetishising feet or height. Narky Blert (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

lol well, looks like he is determined to keep those feet...he just reverted again! Curdle (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misuse of User Talk Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• MaxPower 007james (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

I've removed TPA. 331dot (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willy on Wheels sleeper socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

If you're reporting particular users, which ones? And why report sleepers at all?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

George Ho acting like the owner of article Second Cold War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Report editor because of connection to subject.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Please see my response at your talk page. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Katanamaru repeatedly vandalizing articles related to nonbinary individuals, changing pronouns, etc

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

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)

• I have indef blocked, as that is totally unaceptable - especially as Katanamaru bolded the "it" for emphasis in at least one case. By the way KingForPA, if you report anything here can you please provide diffs rather than links to past revisions, as we still have to search to find the actual change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

  Noted - my apologies! KingForPA (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chuvash ethnic gallery

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move RFB request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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, –Davey2010^Talk 17:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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, –Davey2010^Talk 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

82.206.29.66 disrupting Talk:Bates method

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 82.206.29.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Bates method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

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)

BLP violation by IP

74.15.89.144. See diff here, obvious troll edit asserting drug usage by a TV personality w/o source. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this. But like the big header says when you post here, it's best if you don't announce BLP violations here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ITVAW336Lab

This user is a self-admitted sock of User:AW336 (per userpage), could an admin please block? Thanks! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

And,  Done done by NinjaRobotPirate. Thanks! --Puddleglum^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 21:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Recurrence of serious vandalism on band articles by User:188.141.87.103

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ValequezBot

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Violation of Manual of Style and WP:NPOV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• September 11 attacks

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

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

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

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

Exactly the point I made on their talk page [[153]] long term edit war, ignoring consensus and bludgeoning. Clearly fighting the good fight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

So, you think It was wise, though, about behavioral concern of several editors who violate NPOV with Manual of Style, and remove well-sourced addition from a professor [154]??? — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out [[155]] MOS does not have a blanket ban on the use of the word terrorist. So we also have cheery picking wikilaywering.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not much, but...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated bogus OR accusations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

In addition to IvoryTower123, four other editors have also argued that many of Hijiri88's edits in the article of mottainai are original research.[156][157][158][159] 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.[160] Just look at a few of the threats he has made against those who disagreed with him.

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

Hijiri88 also canvassed for support with a non-neutral message on the reliable sources noticeboard.[161] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[162][163][164][165] and in edit summaries.[166][167]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having said the above this Andy's post seems to violate this warning [[168]], and so he should be blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this [[169]] was posted after his "retirement", its pretty much a PA (and a pretty egregious one at that), and this [[170]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

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

This was their farewell message [[171]], the rest was after they had said "As of this latest update, I will be logging out to avoid any more harassing pings and messages.)". As I said this is not a genuine retirement, any more than the last one (or however many) was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please issue a range block for Hijiri88 as its clear they are using IP's to just be objectionable (and no, no one had forced them to respond, all that shows is the same attitude that caused them to block evade the last time, they must respond, they must fight their corner). I would also point out they posted this [[172]] at 11:35, 1 April 2020, sometime after their claim they had no intention of posting "here". This was posted [[173]] before anyone turned up to dance on their grave (as was this [[174]]). [[Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

YouTube can be reliable sometimes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit warring and refusal to engage in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am considering placing a one-week block of Kagoikunai and removing or extending that depending on the result it produces. That user has been serially altering a key item in the Filipino Americans article against existing support cited there, without providing properly cited support for his changes, and refusing to engage in discussion about his changes. His latest change can be seen here, and a talk page section I opened for discussion can be seen at Talk:Filipino Americans#Number: 4M or 2.8M. I will place a notice of this discussion on his user talk page. What do other admins think? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Having seen no response to this, and not wanting to let he matter rest awaiting a response here, I'm withdrawing it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)

Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

@SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [175]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [176] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The talk page post [177]:

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

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

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

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

Closure-PIwA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD forums being used as weapons

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similarity with some blocked users

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

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

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

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

Response from Authordon appreciated

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

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

• 173.61.56.158 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

A876

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

A few days ago, A876 made this change to the main MOS page. Afterwards, three separate editors (not even myself, despite being the one who reverted the initial edit) brought this up on his talk page at User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes (again). The edit in question introduced a ton of changes, almost all of which were cosmetic, making it difficult to find what the substantive changes were (if there were any). And this has been an ongoing problem for years and years. And since those 3 editors all echoing the same concern, A876 made 3 more changes over the past couple days (diffs: again to the main MOS page, [178], and [179]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- A876 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reply 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rangeblock needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Patapsco913

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A possible case of WP:Canvassing and meatpuppetry, soliciting other editors with likely same views [180] [181] to jump into a couple of articles I A7ed to circumvent the editorial process and remove the tags since Patapsco913 was the creator of those articles. I have nominated all 3 articles for deletion. Maurice Kremer, Milton H. Biow, and Joy Silverman. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naughty behaviour

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

This IP made an offensive comment directed towards me in an edit summary [182]. This was after this person received a one week block for disruptive editing. There is also this this, after I left a final warning for their disruptive editing/vandalism. And these edit summaries, each repeated four times [183] [184]. I have seen action taken on people for far less egregious comments. – ².O.^Boxing 19:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Lol", eh... [185] ——SN54129 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And now the individual is evading the block with this [186]. Oh so terribly naughty!! Lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Sincerest apologies me ode mucker, I think? Not sure lol it didn't actually have anything to do with boxing as such, it just originated from disruptive edits on a boxer's talk page lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Patapsco913 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Graywalls reported by Matthew T Rader

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user keeps editing my photos after help desk said my photo credits are acceptable, here, this user is now going through wikipedia and removing my quality image contributions, this has been going on for several days now including reverting my edits. Matthew T Rader 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Report targed fixed from "graywall". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, for someone so insistent about this, commons:Special:Diff/409200145 does not cast a good light on your copyright knowledge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, regardless of anything else, Matthew T Rader should stop edit warring to restore his images. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I have stopped, I haven't messed his past several deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matthew T Rader, regarding the above message: Sooner or later, other editors who value the quality of your photos will restore them. If one of your contributions is reverted, you can click "Talk" above the article, then "New Section". Write a short explanation why you think the photo should be added to the article. Wait for others to join the discussion; there is no deadline. The edit warring policy explains why this is important. The essay WP:DISCFAIL provides advice for dealing with editors who ignore the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

So, initially I noticed changes made to some of the pages I am watching, then after looking some of the change, I noticed your user page was a resume like page for your numerous social networking pages, this was removed for inappropriate use as as a web hosting [187]. Although you were awared some time ago the page is not for promoting your business and another editor here also noticed that.User_talk:Matthew_T_Rader#Your_user_pageThat previous version of your user page is still around at [188] by another editor. The "author" attribute for many of your pictures link to your outside website, and the source links to your blog which contains the subject photo which appear to be derivative version of what is on Wikimedia. Something that came odd about the "source". I will use one of the examples [189] is 2999x1994 with EXIF. But your blog which you referenced as the source is a "copyright 2020" blog at https://matthewtrader.com/photos-the-taj-mahal which has a downsized derivative 1200x798. Since the source in image file points to a derivative work, so it couldn't have been the source of the higher resolution version. This is the pattern I have seen on many of the pictures you've added in a batch. Essentially all of your edits since about [[190]] have been adding your own authored photo into other articles in a batch. [[191]] he does point that questions may arise whether the photographer and Wiki editor is the same person here. So in a nutshell, I did undo things that appeared to being added for promotion. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned you weren't aware, but you were awared some time ago the page is not for promoting your business here. Another user also felt that some of your additions were COI which can be seen here. The "author" attribute for many of your pictures link to your outside website, and the source links to your blog which contains the subject photo which appear to be derivative version of what is on Wikimedia. Something that came odd about the "source". I will use one of the examples [192] is 2999x1994 with EXIF. But your blog which you referenced as the source is a "copyright 2020" blog at https://matthewtrader.com/photos-the-taj-mahal which has a downsized derivative 1200x798. Since the source in image file points to a derivative work, so it couldn't have been the source of the higher resolution version. You don't have authority control setup, so this creates copyright related ambiguities. This is the pattern I have seen on many of the pictures you've added in a batch. Essentially all of your edits since about [[193]] have been adding your own authored photo into other articles in a batch. [[194]] he does point that questions may arise whether the photographer and Wiki editor is the same person here. So in a nutshell, I did undo things that appeared to being added for promotion. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I had links to my website on my user page because I thought that's what the user page is for, talking about yourself and showing how people can connect with you. Obviously that was a misunderstanding and has been corrected after I read more about the intention of user pages. The image at the source is a smaller version of the original image for user experience to allow the image to load quickly. The image on Wikimedia is the same image and the size is the same as the original so people on Wikimedia can enjoy a full resolution version of the image instead of the reduced one at the site. That image was first published on that website, I can't link to my hard rive as the source. Matthew T Rader 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right someone did say that about my user page, I totally forgot about all of that, it has been 2-3 years. For your copyright point, under your logic then no website that uses Creative Commons, Unsplash, Public Domain, etc. images can copyright their website, which would be a massive portion of websites in the world. You are allowed to copyright your website while using images you don't own the copyright to. I'm confused about what you are expecting the outcome to be. Is it that I'm not allowed to copyright my website? Or that I'm not allowed to give away my images because I copyright my website which I use them on? Matthew T Rader (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Also in the edit where you overridden someone else's existing photo with your version was reverted by another editor here. Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A part of this conflict was taken to Wikimedia Commons, a community that does not even require paid contributions to be disclosed, let alone conflicts of interest (commons:COM:PAID). They care about high-quality freely licensed images, nothing more or less.

Matthew T Rader's contributions here on Wikipedia appear to have been undone for days, solely because of the (obvious, but seemingly acceptable) conflict of interest. I think this was an overreaction close to hounding, which is prohibited.

Graywalls, thank you very much for acting against promotion. Wikipedia is not for promotion, and removing promotional content helps the encyclopedia.

That said: I think the editor community – over time – is pretty able to remove images that do not fit into the article. Those who watch an article will complain soon enough about bad image additions. Systematic reverts such as Special:Diff/948917306 are unnecessary and hurt the project, as the goal is building a high-quality encyclopedia and the reverted edit did contribute to the goal. Your concerns about promotional editing are worth a discussion, and WP:COIN could have been a place to hold it. However, after all the stress and the impression of hounding, I believe that you should not be the person to start that discussion. Others can and will deal with Matthew T Rader's contributions. Now that the matter has gained wide attention, there is no need for a 1-vs-1 fight across articles anymore.

Matthew T Rader, editors with a conflict of interest are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. You will have to expect, and accept, that your proposed image additions are not always kept. If someone removes your images, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of reverting the removal. In your edit summary, when adding one of your own images, please ideally point this out. "Adding a photo created by me" makes the situation obvious, and others can then decide whether to keep it or not.

Does this already resolve the matter? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe so. On copyright matters, he does suggest they were previously published well before his recent mass upload of photos on Wikimedia Commons. So, as they were originally published without creative commons release, it does appear that they do need to go through the OTRS procedures for Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials before they're used here and what other people said about needing to positively confirm that the person making the edit is indeed the copyright holder seems to be valid. per WP:DONATEIMAGE Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree I feel it is resolved. Thank you for your time in this matter. I will be more careful here on out on how I add images and be more selective in that process. I will also make sure from now on I appropriately dispute deletions. Matthew T Rader (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yungchen Lhamo

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

• Please see [195], for example. My edits have been characterized as disruptive, unconstructive, and I'm accused of harassment. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I believe I noted this in an edit summary, the foundation's website [196]. Much of the article also mirrors [197], which is why I'd requested more eyes--if the article is composed largely of copied content, it is a problem. Any content that's unsourced and promotional may, and ought to be removed. You must know that, but for some reason you've decided to take aim at me. Very well. Make sure you're right, given the certainty of 'Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Incomplete discussion from ANI archived

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, can anyone help me getting this discussion back? [Possible issues with Authordom]. The discussion has not reached to its conclusion yet. Tagging associated editors: Irshadpp, Goldsztajn, Ngrewal1 and Djm-leighpark. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 20:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that thread was a massive wall of text. Just let it die. If something new has happened, you can concisely describe it here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Just let it die is it your opinion or an administrative decision, @NinjaRobotPirate:. How can a bot move this discussion without a proper discussion or consensus. This move probably a mistake happened. Will you kill any discussion, just because of mass content. Why not understanding the history how this discussion became huge. Which is nothing but investment of many editors. Now if you are saying let it die it is a clear insult on those editors.--Irshadpp (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WeyerStudentOfAgrippa is sabotaging edits, United States article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User undo edits in article and in first time make the undo without summary and in second undo gives this summary: Undid revision 949377734 by Janitor102 (talk) content is not encyclopedic. --Janitor102 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits were poorly written and at best introduced no useful information. I see no action to be taken here. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Kinu: Edit: | calling_code = +1
| iso3166code = US
| cctld = ; Generic top-level domain (preferred){{<--efn|Only used in the U.S. continuously since Internet beginning}}: .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil
; 7 ccTLDs (never used){{<--efn|ccTLD use generally is absolutely unpopular in the U.S.}}: .us, .pr, .as, .gu, .mp, .vi, .um
| religion = See Religion in the United States
| religion_year =

"WeyerStudentOfAgrippa" version: | calling_code = +1
| iso3166code = US
| cctld = ; Generic top-level domain: .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov, .mil
; ccTLD (generally not used in the U.S.): .us, .pr, .as, .gu, .mp, .vi, .um
| religion = See Religion in the United States
| religion_year =

This is very strange. Your edits were poorly written and at best introduced no useful information. represents a disgrgaceful Wikipedia administration argument. --Janitor102 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No offense, but the phrase "Only used in the U.S. continuously since Internet beginning" is confusing, and the phrase "ccTLD use generally is absolutely unpopular in the U.S." does not make sense because it is contradictory (is it in general or is it absolute?) and appears to be factually incorrect. Also, I do not see where you notified WeyerStudentOfAgrippa of this thread, which is required as indicated in the instructions for posting here. Seeing as how you did not articulate your concerns with the other editor before posting here, I don't see what administrative action needs to be taken here. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Confusing?, contradictory, what??, you're admin??, Also, I do not see where you notified WeyerStudentOfAgrippa of this thread, which is required as indicated in the instructions for posting here. Seeing as how you did not articulate your concerns with the other editor before posting here, I don't see what administrative action needs to be taken here. that is taken by notification, and sounds like an other empty argument. You're a very polemic Indian potential politically-biased high-profile university alumnus. No offense, just the truth. --Janitor102 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I give up completely. In my time zone is late and I won't have time tomorrow. Duh. --Janitor102 (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Janitor102: Consider this your formal WP:NPA warning. And Kinu is right...you did not follow the policy for this notice-board (I have now done so). DMacks (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an admin, and seeing as how you've been warned already, it's not worth my time to respond to the racism or other garbage in your comment. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No pussyfooting around racist attacks - I've indef blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I'll second that. Disgraceful way to speak to somebody. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iranian masked users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear bureaucrats and managers, have a good day. A special case: There is a contradiction (Here and Here) in the nature of these users that you may not realize. First of all, these Iranian and Islamic users are wearing Western masks, and their important mission is to throw out Iranian users and welcome Islamic users. Their agenda is to distort the history of Iran and highlight the history of Islam. Now how can I protect myself from their harm? Goodarz Irani (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You could start by providing some evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Given edits like these by you, I see a swift application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Pinging Largoplazo and HistoryofIran, who do not appear to have been informed of this discussion as required. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a troll. Any admin available? There should be no question that this editor should be blocked indefinitely.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Your goal is to deprive me, traitor." Is that from something? I like that line. The Moose 08:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• In Goodarz Irani's comment he accused these editors that they are "Iranian Islamic" and he put a wikilink link to ISIS!. That's definitely a WP:NOTHERE editor.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think I would call them WP:NOTHERE (much less a troll) – I think they do want to build the encyclopedia, they are just incredibly aggressive against anyone who doesn't agree with them. From what I can make out, they pretty much only want to create articles about people, places, and events in the Persian epic Shahnameh. That makes them something of a single-purpose account, but that's a different issue. They have a tendency to interpret comments on their edits as attempts to remove all references to Iranian culture (as also seen above). There is also a huge language barrier here, in that they use autotranslators to create articles and have repeatedly refused to listen to people who tell them that their text is unintelligible or that they need to source their additions. Largoplazo wrote a long and instructive comment on their user talk page a month ago, but that was removed by the user without comment. I have tried asking questions about what their autotranslated English means, see e.g. Draft talk:Korban (Tribes)#Reason for deleting subtitles (and note that the draft was in article space at the time – Goodarz Irani moved it to draft space after my final comment) but never received a response. I think this is probably a person who is an expert in their own field and thinks that every detail in that field is important and takes precedence over other fields, who uses automatic translation software without any understanding of what that does to the language, and who has a very short fuse. I do see a block in their future, though, because their behaviour really is unacceptable. --bonadea contributions talk 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree; edits like this (the reversion of which prompted this response) are pretty clearly someone who thinks they're being helpful and doesn't understand why the misuse of autotranslated text is disruptive. (In the case of that particular edit, it's such gibberish I can't even try to guess what it was meant to mean.) Goodarz Irani is much more active at fa-wiki than here; it may be helpful getting a fluent Farsi speaker to explain in that language why an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing is policy here, as it may just be that they genuinely don't understand how many problems they're causing. ‑ Iridescent 09:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I used to be a Wikipedia / fa user who was harassed by the same anti-Iranian (Here) gang and all my edits were widely deleted. I couldn't work with this anti-wiki group, they are stubborn enemies of wiki because they consider wiki destructive for Islamic culture. I'm a Persian-speaking user, but their goal is to get me fired from all wikis. The rest of the protests are just excuses. I have been fighting this group of ISIS for almost eight years, and now I am happy to have informed English Wiki.Goodarz Irani (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, enough. The next time you accuse any person—whether or not they're a Wikipedia editor—of being an ISIS supporter without evidence, you're indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 09:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Think it's about high time he gets banned regardless. I logged in to 19 notifications or so on multiple talk pages [198], where I have been called (I'm not only one to receive these honors by him) a goat (?), member of ISIS (??) and a traitor (???). He clearly lacks WP:COMPETENCE big time, and is unable to behave properly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The editor has followed up by calling editors (or just you?) discriminatory and paid on their talk page. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that was the last straw. I've blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Kinu. I have really tried to explain things in good faith (though I know I got it wrong once or twice), but I was pretty much at the end of my tether with this user. Even though I wasn't awarded a goat (goats are awesome, but I don't think that was the intended meaning when GI posted them...) --bonadea contributions talk 11:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• If I have said some of what this editor have said, I would have been blocked and my talk page access would have been revoked. What he is saying is also disrespectful to my religion and clear trolling. This editor is clearly NOTHERE. He/she can't work collaboratively with other editors if he/she considers them as ISIS editors.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  It wasn't that long ago though, was it, that an administrator instructed you to "dial it down immediately" for, err, comparing things to ISIS :) ——SN54129 10:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  It's even less long ago that an administrator warned SS about, er, making unsubstiantiated allegations about other editors on the admin noticeboards… Glass houses/stones. ‑ Iridescent 11:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I missed Liz's comment. ——SN54129 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  See the link in the OPs comment labelled Iranian and Islamic users. It is a piped link to the ISIS article. So the OP is indeed referring to users as ISIS editors. That is fairly evidenced. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Mr rnddude: Indeed I (and it's probably safe to say, we) have, and it's of course outrageous behavior for which a block is the only possible immediate outcome. I was also, though, pointing out to SharabSalam, that although he argues If I have said some of what this editor have said, I would have been blocked, he has indeed said some vary similar things, and been called out on them. Hence Iridescent's reference to glass houses. Hope all's well, ——SN54129 13:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  All is well Serial Number 54129. My apologies, I was misdirected by Iridescent's comment about unsubstantiated allegations. Hope you're well too, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

THE user is so curious to delete a page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I even can't understand why [user:HighKing this user] so curious to delete a notable Wikipedia article. It seems like there is some connection between User:KartikeyaS343 and user:HighKing.

I researched few facts here.

Fact1: The HighKing is desperately saving the article in both deletion discussion:[1st deletion 2nd deletion and this article is created by User:KartikeyaS343.

Fact2: GREENSOLE, this article is recently nominated for deletion and the result was keep but user:HighKing again nominated it for deletion within few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRIPK (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Normally re-nominating an article so quickly would be frowned upon, but the rationale provided by HighKing for this 2nd AfD is so detailed and well-researched that I think it should stand. Also, I suggest you don't insinuate sockpuppetry between users without any evidence. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  All things being equal, I think posting this here wasn't the best idea :) ——SN54129 16:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I was grateful for the heads-up - I haven't !voted in an AFD in ages ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Me too. I meant for the Op  ;) ——SN54129 17:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  I seem to remember someone else accusing KartikeyaS343 of being a sock recently...anyone remember whose sockpuppet that turned out to be? creffett (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) [199]. The following WP:RfC brought hardly input from editors who had not been involved already anyway; it didn't resolve the dispute. [200] The article was reset to the pre-dispute state by so. else [201] 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: [202]. There is no single source that would show that anyone has been convicted for bestiality without injuring or forcing an animal violently.

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

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

How to solve this quickly and finally?

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

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

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

time

bbc•

Thelocal.de

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

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

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

No original research. I provided numerous sources, including quotations [203]. 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 [204] and it is also in the secondary sources I provided. Here is hoping that someone at this noticeboard can read German, because this is about German law and the German Federal Constitutional Court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mein Liebchen

-EEng

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Belledoll

I am bringing this to WP:AN rather than to WP:ANI because it probably doesn't have the urgency of the trolls and vandals who are reported at WP:ANI. It concerns:

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

This user has competency and battleground problems. This editor has filed two completely malformed Arbitration requests, in that no attempt was made to format them in the way that is specified. The two malformed Arbitration requests were (properly) deleted by clerks. This editor made two malformed Dispute Resolution Noticeboard filings, in both of which the title of the subject article was misspelled (so that the history of the case could not be checked without correcting the spelling). Neither of the DRN requests had been preceded by talk page discussion. (It may not be easy to find a misspelled talk page.) In neither of the DRN filings was the other party notified. Both of the DRN cases were closed by volunteers. The complaint in the first case was that content was removed, which was a newspaper account of a wedding. The log shows that the content was redacted as RD1, copyright violation, which would be correct if the account of the wedding was copied verbatim.

First incorrect Arbitration request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&type=revision&diff=948604937&oldid=948580480&diffmode=source

Second incorrect Arbitration request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&type=revision&diff=949100024&oldid=949098423&diffmode=source

First incorrect DRN request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=948806994&oldid=948750636&diffmode=source

Second incorrect DRN request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=948998793&oldid=948992366&diffmode=source

The contributions for the editor show that he has also been arguing with User:Seraphimblade and User:MrClog about their cleanup of malformed posts.

As an alternative to a competency block, it might be appropriate to ask the editor to play The Wikipedia Adventure and find a mentor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

AN and ANI are not interchangeable based on the urgency of the report. Also, we don't indefinitely block new editors for making errors as they try to navigate our complicated bureaucracy. We're supposed to be helping them instead. Copyright infringement is a more serious problem, but the editor was already alerted to this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this to ANI as I agree with NRP's comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends vandal

I was going to post this at WP:LTA, but this might be too innocuous for that purpose—this pertains to subtle vandalism. Since at least 2015, there has been steady vandalism across episode list articles for Thomas & Friends. 99% of the edits are done by a 26xx IP, who introduces blatant errors such as airdates being changed and inaccurate episode titles. One look at the edit history of series 1 should say it all. See that 26xx IP? Same vandal every time. This has been going on for years and years and years, across all series. Seeing as it's pretty much the one IP, I would like to suggest a rangeblock for all Thomas & Friends-related articles.. or something along those lines. I know there's RBI, but not having to deal with the edits at all would be easier. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"26xx" is half of the internet. I'll take a look, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I range blocked 2607:fcc8:e813:83f0::/64 for a week and added a couple more Thomas articles to my watchlist (just what I need – more cartoons on my watchlist). Several of the other troublemaker IPs are already blocked or range blocked. In the future, there's a fair chance I'll see what's going on, but you should probably post to my talk page if you want action taken. I can't remember why I added half the entries on my watchlist, and now I have to guess at what seemed so important to me back a year ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice, and appreciated. Should make a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Ythlev

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is to notify about disruptive edits by Ythlev.

On 30 March, Ythlev uploaded a thematic map of confirmed coronavirus cases in South Korea per million residents. He placed the map in the top of the infobox of the article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. The infobox already had a map, and Ythlev positioned his map above the existing one. I (user Statistologist) am the author of the other map; an animated map illustrating the coronavirus outbreak in South Korea, that has been in the infobox since 2 March and that I have been updating with new coronavirus data every day since the first version (which requires a significant amount of work). Ythlev's map has been updated sporadically (4 times) since the first version was uploaded on 30 March, and even though the latest update of the map was done on April 3, and hence is based on old data, Ythlev still undid an edit in which I moved Ythlev's map from the infobox to the main part of the article.

As I do not consider Ythlev's map suitable for the infobox of the article for several reasons, I raised the issue in the Talk page of the article (where I express concern with the map itself, while recommending the map to be positioned in the main part of the article). As Ythlev's response (which was done by editing in my text) did not focus on the issue at hand, it became clear to me that the Talk page would not lead to a resolution (especially after I noticed this).

The following is a complete list of Ythlev's edits of the article:

• 6 April 2020‎ (15:03): Undid revision 949448059 by Statistologist
• 3 April 2020‎ (22:01): (no edit summary)
• 1 April 2020‎ (08:46): Undid revision 948486691 by Unibrow69420
• 31 March 2020‎ (12:57): Undid revision 948329884 by Statistologist
• 31 March 2020‎ (12:46): Undid revision 948293254 by Statistologist
• 30 March 2020‎ (15:39): (no edit summary)

Each time, Ythlev's only contribution is to add his map to the top of the infobox. Statistologist (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

did not focus on the issue at hand I explained why a static map is necessary, and the only response from Statistologist was:

“ Thank you Ythlev for the input. In order to keep this discussion easy to follow, it will be better if we keep the inputs separated instead of editing within each others inputs, so I collected your comments and placed them below my input. I am not sure how you would like to format the comments now when they are moved, but I added a basic reference in the beginning of each comment so please feel free to correct it in whatever way you prefer. Statistologist (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC) ”

Statistologist did not address my comments at all, so it is baffling how they concluded that "the Talk page would not lead to a resolution". Ythlev (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Apologies for the confusion, but I will restate this in the other thread. Statistologist (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Statistologist: There is no need to create a second, separate thread when there already is an active one. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:I considered this a separate case when I created this thread, but after reconsideration I agree with you. I will add this incident in the other thread. Statistologist (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandal ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An IP editor is currently active in the currently more frequented articles of Grup Yorum and Helin Bölek due to Helin Böleks hunger strike. Check the editorial history hereThe editor doesn't stop. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes??? The vandal is still at work. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like POV-pushing to me. I've blocked the /64. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replacing the long standing graph against consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly opened the same discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Givingbacktosociety (talk · contribs) repeatedly opened the same discussions denied by the community.

1. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic/Archive_27#Modify_a_graph
2. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Modify_a_graph
3. Talk:2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic#Modify_a_graph_-_updated_formatting

See above discussion #Replacing the long standing graph against consensus

The user does not understand collaborations and has no idea of respecting other editor's works. The user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. This user should be block for WP:IDHT―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether or not the user needs to be blocked - they seem to be trying to be helpful - but they don't appear to be grasping the things they are being told.--Jorm (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeated discussion forced the original graph to be modified. It just doesn't make sense to focus on one country. Look at the history of the graph. Some confusing graphs were removed and label was partly updated. Still the labels have work to be done. Now it still has more graphs which are redundant but atleast they make sense except two of them which are just wrong. If the things that are being told doesnt make sense then it will be questioned again and again.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

<sigh> Until and unless you can provide valid, strong evidence that our readers are stupid and require "simpler to understand" graphs, you're not going to get anywhere.--Jorm (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The current graph has been modified and it is completely wrong. Replaced it with a correct graph. The updated graph is complex but I still prefer the simpler graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• User:Givingbacktosociety replaced the graph again despite the rejection "Not done" by a neutral editor. The user must be blocked for editing immediately for preventing further disruptive edits.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• 14:31, 6 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 349,464 bytes +32‎ →‎Diagrams: Replacing a wrong graph

• 
  Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

This graph shows correct data while the graph which it replaced had incorrect data.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Givingbacktosociety: Arguing that your version is better, even if you are correct, is not going to help you here. If others have disagreed, you need to build consensus for the change, and if you repeatedly insert your version into the article against prevailing consensus, you will likely be blocked. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: The initial request was for a simple graph but this graph is not the same. Also this correct graph changes were undone and was replaced with a incorrect graph. Undid that change. See previous post about why the graph needs to be replaced. Two graphs one showing data outside a specific country and then other graph showing others are wrong. They should be a single entry as posted in the updated graph. The consensus was against using a simple graph. This is a completely different request. Givingbacktosociety (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• At this point, I believe that this user needs a page block or a topic ban. They are continuing to be disruptive in this area and not listening to other users.--Jorm (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The new request I opened has a specific note: This is not the same request as the previous one which asked for a simpler graph. This is about replacing an incorrect graph with a correct graph. Two graphs one showing data outside a specific country and then other graph showing others are wrong. They should be a single entry as posted in the updated graph.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Givingbacktosociety from editing the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic page for now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

See previous post about why the graph needs to be replaced. Two graphs one showing data outside a specific country and then other graph showing others are wrong. They should be a single entry as posted in the updated graph.And this is not against the consensus. The consensus was against using a simple graph. This is a completely different request. Givingbacktosociety (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace a incorrect graph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I requested for a graph to be replaced with a simple graph. The consensus was against using a simple graph. I did not update the page with the simple graph. But I replaced a incorrect graph with a corrected graph. These two are completely different requests. Now I'm being told I should not modify that incorrect graph.

incorrect graph

• 
  Epidemic curve of COVID-19 by date of report

updated graph

• 
  Graph showing the daily and cumulative count

Two graphs one showing data outside a specific country and then other graph showing others are wrong. They should be a single entry as posted in the updated graph. Also that graph had typographical error when I replaced it.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am certain everyone see the irony of this user opening another thread about this when there is one already open on this noticeboard. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I opened this to avoid confusion. That was for replacing a graph with a simple graph. This is a completely different request.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biting the newcomer; low-key incivility

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

Hello. I'd like to report the above regular editor for his uncouth behavior toward me, a newcomer, over an unconstructive edit he made at Ang Probinsyano, of which he's a major contributor. On April 1, I performed a major cleanup of that article's infobox with an edit summary citing Template:Infobox television, but user reverted me without an edit summary (diff), causing me to template him (diff). The following day, user gratuitously deleted the warning template (diff) and continued edit warring (diff 1, diff 2) until it came to a point where he had to send me a message in my talk page (even though conflict resolution usually begins in the article's talk page), trying to convince me basically that I must stop deleting the edits as he had worked "painstakingly" for them (diff). When I told him that they cannot stay in the article per infobox consensus, he finally concurred with me (only in part) but went on to say he didn't enjoy collaborating with me, probably because he got frustrated that I had reverted an edit he worked hard on (diff). I admonished him for his attitude in his own talk page; needless to say, his responses composed of nothing but childish rants as well as more projections (User talk:Gardo Versace#Grow up). In a separate attempt for conflict resolution, at User talk:ISpitonYourGravy#Re: Ang Probinsyano writer, user ended up commenting on me and not the content, as displayed in his last post written today.

In a nutshell, user is guilty of biting the newcomer as well as the failure to assume good faith and subtle use of personal attacks, since he couldn't take that a noob like me would dare challenge an incorrect edit made by an experienced editor. I'm requesting some form of admin intervention that could make this user realize his own mistakes and be mature enough to accept them. The attitudes displayed by this user is not something I'm prepared to tolerate. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of a great many policies and practices (such as providing diffs) for a complete newcomer. I guess I'm not seeing the big problem here. The user initially told you "good day" and gave you "warmest regards". The user was then frank with their opinion, but it was not a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't template the regulars.

You're free to delete anything on your user talk page except declined unblock requests.

Both of y'all are being condescending to each other and commenting on each other. Assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible.

Both of you read WP:OWN, stop editing the article directly, and go to the talk page trying to salvage as much of the other party's edit as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I've done what you advised and put the removed content on the talkpage. Did it a few days ago, was actually thinking of submitting the matter for arbitration if we couldn't arrive at a compromise. I would have loved to try and work out a compromise with him but I was met with condescension. If you'd examine closely the edit history of the page in question, an anonymous editor tried restoring the cut content which I reverted out of respect for the fact that ISpitonYourGravy and I have yet to arrive at a compromise over the matter. As I've told him before on his own talkpage, I don't want an edit war on our hands. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for understanding that it was never meant as a direct attack. When I went to ISpitonYourGravy's talkpage, I wrote the message as respectfully as I can. The last line even read I'm pleading my case with the user. In the user's reply, I was met with condescencion. I would have tried to compromise with the user earlier than I did had the user responded with a more polite tone in the reply that user gave. That's why I gave an honest and candid opinion that I wouldn't like working with the user again because I felt like the user would not be open to compromise nor would the user be polite in its dealings with me. The message the user left on my talkpage also reeks of arrogance as the user made it a point to say that I might only be angry because I got reverted by a new user despite being an experienced editor. I never had a problem dealing with new editors and never had a problem with anonymous editors either, in fact I welcome all the help that I can in maintaining the page in question. I don't fully have a problem with the edits that the user made but there is one item that I am trying to salvage by way of compromise. The user just wouldn't budge, as if to take ownership of the edits it made. I admit I've obssessively collated all the details there but I'm not taking ownership of the edits by willy nilly asking for all of it to be returned there; all that I ask is that one item, the writer's field, be restored. The user just wouldn't budge. As I've intimated above, I am very much open to compromising the situation. If that fails, I'm willing to have the same be submitted for arbitration. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Ian.thomson: Good day! I've got to report that something occurred in the intervening period between this report and my replies. The user ISpitonYourGravy has been blocked indefinitely for being a suspected sockpuppet of user You've gone incognito, who himself had been banned a month ago for engaging in personal attacks or harrassment. Gardo Versace (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal threat about Westbrook University

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have received an email containing a legal threat from User:Informazionereale. I am willing to forward it to an administrator, so could I please have a volunteer? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: You can forward it to functionaries list (or OTRS?) (more eyes) or me (less eyes but... yeah). --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I've sent you a copy of the email. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. This can be closed now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Andrew939787321

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've got a user by the name of Andrew939787321 who is blanking parts of his own talk page for no reason. He is an edit warrior and needs to be blocked ASAP! I mean it! Call me when you get the chance (We need to talk) 02:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

With very limited exceptions (none of which apply here) users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages. Please don't restore it. See WP:OWNTALK Meters (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But look what he did to my fabulous page! He vandalized it! Call me when you get the chance 03:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

So, warn the user for messing with your page if you wish, but don't restore content that the user has removed from his or her own talk page. And this is not something that needs to be discussed at ANI. Meters (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I reported him already. But I promise not to restore what was deleted from anybody's own talk page ever again. Call me when you get the chance 03:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

And I suggest that you not throw terms such as "edit warrior" around. The user has never been warned for edit warring, and I don't see any obvious edit warring in his history. Meters (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I suggested warning him, not reporting him. Meters (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, I didn't know that! Call me when you get the chance 03:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked x 36 hrs for disruptive editing. The edit made on "Call me when you get the chance's" page was intentionally disruptive and it was made after being warned about their behavior. I am getting a distinct odor of WP:NOTHERE from this editor. If their behavior does not improve dramatically after their block expires the next one will be indefinite. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • That's Nicky jam el cangri. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inexperienced editor doing multiple account moves

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See the contributions of Dr-Taher (talk · contribs), an Admin at our Arabic Wikipedia[205] but with only 375 edits here. Here[206] they moved a user talk page of a user who hasn't edited for almost 10 years. As this is an area I have virtually no experience in, it might all be quite normal, but I find it confusing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr-Taher is a global renamer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks, I should have thought of checking that. I still don't understand renaming an account that hasn't edited for such a long time, but this is all a bit of a mystery to me. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I got a block in Arabic Wikipedia by this editor. Also, I want to take this opportunity to say that Arabic Wikipedia is definitely not a free encyclopaedia. Any edit in Arabic even if it's productive and made in good-faith gets reverted without any reason. I was planning to report this in meta Wikimedia but I just felt it's too much work and I don't need to waste my time in a failed project like Arabic Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm not sure who you are referring to as your link doesn't seem to lead to anyone who stopped editing almost 10 years ago and was renamed. (It leads to a 1 + year old discussion about a block of an editor on the Arabic wikipedia for a violation of their username policy. I don't think this is really the place to discuss the Arabic wikipedia's username and blocking policy.) I had a quick look at the recent renames by Dr-Taher and none of them seem to be of an editor who hasn't edited in 10 years ago, the most I found was 1.5+ years go.

But in general, I could imagine 2 reasons why an editor who hasn't edited in such a long time may want a rename. One is if the editor used their real name or something else which may identify them, or otherwise no longer wants their edits easily associated with their current account name. In such a case, it doesn't seem to matter much how long it's been since they've last edited.

The other reason is if the editor needs a rename to be unblocked somewhere and is considering restarting editing under that account. (It's possible this is the case with the 1.5+ year account.) I guess it may also be possible an editor is not blocked but wants a rename before their restart editing because they no longer like the account name.

BTW, I'm assuming that the editor really hasn't edited in a long time. Remember that because of SUL, accounts are global. So if someone is active on some other Wikimedia project and wants a rename, it will affect their account here regardless of when they last edited or even if they never edited. And it makes sense that if an account is renamed, their user pages need to be renamed no matter when they lasted edited.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, my bad. It's [207]. They haven't edited anywhere else. They might have emailed a request I guess. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The user joined meta Wikimedia 23 days ago.[208]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The request can be found at m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/61155. The user wanted to delete their account, but since that is not an option, they requested to vanish. Nihlus 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I've learned a lot, although I thought I'd checked that editor's contributions. Apologies to everyone for wasting their time. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Please report to our disintegration chambers. EEng 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Hello, Really I don't know What's the problem? If the user looks at my global account here, he may save his time and our time. Also, I want to refuse any false-words about Arabic-Wiki, If anyone has his own problem, he shouldn't generalize. Thanks for our colleges who explained the case. --Dr-Taher (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speedy Deletion For Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Delete: the subject of page Portia Antonia Alexis being harassed in real life due to deletion talk page/ speedy deletion required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Some background: Portia Antonia Alexis is currently at AfD and deep dives by editors at the AfD have pulled up some concerns that the article is a product of undisclosed paid editing. Amandacar2020 is an SPA whose only edits have been trying to get the article deleted. I've told them at the AfD that the proper venue for this is for the subject to contact WP:OTRS, though given the unanimity on the AfD the page isn't long for this world anyway. Ordinarily I'd leave this be after this, but something tells me Amandacar2020's more concerned about something other than Alexis being harassed over the deletion debate (which, while I can see it happening, seems absurd on its face with the facts in evidence). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• info-en-q,emergency, oversight-en-wp all emailed with passport and UK crime reference number for the report filed this morning after threatening message received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs)
• @Amandacar2020: This is your final warning, stop spamming every place with the same thing. If you're this concerned email Trust & Safety. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• info-en-q,emergency, oversight-en-wp all emailed with passport and UK crime reference number for the report filed this morning after threatening message received. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs)

• I think if you look at the history of the BLP's other UPE work Portia Antonia Alexis, and google it, you will find the firm that Amandacar2020 is working with, who I think have a lot of experience with the UPE/PROMO process on Wikipedia. Hat tip to Praxidicae for what she has to endure on a daily basis tackling these operators. Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Irrespective of the likelihood or unlikelihood of misbehavior by the editors and article subject, I've deleted the article. Rationale: "For many reasons, including: borderline WP:CSD#A7 after some of the sillier claims are removed; borderline WP:CSD#G11; likely WP:CSD#G5 (assuming this isn't the paid editor's first rodeo); WP:SNOW; and what I find to be a credible claim of harm to the article subject. AFD is not for shaming wrongdoers, especially those who may or may not have been hoodwinked by unscrupulous UPE's." In case further discussion on the status of the Amandacar2020 account is needed, I'll leave this thread open, but I'd be willing to bet that we won't hear from that account again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For what it's worth, I did take Amandacar2020 to SPI. And while they came back clean, the two editors who were blocked during the AfD came back as sockpuppets of Bullaiytro (talk · contribs), along with five other accounts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yashodhan Ganu & Disruptive editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The user in question has consistently disruptively edited the articles of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and other related articles. They are completely unresponsive of any attempts at communication. They also do not seem to make use of any references ever and have exclusively modified infoboxes and charts, adding incorrect and unsupported data over a number of very small edits. There is also not a single manual edit summary in any of their edits. They've been blocked multiple times previously for the same pattern of edits on the same pages. I've provided some recent examples of this behavior below.

• Diff 1: Unsupported and extensive changes made for no provided reason.
• Diff 2, followed by Diff 3, followed by Diff 4: Same pattern of edits as above.
• Diff 5 followed by Diff 6: Same pattern of edits as above.

If you go through the history of these pages, you will notice continuous changes made by the user over the last few days. There is not a single reference, and the pattern confuses other editors and severely effects article stability. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Three previous blocks, 1095 edits and not a single one to Talk or User_talk. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Praxidicae reported by CelebrityBuzz

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Possibly personally targets accounts, actions show evidence of ill intentions towards accounts who are trying to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, User even uses "foul" language in their Wikipedia profile, indicating a lack of professionalism. CelebrityBuzz (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• CelebrityBuzz, please provide the evidence in form of diff links. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• yawn* oh look, it's another Tuesday with baseless accusations! Praxidicae (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• CelebrityBuzz I'm tempted to ask what will happen if I tell you to fuck off. Do you think I should or not. I'm trying to be nice at the moment. Nick (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking at some of the edits, I suspect this may be over Draft:Josh Herman, an article CelebrityBuzz created, being moved into draftspace by Prax. Likely just due to the draft not being reviewed, and C-Buzz took this personally. SemiHypercube 20:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, something looks a little suspicious about how CelebrityBuzz's userpage seems to imply that they have been on since 14 December 2018 (from the source in a userbox), despite this account being created 22 January 2020... SemiHypercube 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Or the fact that this draft has all the tells of WP:UPE. Might I suggest a close of this and a boomerang. Praxidicae (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Non-admin third party input: As an AfC reviewer, if this draft came across my queue it would be declined in a big hurry. Not notable and has all the smell of undisclosed paid editing WP:QUACK Sulfurboy (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@SemiHypercube: Their userpage contents were copied over majoritively from User:Lambtron (who has been here 12+ years); no idea why CelebrityBuzz is claiming to have been here since 2018 though. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Close and WP:BOOMERANG. Prax is top notch. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• In addition to the fact that this account smells strongly of UPE (and I would support a block): one of the articles they've edited is Portia Antonia Alexis, currently at AfD. As Kinu pointed out at the AfD, the creator of that page has created a bunch of highly promotional pages, most recently in alphabetical order (as if moving down a client list). Someone experienced with these kinds of problems should take a look. --JBL (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Strong smell of UPE/PROMO work about CelebrityBuzz's articles and they even found their way to contriute on Portia Antonia Alexis (an unambigious UPE/PROMO piece, that seemd to use an usual creation technuqie to by-pass the page curation tool). Pinging MER-C and NinjaRobotPirate who take a deeper look at CelebrityBuzz. Britishfinance (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• I undid the close of this yesterday because I also support support a block of CelebrityBuzz. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ythlev: does not seem to be willing to apologise for making a personal attack "in front of" the other participants at the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page - the point is not so much for me personally, it's rather to make others feel willing to participate without fearing aggression. Nor does s/he seem willing to come here and discuss with uninvolved admins present: @Grandpallama and Horse Eye Jack: (I didn't actually check, but I'm guessing you're admins since you're watching this page), but s/he does seem to have accepted that there's a structured decision-making procedure ongoing. See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland/Archive 2#New map?. I think that if things remain constructive for another few days, then this incident should probably be closed. (I do admit being puzzled how someone can be unwilling to apologise for having made a personal attack.) Boud (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wrote another thread concerning disruptive edits by Ythlev, but as recommended I will continue here instead. The following is a shortened form of the case, so anyone interested in more details can read the other thread. In my opinion, Ythlev has repeatedly and exclusively made disruptive edits of the article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea. The following is a complete list of Ythlev's edits of the article:

• 6 April 2020‎ (15:03): Undid revision 949448059 by Statistologist
• 3 April 2020‎ (22:01): (no edit summary)
• 1 April 2020‎ (08:46): Undid revision 948486691 by Unibrow69420
• 31 March 2020‎ (12:57): Undid revision 948329884 by Statistologist
• 31 March 2020‎ (12:46): Undid revision 948293254 by Statistologist
• 30 March 2020‎ (15:39): (no edit summary)

Each time, Ythlev's only contribution is to add his/her map to the top of the infobox. Two other users (including myself) has moved Ythlev's map to the main text of the article (instead of the infobox) a total of 5 times, but Ythlev is fast at placing it back on the top, even when the map in question is outdated by several days (as outlined in the other thread). Statistologist (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I explained on the talk page why a static map is necessary, and the only response from Statistologist was:

“ Thank you Ythlev for the input. In order to keep this discussion easy to follow, it will be better if we keep the inputs separated instead of editing within each others inputs, so I collected your comments and placed them below my input. I am not sure how you would like to format the comments now when they are moved, but I added a basic reference in the beginning of each comment so please feel free to correct it in whatever way you prefer. Statistologist (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC) ”

Statistologist did not address my comments at all. This here on ANI is the first time they've expressed concerns that the map "is outdated by several days", whereas it should have been discussed on the talk page. Ythlev (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Statistologist: You move your comments here but still ignore everything I say? Ythlev (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: or any other uninvolved editors (who do not have to be admins). Independently of this ongoing discussion here at ANI: Unless @Ythlev: has an objection, I would propose that someone uninvolved consider closing the discussion section New map? on the Poland COVID-19 talk page. Consensus was obtained on a proposal which was almost (though not quite) what Ythlev seems to want, and the proposal was implemented by an editor who is neither Ythlev nor me, and enough seems to have been stated about broader concepts of WP:CIVIL and so on. So there appears to be no more editing dispute, and other editors over there (most who write in imperfect English, and many who seem to be new in terms of learning en.Wikipedia policies) would probably appreciate seeing the issue closed. Boud (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blocked user, User talk:Hellickhook

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please, someone put this talk page and its quarrelers out of their misery. 2601:188:180:B8E0:F0DC:1123:FA3D:179C (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 02:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you semi-protect the talk page? I already revoked the editor's talk page access. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If I had known this was brought up at ANI, I may not have opened an SPI. The "quarrel" seemed rather suspicious. Cryptic Canadian 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the timeline, but I probably reported here after the SPI thread, of which I wasn't aware. My thanks for closing down that little drama. 2601:188:180:B8E0:F0DC:1123:FA3D:179C (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, in answer to your question: I semiprotected it due to an overabundance of caution, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RheieWater2005... El_C 02:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the edit conflict, I just now realize that happened. El_C 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't worry too much about losing the odd talk page message in an edit conflict, but WP:PROT discourages protecting talk pages, especially when changing the block options is a possibility. It also won't do anything to stop RheieWater2005, who's autoconfirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

That was, indeed, the reason. But it looks like I misread their status. El_C 02:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It took me a while to realize this, but RheieWater2005 is probably LoganTheWatermelon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I decline their latest unblock request and disabled talk page access. I think we're done here. El_C 17:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP range 182.68.0.0/16

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we get someone to revoke talk page access as the user has been doing the same unblock request on multiple IPs in the range since March the 30th. It is obviously either a competency issue or IDHT. Tknifton (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is just a note to say that they are still at it. Tknifton (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eyeballs on Kuchesar Fort

There seems to be a pattern of advertising-like edits done by red-linked editors with low numbers of edits. Does this look worth reporting? Qwirkle (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's all very odd. The various new editor's edits are a mixture of advertising, vandalism and actually productive edits, on an obscure article. I wonder if it's something to do with a school or college class project? Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Although, this has been going on for over two years, with dozens of accounts. It still could be school-related - teacher introduces Wikipedia to class, suggests a backwater article to test their editing on, repeats this with next class - but apart from that ... Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It happens. See Jenny's Journeys, which had so much sustained disruption from random accounts that it was discussed on the CU mailing list. I keep these articles on my watchlist sometimes once I figure out they've been listed somewhere on a syllabus or popular website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive unsourced edits by IPs (contrary to sources) without explanations

An IP (62.19.189.174) has been making unsourced edits to several dna haplogroup pages (See here: [[209]]) which are not supported by the sources (changing divergence dates and proposed places of origin for no apparent reason against the sources and ignoring my notes) without explanations, including at this page [[210]]. See page histories: here [[211]], here [[212]], here [[213]], and here [[214]]. It seems possible (perhaps likely) that the recent IP is a sock of another IP (87.16.124.190 [[215]]) that a few days earlier also made a similar edit here [[216]], which I had also reverted with notes explaining why it was incorrect, and which closely resembles an edit of the more recent IP (here: [[217]]). Both IPs also seem to be located in the same country (according to the Geolocate feature). Skllagyook (talk) 02:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Please confirm: there are two and only two IPs involved, and they are 62.19.189.174 + 87.16.124.190. The only articles (so far) involved are: Haplogroup C-M130 + Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA) + Haplogroup D-CTS3946 + Haplogroup DE + Haplogroup E-M96 + Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic group + Y-chromosomal Adam. Correct? Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I believe that is correct. Skllagyook (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted a comment at User talk:62.19.189.174. Please notify me if further edits occur and I will investigate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

81.158.74.37

user:81.158.74.37 just added WP:POV content to Rat Queens after her final warning. CLCStudent (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Info is sourced, reporting user just started reverting, no attempt to go to talk page. 81.158.74.37 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Content dispute, both of you stop editing and go to the talk page. Also, @CLCStudent: the IP is (probably) just another new user, they need things explained to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

To (briefly) expand on this, 81, you need to reverse the ratio of conclusion to evidence. Right now, you are drawing too many conclusions from too little evidence. It’s easy for many wikipedians to see that as WP:OR, and then nuke it on sight. You see Wasshername as the “adult in the room”, but you need to either find a reviewer that writes this, or let the examples speak for themselves. Don’t state your own conclusions as fact unless they are so completely obvious that no one would argue them. Qwirkle (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I started the discussion Rat Queens Vol.1 #11 The IP considers their own commentary the most reliable source. Also, no matter what I say, I'm just going to be ignored via the IP's own statement. I didn't file this report, so I'm not going to waste anymore of my time; especially over a subject I'm not interested in. Jerm (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Bengaluru FC wikidata item

For page Bengaluru FC, a wikidata item already existed (Q16243716), but another user seems to have created another wikidata item (Q89664844) without consulting other editors. I am not sure how he was allowed to do this. I am not sure how I can link it back to the original wikidata item and delete the new one? Coderzombie (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I merged them, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks! How was the user able to create a new entry with exact same name even though entry existed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Coderzombie (talk • contribs)

I am too lazy to check the histories, but the only two limitations on Wikidata are (i) the item can not contain two sitelinks from the same project (ii) (possibly this one has been removed) one can not have two items with the same name and description in the same language. Just two (or multiple) with the same name is entirely possible and even unavoidable.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Isn't this possibly related to yesterday's database disaster, see WP:Village pump (technical)#Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError? Looking at the Phabricator page, I see creation of doubles at Wikidata mentioned as a problem arising from the fix. (Anyway, since it didn't get resolved while I slept, I went ahead and figured out how to fix the Wikidata link for a page I'd moved while the crash was developing.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now checked the histories, and, indeed, User:Spazzolo, who created the split, has not edited the main item, which normally would not be technically possible, so it looks indeed like a database glitch. They promised to remove all accidentally created redirects though.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoaxes from 2604:6000:1114:c8f2::/64

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2604:6000:1114:c8f2::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Deliberate misinformation for weeks. Cleanup help would be welcome. Some of it is blatant (Special:Diff/948681933), some of it requires research to be noticed (Special:Diff/949823800), and the rest is deceptive enough to remain in articles for days. I'll rollback all their current contributions as a first measure, but some of their hoaxes may remain. The lack of reliable inline citations can easily be used to justify reverting all their additions for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Almost everything has already been reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats by A.Savin

There has been unseemly discussion on Gin Ganga which has descended into an off-topic legal threat against me by A.Savin with this edit:

"And regarding this edit, it's much more serious than you maybe think. If you are misusing your Rollback flag to call "rebel" a group considered terrorist by several countries, including U.S.-- the country hosting Wikimedia servers, this is a reason to report you to WMF Legal, so that they ban you infinitely from all WMF projects. Because supportters of terrorist groups -- no matter if "Islamic State", PKK, LTTE or others -- are not to be tolerated here, for very good reasons. So, if there is no explanation from you in the next few days, I'm going to complain at WMF Legal -- enough is enough."

When I pointed out, in a tongue-in-cheek reply, that this was legal threat, I myself was blocked by admin Ymblanter. The block only lasted two minutes. Ymblanter also does not consider Savin's comment to be a legal threat as it wasn't an external process. I however consider that Savin intended it to be a real life threat, irrespective of whether it was serious or not, in order to to intimidate me. Savin is an admin on Commons and so is well aware of how Wikimedia projects works with respect to user conduct. The deliberate use of the [fictitious] WMF Legal rather than, for example, WP:ANI in his threat also indicates his intention.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is a correct outline of my position. There is more background on that talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging @Rehman:--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just reading the talk page at Gin Ganga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I feel a WP:BOOMERANG coming... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat to use Wikipedia's bureaucracy (or Wikimedia's, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WMF legal does exist: m:Legal, but I don't think they will do what this user thinks they will do. I don't view this as a legal threat, but more of an attempt at escalation of internal procedures. It does however contain a personal attack wrapped in nonsense. A.Savin should reel it in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely am going to go for a complaint against Obi2canobe at WMF Legal. May the WMF staff decide as they deem necessary. That's all I am willing to state about it. --A.Savin (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You realize WMF Legal is for legal affairs? I don't see what you're trying to achieve but I very much doubt it's related to anything under the purview of WMF Legal, maybe Trust & Safety if they have repeatedly somehow engaged in disruption that the community has been unable or not chosen to resolve, otherwise not much. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ymblanter. What is seen here, is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg. Obi2canibe has quite a long history of disturbing behaviour camouflaged between edits that are otherwise of high quality. For those curious, a bit a patience and looking into the right places would reveal much more. Meaningful discussions are also not possible with Obi2canibe, as the vast majority of their response are either personal attacks, or simply weasel words in an attempt to completely dodge the question. Unless the community feels a parallel discussion will help, I will not elaborate on this further, purely to allow A.Savin to do what they have probably already started; an escalation to WMF. Rehman 02:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Savin’s threat to Obi2canibe on the grounds reverting Terrorist to Rebel denoting LTTE and trying to take this issue to WMF Legal is something unnecessary. Anyone goes through the LTTE article will easily identify it is primarily a rebel organization but resorted at times to terrorism, even Sri Lankan Government is not second to other using State Terrorism and its Armed Forces on multiple War Crime and other atrocities. I don’t accept Rehman’s accusations above on Obi2canibe since Rehman too involved reverting along with Savin at Gin Ganga; Obi2canibe’s explanation to keep the image is reasonable since it depicts the panoramic view of the river though it’s of a poor quality one.Lustead (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Third party comment: Both images suck. First one is grainier than a silo. The second one looks like the stream behind my house and does not depict a "river" - meaning, the context is lost. Both parties are being jerks, Obi2canobe's aggressive and battlegroundish behavior from the get-go, and A.Savin's entirely aggressive and overractionary accusation of support of terrorist organizations. So, how about everyone take a chill pill and evaluate their role in this mess in an article with about 40 words.--v/r - TP 21:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  "Grainier than a silo" -- hey, that's pretty good! EEng 03:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC) Fuzzier than some old cheddar at the back of the fridge?

  Agreed. Everyone needs to chill out, but I'm less impressed by A. Savin characterizing Obi2canibe's edits as "vandalism," and his dismissal of BRD as not policy. The former is objectively untrue, and the latter may be technically accurate, but dismissing it as such in order to justify one's refusal to abide by it isn't a good look. Grandpallama (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to the non-involved editors for their comments. I agree, this whole episode has been a train wreck. I would like to move on and resume content creation. Could an admin close this thread please?--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Evaristomiranda and WP:NOTWEBHOST

Evaristomiranda created the article Evaristo de Miranda about himself and has persistently used it essentially as a portal to his portfolio, filling it with both inline external links and references to his own works and interviews. I've removed all the external links and the refs that aren't so much what we look for in citations as they are further links to his works and interviews. I've added a couple of warnings on his talk page to the collection of them that were already there about autobiographies and COI editing. Despite these, he persists in reinserting self-promoting material into the article, and he has never responded to anybody: Special:Contributions/Evaristomiranda shows that he has posted nowhere but to the one article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• I blocked the account and nominated the article for AFD.--v/r - TP 01:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

IP-hopping vandal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B00A:6811:8174:F74D:5748:277D and Special:Contributions/2600:1012:B058:E28A:7B92:9229:BA8F:890C are both making edits that constitute vandalism on the same article, Alida Morberg, but neither IP has accumulated enough warnings to warrant being taken to AIV. That being said, I think it's clear that both IPs are the same user as the addresses are similar and they're editing the same article. Requesting blocks on both. Thanks in advance, Patient Zero^talk 20:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Both IPs have been blocked. Because this is a chronic, ongoing problem, I have semi-protected the article for six months. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued removal of AfD templates by Siamfootball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Siamfootball (talk · contribs) continously removes AfD templates from articles while an AfD discussion is ongoing. Since Praxidicae gave him/her a last warning on April 3, the user has removed three AfD templates.[218][219][220] --MrClog (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• A number of previous warnings on various subjects, all ignored; they've never edited talk or usertalk apart from one passive-aggressive sentence; blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Every so often I send one of his article creations to AfD, he seems to create a fair amount of football player bio's that simply don't qualify. I don't know what percentage get deleted, he clearly knows English, but doesn't really seem to cooperate with the WP:FOOTBALL community. Govvy (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Would someone mind asking Hob Gadling (talk · contribs) to tone it down a bit? I've tried already and failed. I'm not asking for anything more than a stern adminny-sounding warning. I think it will be more effective coming from someone other than myself. (From the way he responded to me earlier I suspect he thinks I'm some sort of anti-science editor.) Here are a few examples of comments drawn only from the user's latest 50 contributions.

Attacking other editors

• "Go away, anti-science POV warrior." [221]
• "You keep ignoring the fact that I already gave a secondary source, although I mentioned it again. Will you do so a third time, or are you here to build an encyclopedia?" [222]
• "Those are lies...So quite whining." [223]
• "So shut up about it and follow WP:FORUM. Do not claim that I am lying, and I do not have to defend myself." [224]
• "Next time I talk to you I will link the important stuff twice in every contribution, and I will use boldface with a larger font in different colors and blinking." [225]
• "Just stop blaming me for your mistakes, and no snark will be needed. Actually, you are the one who should consider trying a hobby which does not confront you with people who disagree with you." [226]
• "I stopped reading after your first sentence, because WP:FORUM. For someone who quotes WP scripture at people, you are extremely forum-y." [227]
• "But the problem is that anti-science users like PackMecEng have a far higher opinion of their own opinion than of reliable sources, and this one, like many other pro-lunacy editors, has consistently ignored every single link to articles where he could have learned something. This is the Fringe theories noticeboard, and pretty much everybody here knows more about loons and their tricks, about conspiracy theories, and about denialism than you, profringe editor, ever will. You are not fooling anyone, profringe editor." [228]
• (after being asked to tone it down) "I already took it down two notches from my original wording idea, and the result is "profringe editor". I am being very generous here." [229]

BLP issues

• "Since he [living person] is spreading really, really, really stupid and dangerous misinformation, a fact which is extremely obvious to anybody with a smidgen of scientific knowledge, this is important and needs more coverage. The man has particularly virulent form of Dunning-Kruger, drifting into delusions of grandeur, and he will kill people with it...since he is a crank, does it not belong in the lead?" [230]
• "I get the feeling you are trying to protect [living person] from the responses to his bullshit...you cannot cope with the fact that he has made it publicly known that he is an extremely ignorant layman in other fields as well as extremely ignorant about his own ignorance. And now you are trying to WP:WIKILAWYER around it." [231]
• "I would not be surprised if it turns out that one of his billionaire buddies owns a company that makes the stuff and [well-known U.S. president] gets a cut when sales go up." [232]
• "Yes, [living person] is a denier, even if he "just" believes that "the warming isn't as dramatic as is being forecast". He is a layman who thinks he is smarter than the experts." [233]

~Awilley (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Awilley Can I ask why you haven't asked User:PackMecEng to clarify how she decided Hob Gadling was a conspiracy theorist [234]? jps (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Replied here ~Awilley (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• <sigh> It was not nice of me to post that picture and call Hob a ranting conspiracy theorist. I do apologize for it, I was more poking fun but I see now it was not received that way. PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• It was less "poking fun" than "garbage Tu quoque rhetorical tactic", with -- given the climate-change denial movement's conspiracy theories -- a bit of projection thrown in. --Calton | Talk 03:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What projection?

-EEng

• What projection? PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Here, let me help with your reading: ...with -- given the climate-change denial movement's conspiracy theories -- a bit of projection thrown in. Spot it? --Calton | Talk 03:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see. No, I was just poking fun. PackMecEng (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology, but I hope you can understand that in the context of you stridently declaring that there was a difference between "climate change skepticism" and "climate change denial" (a trope that has featured for decades in such places as Watts Up With That?), turning around and calling someone a conspiracy theorist who points out that there has been a coordinated campaign to discredit climate science strikes me as very WP:PROFRINGE. This may very well not be your intent in this matter, but given the voluminous history of this topic on Wikipedia, it hardly matters whether someone intends to be in favor of that approach or simply appears to be in favor of that approach -- the outcome in terms of how we have to deal with the situation is the same. jps (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

ජපස, I looked at it at the time and concluded that PackMecEng was referring to Hob's reference to the conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to undermine climate science, and that it was meant ironnically because this is a genuine and documented conspiracy albeit one decried by conservatives as a conspiracy theory. Guy (help!) 11:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that this at the very least skirts the border of WP:PROFRINGE. It's certainly not unbalanced to be concerned over that. Irony, to be effective, needs to be unequivocal lest we fall victim to Poe's Law. jps (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

jps, I'd rather see us fall victim to Atsme's Law. Quoting from the book, Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology ^{2003 Cambridge University Press Intro pg 6} ...Science illuminates and assists – it does not constrict or legitimate. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

If you read the context of this quote, you will find that the authors are explicitly criticizing this opinion as being an embedded assumption. jps (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• The question was directed at Awilley (who has the same horse in the race as Springee, see below). --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

+1 on these concerns. On a different article, I noticed the same pattern of BLP violations:

• "[living person] is a conspiracy nut who levels baseless accusations of fraud at scientists". [235]. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's not a BLP violation, that's a description. --Calton | Talk 03:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• calling a living person 'a conspiracy nut' is a clear-as-day WP:BLP violation. If you don't understand that, I suggest you refrain from further editing until you read and understand the policy. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• A lot of those comments suggest a mindset that is here to right great wrongs rather than improve article content. The personal attack directed at PackMecEng is also problematic. Disagreements are fine but those comments personalize contentious issues and make it harder for all to reach agreements. Is this an ongoing issue? If so I would suggest a "light" tban. Basically an indef tban that would have no set time until appeal. If the editor can articulate the problem and state that it won't be a problem going forward lift the tban. The objective is to make it clear that this type of behavior, both directed at other editors and at BLP subjects is not OK but assumes the editor is otherwise a valued contributor. Of course an acknowledgement of and pledge to reform the issue upfront would negate any need for a tban. Springee (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  The wrongs I want to right are either in the article content and need to be aligned to the rules, or they are about to put into article content by users who want to introduce their anti-science POV there.

  Someone who accuses me of being a "conspiracy theorist" for summarizing the scientific mainstream opinion on climate change denial is a profringe editor. Especially after ignoring, again and again and again, other people's links to Wikpedia articles that explain that scientific mainstream opinion in detail.

  I also want to note that user Springee has a horse in the race, having argued in favour of climate change denial before, so his opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. Just two examples:

  1. Talk:Climate crisis "Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc." - "Alarmist" is a denialism dogwhistle.
  2. Talk:Global Climate Coalition - arguing against the use of "denial", which is the common term used in science.

  More examples are easy to find.

  When you disagree with the science, trying to ban the users who argue in favor of the science is one of the few ways you have left to win a discussion on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have very little involvement with this topic area. That you would go digging, and having to dig that far back to find examples, suggests you are approaching this with a BATTLEGROUND mentality. Certainly presenting quotes out of context (and only linking to the general page vs the specific quotes) is misleading. Springee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I noticed you doing the kind of pro-denial POV reasoning years ago and remembered you as a potentially problematic user. Now I searched for your name and "climate", and immediately found a few hits. There was no need to dig "far back", as that kind of search is not date-sensitive. My main point is that you are not a neutral party, but have been holding the same opinion as my opponents for years. That your POV has not surfaced for a while, until this week, means nothing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Having been subject to this kind of WP:PUNITIVE TBan in the past, I have to say that it merely serves to exacerbate problems. I also very much disagree with the implication that all the comments presented "personalized" issues. What I am more concerned about is that there may be some ANI railroading going on here without an acknowledgement that there are other editors involved here acting problematically who, in my judgement, may be causing bigger problems in terms of article content. Should we ignore WP:CIV? No, but only enforcing civility on one party while ignoring other problems tends to do more harm than good. jps (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a punitive Tban. As I said, all that is needed per my proposal is to acknowledge the issue and pledge to not repeat the behavior. If Hob Gadling does that before this ANI is closed then I would oppose the tban. The idea isn't to keep anyone off the pages, only to make sure they follow BLP and CIV rules. Springee (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIV we can all agree on, and I will be the first to admit that this is something I can do better at, but I think some of the concerns over BLP raised here are of the WP:CRYBLP sort that we have seen a lot in these content areas. I hope you can understand that there can be differences of opinion over what constitutes a BLP violation on a talkpage. jps (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, I see no reason to do that. If another person appears who does not have such a history, but still thinks I should backpedal, I will. But I can not promise that I will not call WP:PROFRINGE editors WP:PROFRINGE editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you should backpedal, but it perhaps would be better to raise concerns over WP:PROFRINGE edits at admin noticeboards such as WP:AE or WP:AN rather than on talkpages. It's an annoying feature/bug of Wikipedia that the admin class don't like it when you document problems in the wrong places. jps (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"As long as all my accusers...", that is exactly the sort of BATTLEGROUND behavior I'm concerned about. The two examples HG cited in my past are garbage and suggest they have a "with us or against us" mentality. None of it excuses the personal attack Awilley listed above nor the accusations against PackMecEng who happens to be a very level headed editor. Springee (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that calling me a "conspiracy theorist" is level-headed? That remark was retracted, but the fact that it never has been a problem for you at all shows that

• you are either firmly in the anti-science camp and think that people who accept man-made global warming are so obviously nuts that calling them conspiracy theorists is just a statement of fact,
• or you are very good at ignoring facts that do not fit a once-formed opinion.

Your claim that the examples I gave are "garbage" is just handwaving. Here is the whole search: [236]. You consistently defended the deniers against scientists and their friends back then. You went on a crusade to eliminate Mother Goose's Dirty Dozen of denialists from all articles.

WP:BATTLEGROUND? So you are allowed to pick one person from a two-person fight - incidentally the one who happens to be on the opposite side from you in a long-going conflict involving many people - threaten them with bans (WP:BATTLEGROUND: "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement"), but those people are not allowed to point out that you have an editing past that just might bias your position? In other words, WP:BATTLEGROUND applies to me but not to you? I think you should step back and leave the field to uninvolved users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

First, that someone else behaved badly doesn't justify your bad behavior. Second, you are again trying to personalize this topic by suggesting I'm anti-science and attributing a position to me. Your comment about the Dirty Dozen of climate change ignores that the editor who was adding the material was as much an issue as the material itself. HughD was subsiquently topic blocked and later blocked for extensive sock editing. This is again a case where you are jumping to conclusions based on poor understanding of the history. None of that excuses your uncivil behavior. It is VERY problematic that you can't see the issues with your behavior. Springee (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh.

Okay then. I give up. I see problems with my behaviour now. Go on seeing no problems with your own, or don't. I don't care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Propose tban per my description above. It's clear this editor sees no issues with their BATTLEGROUND attitude towards others nor problems with violating BLP when talking about article subjects. It does appear they intend to RGW and anyone who objects to their strident POV stands against them. Propose that the tban covers climate change and can be lifted at any time once they can articulate the issue and pledge to avoid similar issues in the future. Springee (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Object to this proposal as malformed and possibly agenda-driven. The goal of any sanction would be to stop disruption. What exactly have we established has made it difficult for editors to improve the encyclopedia? I do not see evidence that these infractions have caused such problems aside from perhaps a vague concern over chilling effects, but it does not appear to me that any of the discussions have resulted in damage to article content. More problematicaly, that you propose groveling as the way out of this makes me think that this is simply WP:PUNITIVE in spite of your protest to the contrary. That you may have also adopted some rhetorical positions in the past which could rightly be seen as a kind of WP:AGENDA makes this proposal all the more suspect. jps (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the agenda? I'm not an active editor in the space in question. You are correct, the goal of any sanction would be to stop the disruption. The disruption is the battleground behavior and personal attacks. Above you disagreed regarding BLP violations and for argument sake I will agree. As I stated before, the criteria for lifting the proposed tban is acknowledgement of the issue and a pledge to stop it. That's not even a "demonstrated track record in other areas". As I've outlined above the tban could be implemented in the AM and, assuming the conditions are met, rescinded in the PM. The intent is not to block HG for 6 months before they can appeal. It's to say, you may not edit in this space until you agree to follow CIV and related behavioral policies. Remember, following those policies isn't optional. Springee (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Part of the issue here is that Wikipedia does not have a very good system in place for people to deal with content disruption that is happening at the level of WP:AGENDA-driven users. WP:AE and WP:AN are not exactly user-friendly spaces and WP:DR is really better suited to situations where there aren't external issues. WP:SPADE claims that arise in the context of editing articles are not easily handled anywhere at Wikipedia. Back in the day, we had these WP:RfC/Us which, although they were real shit shows, at least were a means to channel this problem. It is one thing to say, "BE NICE!", but if some real problems with users are identified in certain areas there isn't much guidance on how to handle this. So far, in this thread there has not been much advice given for how HG could appropriately document and discuss these problems in any venue. jps (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (non-admin opinion) Any blocks or bans at this point would be punitive, rather than proactive, as jps says. There is no evidence that Hob Gadling's activities are doing anything other than hurting some people's feelings. Those complaining of his behavior are still active in the topic area and have obviously not been seriously dissuaded from editing. While the diffs presented may constitute a violation of WP:CIV, there has been no outside, uninvolved attempt to counsel or warn HG over this. I'm not going to try to evaluate whether there is an actual violation or not but HG may be well-advised to concentrate on the speech and not the speaker going forward in this topic area. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• • Eggishorn, um, there was outside, uninvolved attempt to counsel or warn HG over this by me, and also by Awilley, at FTN, and at Hob's talk page. In response, I have been accused of being a profringe climate change denier, even though I am very uninvolved in this topic area and have never expressed any such views. Also, "hurting some people's feelings" – yes, mine, for example, and probably PME's as well. That's a problem, and it's the reason we have the WP:CIV policy in the first place. It's hard to work with people who call you a climate change denier, or "anti-science", and so forth, simply because you disagree with them. It makes it impossible to have a discussion and reach consensus about disputes. As to punitive-not-preventative, Hob, above, said that he is not going to stop with this behavior, and in fact has doubled and tripled down. So there's a problem, it's a policy violation, it's ongoing, and all prior efforts to resolve it with discussion and warnings have failed. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I see in attempting concision I sacrificed clarity and in so doing I inadvertently slighted the efforts of Levivich and Awilley. I apologize to you both. A clear warning that HG is stepping over clear-cut lines was what appeared to be missing. I didn't mean to slight hurt feelings, those feelings are real. Every experienced editor here will have their feelings hurt at some point and generally continues to edit despite that. Until hurt feelings prevent other editors from contributing their time and efforts, however, the hurt is not disruptive. CIV-related issues are often timesinks and arguing over feelings in the absence of clear disruption is not generally useful. When hurt feelings waste other's time and hurt the project they then become clearly disruptive and should be sanctioned. Hence the statement that "HG may be well-advised..." While I would still oppose sanctions at this time, perhaps I should clarify that further to: "Support a formal administrative and/or community warning that any further speculation or statements by Hob Gadling about the motivations or personal beliefs of other editors in this topic area will be treated as personal attacks and subject to appropriate and escalating topic bans or blocks." Does that clarify my position above? Again, apologies for not recognizing your good-faith efforts to defuse the situation prior to this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, thank you for this explanation! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support TBAN – I was involved in another FTN thread and saw the personal attacks at issue, and was the editor who asked Hob to tone it down. In response, Hob has made more personal attacks, including now against me as well as Springee, in addition to PME. The comments in this thread such as As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, I see no reason to do that ("that" being "acknowledge the issue and pledge to not repeat the behavior"), I can not promise that I will not call WP:PROFRINGE editors WP:PROFRINGE editors, and When you disagree with the science, trying to ban the users who argue in favor of the science is one of the few ways you have left to win a discussion on Wikipedia, show that the battleground mentality is strong with this one. This editor seems to think that literally everybody critical of his behavior "disagrees with science". Good luck trying to prove my "history of pro-denial editing". Just 15 minutes ago, he accused Awilley of being "anti-science". Unfortunately, all attempts at discussion have failed; a TBAN seems necessary to stop the battleground behavior. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Okay, okay. Levivich and Awilley have been blind on one eye at first, rebuking me but not my opponent although what she said was clearly worse, and Awilley heavily misrepresented what I said in the link Levivich just gave, but that probably had other reasons than I suspected, though I do not know which ones. And PackMeEng has already retracted the worst parts, so I am giving in here. I am sorry for escalating. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for this and your other recent comments and for striking your earlier comments at FTN, in light of which I'm striking my !vote in support of drawing-and-quartering. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The editor proposing a TBAN is clearly on the "opposite" side to Hob Gadling (piping Climate change denial to "climate skeptic" here, for example) and the admin who posted this did suggest that they merely wished HG to tone it down a bit. So, per Eggishorn above, basically. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  "The editor proposing" is largely uninvolved in the topic. HG's presentation of quotes were highly misleading, especially the one related to "climate crisis" vs "climate change". Finally, keep in mind that the only condition my proposal sets for lifting or even not tbaning in the first place is state they will stop personalizing the disagreements. Expecting a user to adhere to CIVIL shouldn't be a goal but a baseline. Springee (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, you really think a suggestion that they tone it down a bit will make a difference at this point? They just called Awilley "anti-science". I'm just gonna take the liberty of assuming that you agree with me that Awilley is not anti-science, and it's not OK to call other editors anti-science, and so the only question is: what's the remedy here? Because the problem is ongoing, in real time. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not really looking at a topic ban at this point if the problem can be solved with a less invasive measure. If a "light" topic ban were imposed, I would want it to be done by an individual admin under the discretionary sanctions system so we don't have to go through another long community discussion to reverse it if/when the user commits to stop the personal attacks and ad-hominems. And before considering a topic ban I'd at least want to look at the editor's article contributions, which I have not done. (All the diffs above are from talk pages. I haven't seen evidence that the BLP problems extend into the article space.) @Black Kite: perhaps you would be willing to warn the user and close this thread? ~Awilley (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support doing something to get them stop insulting and attacking. A few more examples:

• "Please do not use empty reasoning that can be applied - by replacing the terms as I did - to any arbitrary bullshit. Either use valid reasoning or be silent." --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC) [237]

• Stop preaching your denialist POV. That is not what Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC) [238]

• "Go somewhere else to be paranoid" [239] (Apologized Acknowledged a mistake, after being called out.[240])

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Black Kite, jps's insightful observation about focusing on potential ANI railroading where civility concerns are being used to mask more serious potential content concerns, and per Hob's acknowledgment above that they see how their behavior was problematic. This seems punitive rather than preventative. Grandpallama (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  I'm OK with the clear warning from an admin. I don't see where Hob has acknowledged their behavior was problematic. Certainly this reply shouldn't be taken as such [[241]]. Springee (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Grandpallama. I can't see any sort of topic ban benefiting the community, and everyone is a bit stressed at the moment. Curdle (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions. Going to try a bit of mediating.

Levivich - you know, I hope, the regard I have for you as a contributor. I know you are not anti-science, and from the apology for escalating above, I think that Hob Gadling does too. A lot of people sometimes express themselves poorly when they feel strongly about an issue (I hope I don't need to present any diffs for you to know what I mean here...), and it's possible to be so sure that you're right that you temporarily go over the line into being a bit of an asshole territory. You and Hob are both Good Peoples in my book, and I hope you don't think that I'm dismissing the fact that you were offended in what I'm about to say to Hob.

Hob Gadling - you and I have never interacted directly, as far as I can recall, but I've seen you around a lot and I am immensely grateful and inspired by your tireless work to keep our articles focussed on the consensus of mainstream science, especially in areas that experience a lot of traffic from POV warriors. That being said, it would probably be a Good Thing if you were to be more careful about applying labels to other editors, and in making sure that you don't go over the top when describing specific living people on talk pages. Yes, we need to call a spade a spade - but we don't need to go any further than that. In my experience, unnecessary hyperbole detracts from the strength of the argument - say what you need to, and no more, and you'll probably find more people agreeing with you. If you'd be willing to agree to tone it down, which is all the OP is asking for, I think we can draw a line under this and go back to editing normally. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I should probably add, in fairness, that an explicit acceptance that Awilley and Levivich are not 'anti-science' would be a good idea. You can argue against any position they've taken without labelling them. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You are completely right, I should. But I need to modify that sentence and expand on it. Awilley and Levivich are not 'anti-science' as far as I know. It was was unwarranted to call them that. I will focus on the reasoning again and try not to talk about the people behind it. Since Yae4 gave good examples for both on this very page, I will use them to illustrate:

• Good: "Please do not use empty reasoning that can be applied - by replacing the terms as I did - to any arbitrary bullshit. Either use valid reasoning or be silent."
• Bad: "Stop preaching your denialist POV." Instead, when people give me nonsensical, inflammatory pseudo-reasoning from the denialist toolbox like "[climatologists] are dependent on panic to support increasing funding to support their livelihoods" - which was the reason for me saying "Stop preaching your denialist POV" - I will link WP:SOAPBOX and point out that Talk pages are not for spreading anti-science rumors like that. And yes: what Yae4 said is definitely an anti-science talking point. (Which does not necessarily mean Yae4 is anti-science.)

I have been opposing the introduction of pseudoscience on Wikipedia for more than fifteen years without any entries on my block log. The quotes Awilley gave above - some of which did focus on the reasoning, and I do not know why he quoted those here, for there is nothing wrong with them - all come from the last few weeks. I guess the virus-induced social isolation got to me, and I moved too far away from the usual "focus on the reasoning" standard. When I see the Worst President Ever bungling this crisis, sacrificing lives to his ego, I get edgy. I should not take that out on other people. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it appear that Hob Gadling is cooling off a bit I think the warning is sufficient. I will say HG, you need to try to understand WHY people might disagree with you. I didn't start off thinking you should be tban'ed. If you look at my original post I suggested it if this were a long term issue. When you went on the offensive that suggested that you weren't listening to the "take it down" message. It appears that you are hearing that message now. Based on your accusations and digging for quotes some have assumed my tban position was based on trying to solve a content dispute with you. Given how rarely we have ever ended up on the same topics that is a laughable claim. You cited two examples where we crossed paths. In one case because I objected to a article lead change. The history is on the page. The other is a great example of why we need to try to understand the other side rather than assume they are acting in bad faith. You cited my comments on Talk:Climate crisis. Perhaps it would be useful to know I found that page via a NPOVN RfC posting. The issue at hand was not is there a climate crisis but should Wikipedia use the term instead of climate change [[242]]. there is no climate crisis or that global warming isn't going to cause climate harm etc. I was one of a number of editors who didn't want to see the climate crisis article change from an article about the term. I was responding to a posted RfC. You only quoted part of my sentence. The turquoise is the full. The part you quoted has been italicized. So in reply to the question should Wikipedia refer to climate change as the climate crisis in Wikivoice I said, "Stick with the less alarmist, more scientific descriptions, climate change etc. Wikipedia shouldn't be a locomotive for change but rather the caboose of change." It certainly is misleading to suggest that I'm denying science because I'm one of the editors who think Wikipedia should trail popular use of terms rather than lead it. Anyway, I hope that your attack on me was lashing out, understandably, because I had proposed a possible tban. If you are willing to understand stand where I'm coming from and my concern that you chose to question my motives and suggest that I was trying to have you blocked to win a content battle vs because I was concerned with the CIVILITY issues I'm certainly willing to strike my tban suggestion and assume good faith on your par. Springee (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I have no evidence that you are anti-science either.

Let me give you a tip too. I hope it will not sound as patronizing to you as your tip sounds to me. If you had written "who usually happens to be a very level headed editor", taking into account the conspiracy-theorist slip, or, after I tried to draw your attention to the mismatch between being level-headed and calling someone a name like that, if you had at least acknowledged the issue by calling it a slip or something, instead of changing the subject by erecting the strawman "that someone else behaved badly doesn't justify your bad behavior", that would have been "a great example" of trying "to understand the other side", as you put it, and it would have gone a long way to convincing me that you are an honest person and that I should make peace with you. I phrased my response the way I did because you completely failed to address my main point and changed the subject. Whenever that happens, I get angry at the person who does it. If you look carefully at the FTN discussion that triggered this, you will notice that the users I had a conflict with did the same thing before I reacted the way I did.

The first step is reading what the other side writes and perceiving what their point is. If you do not even try to understand HOW people disagree with you, then you will definitely fail at trying to "understand WHY people might disagree with you".

But I guess you were not at your best back then either. Stuff happens. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You were given very good advice here [[243]]. Going after the things they say, the logic of their arguments is fine. However, the long list of quotes at the start of this discussion showed you attacking the person rather than the argument. I understand that things can get frustrating at times but that's the best time to take a step back and think vs just type. Being "right" isn't a bypass for CIVIL. Springee (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank User:Girth Summit, who said exactly the right things. His comment above was what turned the tide for me, and I want to point to it as a model on how things like this should be done. Showing understanding is the way to induce understanding. Demanding understanding without showing the tiniest trace of it oneself is always counterproductive - it just makes people dislike and distrust you. GS did not make that mistake, and that helped a lot. I will try not to make that mistake either in the future, and I hope his competence will inspire others to do it too right next time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it is helpful to step back and consider that we are all people. It would have been helpful if I did a better job understanding why you felt attacked. I don't agree that PackMecEng, a very level headed editor in general, intended to insult but I can see how you could have reasonably seen it as such. It doesn't excuse the response but it does offer context. Similarly, when you switched to ascribing motives to my comments here falsely leading people to assume I was commenting here as part of some content dispute, well I hope you can see that is why I went from saying a tban might be needed if things didn't reverse to one was needed now. To be clear, I'm here because I really think the sort of incivility you have shown is destructive to collaborative editing and that makes it an issue for other editors. Even if people didn't agree that a "block until you cool it" was needed, they clearly saw the underling issue. I'm glad to see you also see it. Springee (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, it's kind of you to say that. Awilley, as the OP, I'd like to hear whether you're satisfied with the statements that HG has made? I think that there were problems with the way that he was interacting, but he has acknowledged that and indicated that he will try to do better - does that assuage your concerns? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for what you did here. I have no objections to this being closed...if nobody else closes this or objects in the next couple hours I can do it myself. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• (after ec) Oppose tban, prefer block. I clicked on diff after diff presented in the initial complaint and I agree, they are nasty. They all seem to date to March 20 at the earliest. I am not impressed by Hob Gadling's responses here that he will cease accusing those who disagree in any way with his edits of being anti-science or of ganging up against him personally, much less violating WP:BLP, which obtains on talk pages as well as in article space. I have again and again been impressed by Black Kite's judgement, but this kind of aggressive disrespect for fellow editors is IMO the epitome of WP:CIV violation and far more corrosive to collaborative editing than is the use of four-letter words. Take-no-prisoners arguing is why I, for one, don't even risk copyediting climate change articles, to name one area. And whatever our internal definitions of civility, we should not suspend BLP for people we disagree with. That's part of the point of having it. This editor has been behaving unacceptably and needs to be stopped for the good of the encyclopedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yngvadottir, I think he got pissed off. It looks like he's calmed down now. Guy (help!) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

  A collaborative environment often gives us reason for annoyance, even anger. Reacting repeatedly by labelling fellow editors "anti-science" shows a fundamental hostility that shouldn't be waved away. There's a harmful double standard when we're harsher to those who drop f-bombs when they get "pissed off" than those who show a classic WP:BATTLE attitude. And the BLP violations are unconscionable, and also worthy of being labelled as a double standard. This blindness to someone being just flat-out unwilling to tolerate others' existence on a page is why swathes of the encyclopaedia are more and more characterised by extremism; it drives out those who don't see an "other side" in any given debate. And I'll say it again: excoriating living people is supposed not to be tolerated, even on talk pages. We don't run a climate-change discussion forum here. No, this is not acceptable. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions - I see no reason that the requested warning will not suffice, and I feel it's inappropriate to hijack a thread where no sanctions are on the table to try to get a content opponent TBANed. Consistent petty incivility is not immediately blockable and additional leeway is given to users who are fighting the frustrating and never-ending battle of anti-science POV-pushers. However, this petty incivility is not tolerable, and will eventually result in severe blocks, and there are numerous examples of this playing out. HG needs to start heeding advice to check his tone or things will eventually start escalating, but I see no need to railroad the guy over a request for a warning over minor incivility. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 19:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban I don't see why a climate change topic ban would make sense. If there's an issue about civility or BLP it's something else. —PaleoNeonate – 10:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Agreeing with Yngvadottir in that a climate change topic ban seems out of focus, but there should be a sanction addressing incivility, WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and BLP issues which is well-backed with diffs here. He is doubling down on the unneeded "science" vs. "antiscience" editors battle lines in this very thread: As long as all my accusers have a history of pro-denial editing, so nothing has been achieved here. If nothing is done, this thread will be yet another example of "why was this kind of behavior enabled", for ANI has been notoriously bad dealing with incivility. --Pudeo (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, my reading of this thread is different from yours. HG has dialed it down quite a bit since he made that comment, and made some statements to the effect that he realises he overstepped the mark. That kind of critical self-reflection isn't easy when you're under the spotlight. Our goal here should be to encourage people to improve their behaviour, and only block them from editing as a last resort - I think we'd all do well to recognise when someone acknowledges they've made mistakes, rather than to hark back to things they said before that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Pudeo, I think if this ends with a warning that should be sufficient. As others have said, if the behavior continues after a warning then additional measures can apply. I think a number of people misunderstood my proposed tban, likely thinking it to be a long term thing as opposed to my intent, a circuit breaker meant to be reset the moment the issue was addressed. My bad for not making that clear with by bold text proposal. Anyway, if a warning serves the same purpose that is fine and the intent. I do agree with those who say the objective is to stop the incivility, not the content editing. Springee (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Convenience break for editing

Not participating in the discussion, just adding a subsection header so you don't have to edit the whole section all at once. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend, I think it's just awsiting closure to be honest - the OP has indicated that they're satisfied with the statements that HG has made, the person who proposed sanctions has indicated that they longer think they're required, I think this is dealt with. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

But you have to admit, the break did make posting that comment more convenient. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 05:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I used reply link. It made typing thiseasier though - I don't know how to small with reply link (I think it would make my sig big), so you were right in the end.. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, it only signs when it detects none, methinks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, wow, thanks - looks like you're right! (You still are cool in my book!) GirthSummit _(blether) 07:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, that's fine; I didn't read the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support logged warning - and I agree with Springee about PackMecEng, a common sense, level-headed editor. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.