Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) at 04:22, 31 March 2020 (→‎Newslack: rationale and block (ec)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    Repeated bogus OR accusations

    IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

    Boomerang proposal from Martinthewriter

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

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

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

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

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

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

    @Martinthewriter: What does any of that have to do with the subject of this thread? Are you just trying to derail this in order to get revenge on me or something? Are you saying that, despite what the closing admin said at the end of the first RFC, what I have been doing is OR and Ivorytower123 shouldn't be sanctioned for saying that it is? The fact that some other editors said as much before last week's RFC closure is irrelevant (if they also continued to do so, they would be here too); the fact that you have now done so here means that yes, perhaps whatever happens to Ivorytower123 should also happen to you.
    New editors not understanding our editing policies is theoretically acceptable; new editors repeatedly harassing established editors and talking down to them about our editing policies when they themselves are the ones who are getting the policies wrong is a sanctionable issue.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I would ask that you refrain from taking quotes out of context on ANI. Most admins and other experienced editors will know better than to block me or otherwise blindly support your proposal without actually clicking on the diffs and seeing what I actually said, but it is nevertheless unacceptable for you to do this again after having been told off for it back in December. The paragraph beginning Much of this recent bludgeoning... is, needless to say, very misleading on its face. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I caught wind of this dispute when I closed a previous RfC, was asked to clarify the close, and asked about the appropriateness of a subsequent RfC that seems to have led to this current thread. I feel that additional comments from uninvolved administrators would be helpful in resolving this dispute. I don't know the full history among these editors, but Hijiri has raised concerns about wikihounding which should be taken seriously. The diffs that Martin provides should at least be read in that context. As for the original post, I don't really understand the hang-up on OR. Editors are routinely asked to evaluate the reliability of sources and determine due weight, so I don't see how OR plays much of a role in these discussions. Personally, I've struggled to resolve this issue, and would welcome help from others who are better at handling conduct disputes like this. Something should be done here, and wider input would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify two minor issues in case anyone thinks I was being deliberately misleading:
    (i) I don't think Martin is technically "hounding" me. In November, he showed up on a page I had edited almost two years earlier, and reverted most of my work on it. His edits don't appear to show a good-faith interest in the topic (since any honest reading of the sources would lead to the opposite conclusion he has reached), and he appears to be more interested in haranguing me than in improving the article. It is not clear whether or not he would continue to follow me to other pages and try the same thing if he were page-banned. I can provide evidence of all of this in the form of diffs, but since I am not actively seeking any sanctions against him, I don't want to waste time doing so. (I have already wasted dozens if not hundreds of hours on what should have been a cut-and-dry issue.)
    (ii) This ANI report, which has nothing directly to do with Martin, was not prompted by the recent RFC, but by one of the participants therein repeatedly accusing me of "original research". This problem (including my saying that I would seek administrative assistance in resolving it) also goes back to November, as the diffs I presented show.
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I mean I oppose any sort of "page ban" on Hijiri. The page mottainai is a terrible mess, WP at its worst; most is a section nominally called "etymology etc", but actually a ragbag of argument-from-etymology claims of a distinctly nihonjinron flavour, and the latest spat relates to the inclusion of a scraping from a Jungian psychologist, who (not surprisingly, since it's an axiom of the Jungian quasi-religion) thinks that "mottainai" is "connected" (meaning unclear) to anima mundi, which looks like the Shinto animism idea. I think most Japan specialist editors will have given up on this page; apart from Hijiri's contributions, almost all input is formulaic, legalistic recitations of rules about "sources". While I think that a less confrontational approach from Hijiri himself would doubtless help, it is hard to see his critics as disinterested contributors to the content of WP. For example, the user IvoryTower123 mentined at the beginning seems to have made many edits, for which I see no reason not to assume good faith, but apart from a comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan (mostly procedural), has made just one other Japan-related edit, creating a user page containing a Japanese language level 3 claim, and no other content. This does seem bizarre. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've unarchived this thread. It clearly needs a proper (admin) closure this time, especially given the comments that were made my Martinthewriter and Ahiroy therein, essentially promising that the disruption will continue indefinitely until something is done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now the second oldest thread on the page -- is no one going to look at it? I know it's not necessarily fair to suggest that problems like this one are not "sexy" enough to attract attention from uninvolved admins, but what other explanation is there? Back in December the problem was apparently that the first admin who came across the thread didn't want to weigh in on my "side" for "personal" reasons, but now...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yawn Still waiting for someone to deal with this... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @1292simon: "insults"? "threats"? Do you have evidence of these things? The diffs above clearly show me reacting in a fairly civil, reserved fashion to harassment and disruptive editing, if even that, unless you read only MTW's misquotations without clicking on the diffs to see the original context. If you do not present evidence, I would ask you to retract these unprovoked personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The diffs above show your bullying methods to intimidate other editors, similar to what you are trying on right now. 1292simon (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they show other editors making bogus accusations and the like, and me responding by telling them they are making bogus accusations (as is happeningI am "trying" now), and me notifying them of possible consequences (as is not happening now, since every time you edit ANI you see a big orange banner telling you to provide diffs). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, this is not about other editors, it is about what YOU have said. It is quite simple, the diffs above show the threats and intimidation you have made. And, as John says below, WP:BLUDGEON also applies. 1292simon (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @John from Idegon: Did you mean to post that in a different ANI thread? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I didn't. It was directed straight at you regarding this very thread. WP:BLUDGEON is possibly applicable. I am almost certain that I'm not alone on this. You didn't make your case above, and there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem. Someone opened a boomerang thread that wasn't going anywhere and would have archived soon, but you had to have a resolution and called attention to it again. Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? John from Idegon (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't make your case above I said I was being wrongly accused of OR and presented seven diffs in support of this claim. there was significant indication that indeed, you may be the problem ??? Are you saying that I was violating NOR? Are you willing to back up that claim? You would seem to be the first editor with more than 1,000 edits who agrees with that assertion... That said, Frequently, silence is the best answer. Would some benevolent admin please close this? is exactly right. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion on whether you made your case is irrelevant. If you had, it would have been actioned. I couldn't care less about the underlying articles. I haven't and won't look into it. I'm strictly commenting on your behavior in this very thread. As you've historically commented frequently at ANI, finding the diff where I discussed this with you previously is neigh on impossible. But I'm sure there are plenty of other editors here that are well aware of your tendency to not heed the advice given at WP:STICK. You are a vital editor here. There's a lot of ways to end a dispute. You can seek further DR assistance, and walking away is always an option. One thing for certain though. The community frowns on continuing disputes. If no one saw enough merit in your report to action it, that's your answer. The fact that you re-opened a dead thread, a thead where the only even vague indication of consensus is to sanction you, is, well, at best foolish. At worst, it's disruptive. We aren't playing poker here. Bluffs don't "win" the pot. John from Idegon (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your involvement in this thread is bordering on harassment at this point. We get it -- you don't like me and will take the side of whoever is against me, even if they are blatantly violating most of our content policies. I'd be happy with this thread being archived without result at this point -- the RFC will be closed shortly, almost certainly with a result not favourable to these two obvious sockpuppet accounts, and if they try any more disruptive editing after that point ... well, I'm sure the community and admin corps will do their job at that point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

    AaqibAnjum If you made a report at AIV, then you don't need to make an additional report here. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The response at AIV was to suggest reporting here, so AaqibAnjum is only doing what he was told. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AaqibAnjum, Authordom is doing nothing that requires administrator action by nominating articles for deletion. If you think they should be kept then simply make the case for keeping in the relevant discussion. Nobody's word should count for more than anyone else's in such discussions, which are closed on the basis of Wikipedia policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, thanks for your response. I've been working on the articles whatsoever nominated for deletion by him as I've joined the Wikipedia last year for the betterment of articles related to Deobandi school of thought. I just wanted to take a note of using cleanup, refimprove etc before nominating an article for deletion, mostly when the notability of the subject is widely known. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Authordom has nominated articles for deletion almost exclusively related to particular Islamic tendencies in India and Pakistan. As far as I can see, only one (possibly two) AfD out of 63 has been outside of this scope. Numerous nominations show no evidence of carrying out BEFORE which would have easily established the notability of the subject (eg Snow keep here, nomination of an elected politician here). Of the last 10 closed AfDs nominated by this editor, 8 have been closed as keep. Editor has been on Wikipedia for close to two years, so they should by now be expected to understand policy. With this AfD in January nominated under the editor's original user name of Kutyava, they subsequently !voted keep under their new username Authordom in the same AfD. Two blocks in January this year and a block in October last year for edit warring. The editor has been asked numerous times to carry out work appropriately. Seems to be ignoring reasonable requests and unable to apply NPOV to the work undertaken. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Authordom has been piling up deletion nominations for all religious groups within Sunni Islam – Deobandi, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind (India), Tablighi Jamaat except for his own religious group in South India. Personally I have hundreds of hours of editing time invested in these articles over the last 4 years. He had me working my tail off, within last two months, to try to prevent damage and disruption by him. This is the first time in my 7 year history on Wikipedia that I am asking for help on ANI. He has pushed me over the edge and I can not keep up with his binges of deletion nominations on both AfD Pakistan and AfD India. My own conclusion is that he has developed his own clever way of nominating where he typically uses the minimum words like 'Non-notable person' for Grand Mufti, Mufti and longtime members of Indian parliament or Rajya Sabha. His nominating words were 'Non-notable Deobandi seminary' for a 69 year old largest Deobandi religious university and institution in the city of Karachi which is well-known all over the Muslim world, not only in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Personally I have never nominated for deletion anything on Wikipedia (not even a single one) because I try my best to show tolerance and respect to all other peoples' faiths. Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wondered about Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah. IMHO any seminary with 4500 students meets the notability requirement, but I know embarrassingly little about Islam in general, I admit I'm an inclusionist, & WP:SCHOOLS doesn't explicitly cover institutions of higher education. The deletion nominations I looked at shared that quality: stubs or short start-class articles that appeared to be borderline cases, & apparently nominated in good faith, but were actually examples of an ongoing issue with Wikipedia. If this tendentious pattern can be confirmed, then we have good grounds to ban Authordom from nominating articles for deletion for an indefinite period. -- llywrch (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    llywrch Can you be explicit about the kind of evidence that would demonstrate this for you? The editor's history of nominations at AFD linked above shows a very clear pattern of nominating articles for deletion related to particular sects. Their article creation history shows a pattern almost exclusively related to a sect with origins in Kerela. At AfD the editor has only !voted keep 7 times (that includes the one where the editor nominated and !voted, writing a comment that was clearly intended to be for deletion, but for some reason wrote keep) almost all entirely in defense of the sect from Kerala or related to that; whereas the editor has made at least 64 AfD nominations and one single delete !vote. Most editors will not be balanced (we all veer one side of 50/50 keep/delete), but this editor's actions at AfD are completely skewed. What is of concern IMO is the rapid decline in the editor's number of successful AfD nominations since late February; a function of others (myself included) becoming aware of the ongoing pattern. Sadly, I suspect quite a few of the earlier AfDs closed as delete will need to be examined.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Goldsztajn, the issue of which topics this user creates articles about is not relevant, & does not provide useful information concerning tendentious editing. (If you looked at the last dozen or so articles I created, they would all be on ancient Roman men; but I can assure you am not advocating some bias favoring ancient Roman POV: they had many cultural norms I find objectionable, such as condoning slavery.) What would be useful, IMHO but others may disagree, is to list a large number of articles nominated for deletion, but kept, & show clearly whether or not the only reasonable assumption for their nomination was based on suppressing information about other religions in India. I'll admit that I don't know if it can be done, let alone how to present it, but a careful analysis of their nominations for deletion is what I would want before agreeing to a ban. -- llywrch (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Llywrch - thanks for the reply. I agree that in general an editor's created articles might not be relevant, but here I think it is relevant to establishing a pattern of bias. SPAs are not per se a problem, especially if an editor seeks to operate within a comfort area while respecting policy. However, here what we have is an editor who only !votes keep at AfD on the articles created by themself, which almost all relate to the particular sect the editor promotes. The vast majority of their nominations at AfD target specific Islamic sects within India and Pakistan (Deobandi stands out, but there are others). I will try to put together further analysis as you have asked. --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Authordom making nuisances in wikipedia, specially on deletion nominations, removing well cited contents, unwanted sockpuppet/vandal investigation request etc. Even I am new in english wikipedia, faced multiple attempt from him, only due to inclusionist edits on his delete nominations. It is habit to overtagging the articles which doesn't satisfy own interest. I can submit examples for all issues what I have raised here (If required).--Irshadpp (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Irshadpp: at least one example please. ❁ᴀᴜᴛʜᴏʀ❁ (❁ᴅᴏᴍ❁) 23:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's a bit premature to say this is a block just yet. We need to see the information requested first. -- llywrch (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llywrch: Yes, I agree. Can I start by copy/pasting links here from AfD India and AfD Pakistan archives where he was highly active nominating articles for deletion within the last couple months? If you prefer some other better way, I'll do that since this is my first time in presenting 'requested information', I'll need some directions from you so I don't end up violating any Wikipedia rules. Also, I don't want to burden @Goldsztajn: alone for it and would like to try to communicate with him, if possible? My thought is just to copy/paste ONLY the relevant TWO AfD Archive links (one each from India and Pakistan) here and then each individual (estimated 60 to 70 total) AfD Discussion Results can be picked up from there? Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ngrewal1: Please wait 30 minutes I'm just working on something.--Goldsztajn (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are the 25 most recent nominations by Authordom at AfD. I have not analysed more due to time constraints. I have only done some precursory research on those closed as delete, but in my mind at least three are clearly in need of review. That said, we have 22 out of 25 articles which are Deobandi related. Furthermore, the nominations all lack any evidence of WP:BEFORE, only one refers to policy as justification for deletion (and this remains only WP:ASSERTION). Of the 25 below, 21 have been closed, with 10 closed as keep and 11 closed as delete. The editor's pattern of nominations at AfD suggests a strongly focused attention on articles related to this particular Islamic movement and carried out in a scatter-gun approach. The actions of the editor (and hte most recent results of their nominations) suggest a disregard for WP:NEXIST. The editor also refuses to respond to requests to correct actions made in error at AfD.
    Date Article at AfD Authordom's claim in full for deletion Deobandi -

    related

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

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

    References

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

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

    Thanks, Goldsztajn. Here I have noticed his one more biased edit. Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi was Grand Mufti of India as I had referenced from (Mufti Azam Hind, Maulana Kifayatyullah Shahjahanpuri Thumma Dehlawi (2005 ed.). Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library.) and this. Here Authordom is regarding this as unsourced.See this edit on Kifayatullah Dehlawi. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Authordom is probably a paid editor. This user is one of the most biased editor on Wikipedia. Authordom is spamming all over these particular topics and nominating the topics he doesn't like for deletion. Me too had an experience that the user nominated me and an unrelated editor for sockpuppet investgation, just because I made a honest edit to one of his favourite topics. Please take relevant action.--SnehaRaphael1996 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [13]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [14] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page post [15]:

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

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

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

    Closure-PIwA

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

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

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

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


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

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

    AfD forums being used as weapons

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

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Not true. There is these edits, here[16] and here[17], where you tried to rewrite MOS to suit yourself. Those edits were reverted by another editor here[18] and here[19] 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[20] but I didn't participate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    • 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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    • William doesn't listen to what other editors say. He was advised multiple times to change his confusing signature and he refused (see [21]). 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)[reply]

    A876

    A few days ago, A876 made this change to the main MOS page. Afterwards, three separate editors (not even myself, despite being the one who reverted the initial edit) brought this up on his talk page at User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes (again). The edit in question introduced a ton of changes, almost all of which were cosmetic, making it difficult to find what the substantive changes were (if there were any). And this has been an ongoing problem for years and years. And since those 3 editors all echoing the same concern, A876 made 3 more changes over the past couple days (diffs: again to the main MOS page, [22], and [23]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

    User:A876 has been alerted to the MOS discretionary sanctions, a few hours ago. If they continue to edit the MOS while making no response to the concerns expressed here, an admin would have the option of banning them from editing the MOS under the WP:ARBATC sanctions. Before that step could be considered, we might need more background than what has been given above. For example, evidence for "an ongoing problem for years and years". EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that one of the edits was to the MOS was incidental; the core of the problem is that other editors have been complaining about these edits for years and that A876 refuses to heed these complaints. Their talk page is a good record of the problem. If they even bother to respond at all, it's of the "I'm right and you're wrong and I'm not changing" variety, especially considering that they've continued to make these kinds of changes right after multiple editors brought these up with no response from A876. I'm just on my way to bed now; if you or others want more specific pointers to specific complaints and responses, I'll add those in the morning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am tempted to simply "continue to edit the MOS while making no response to the concerns expressed here", thereby letting "an admin [have] the option of banning [me] from editing the MOS". (EdJohnston seems to acknowledge the abject pettiness of this complaint, in specifying a condition-for and a scope-of punishment. It would be annoying to be locked out of MoS for helping, but that might not meet the tarring and feathering that some of "the editors who actually write the encyclopedia", "content builders", and other "real" contributors (as they've condescendingly identified themselves to me) might demand.) I regard the reverts of my MoS edit by Deacon Vorbis as unnecessary and therefore inappropriate (didn't like?), and the unexplained reverts made since-then to two of my non-MoS edits as unjustified hostile retaliation to make a point and punish, detrimental to the Mission.
    I don't know why some few reach out to disparage, wasting more of their time than they'll ever save, and wasting more of my time than I willingly give.
    Afterward, only two "separate" (sic) editors commented. (Their surgical separation was successful?) Maybe I'll reply there. They raised little new. "The edit pattern is baffling." (Geekdiva) Funny. They don't have to understand; I don't have to explain. Nonetheless, I've already explained. If they figure it out, they'll learn something.
    • "mostly inappropriate changes" (edit comment). None could be called "inappropriate". None broke anything. Many were unambiguous improvements. Many were explained in edit comments (q.v.).
    • "... introduced a ton of changes ..." Some editors do a hundred edits on the same article, saving after every few words, few sentences, or few minutes. (Talk about wasting resources.) I prefer to do one big edit. Sometimes a touch-up. Sometimes a catch-up after editing a related page. Surely reviewing 50 same-day near-edits by the same editor is more tedious and more error-prone than reviewing one big edit.
    • "almost all of which were cosmetic, ..." (Well, over half were "cosmetic".) I made "real" changes. "Cosmetic" edits do not disqualify an edit and do not justify compound-reverting reasonable work, unless the edit actually "hurts" the page by bloating it with irrational markup.
    • "... making it difficult to find ..." It's not that hard. Once and it's over. No one will "fix" those things again.
    • "... what the substantive changes were (if there were any)" That is devastatingly insincere. The "substantive changes" were described and obvious.
    • "Some of the changes made are okay," Okay. "but they are filled with pointless ones..." Each one had a point. Some are substantial, some are cosmetic. Some are subtle. I expect clear markup, so I put clear markup. Moving the anchors up to where they are recommended to be helps people arriving from shortcuts. It is small but not trivial.
    • Cosmetic-only edits are discouraged, but there is no mandate to revert even one of those (unless it does real damage). I've warned other editors who did a lot of these, but I have never reverted one, even when I didn't like what they did.
    • "there were a couple [of] changes within that great clump that I did think were necessary" (Geekdiva) Correct! But some would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
    • "Not broke", but "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." (essay) It helped a little.
    • I expect legible and consistent markup when I do any editing. When markup is inconsistent, I change it. The important result of editing is good markup (secondary to good content). Diffs? Someone doesn't like my diffs? Diffs are tertiary. Still, I pay some attention to what the "diffs" look like. They are legible and comprehensible.
    • The main MOS page recommends 1RR if not 0RR. You reverted two harmless beneficial edits.
    - A876 (talk)
    I've blocked A876 for 24 hours for pointedly continuing to restore contested copy edits while this ANI complaint was still being discussed, just as the above post threatened to do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To follow up a bit from last night, here are just some threads on A876's talk page which are relevant:
    The pattern is clear. Many editors have repeatedly explained why these sorts of changes are problematic. But A876 simply responds with why they don't agree ... at length. The other editor(s) eventually give up or don't follow up. Wait 6 months, or a year, or a couple years. Repeat.
    I think these exchanges confirm, as I said above, that A876's basic attitude is "I'm right; you're wrong; I'm going to just do what I want anyway." Their response here even echoes that. Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages (and which many people don't even agree with) is disruptive, even if substantive changes are made during the same edit. As others have pointed out, it wastes editors' time trying to sift through the changes to see if any of the substantive ones were problematic. And A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted, either. There are reasons why policies like WP:COSMETICBOT even exist in the first place. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like NinjaRobotPirate will take action if the problem continues, and I would be happy to investigate and see if admin action would be appropriate if the problem continues. That is, I think this can be closed with an invitation to draw my attention to any ongoing concerns. @A876: Please note that irritating other editors is not compatible with a long-term future at Wikipedia. Perhaps they are wrong and your tweaks are great, but it would be still be better to find something else to do because a glance at your talk page shows that you are irritating other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Deacon Vorbis, and think that this is a bit more serious than "irritating" other editors. Just reading some of those talk page discussions in the past is more like infuriating other editors - making pointless changes, then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless? Really? Really? While "refuses to stop making pointless style changes that don't even render to users" is a really dumb reason to be disciplined, the message of "don't do this" clearly hasn't taken hold. A876, you are NOT improving Wikipedia with tons of pointless wikitext style format changes, you are wasting other editor's time and peeving editors who have a preferred style that you're overwriting. This message clearly has not broken through. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply 2:
    •NinjaRobotPirate imposed a 24-hour block on me "just as the above post threatened to do". (Objections: The original post "threatened" no such thing. The comment that followed "threatened" something else. The block does not say which edit triggered it. Deacon Vorbis and I had stopped "edit-warring" long before the block was imposed on (only) me. The block blocked me from commenting here.) The interesting word is "threatened". Maybe admins should simply order me what not to do, in order to save Wikipedia from me. I would be obliged to comply with an order. Maybe that's how Wikipedia needs to be "run", by a hierarchy using threats and orders.
    •I think this has escalated from "I don't like it", "It annoys Me", and "Stop it stop it stop it!" (with the mighty added backing of "You're breaking the RUWELLS!") to "Mommy, make them stop!", and possibly "Daddy, hurt them now!" I sense an urgency to reign in my outrageous disrespect and bring me to heel, by adults who would "discipline" other adults.
    •These cycles usually start after one of my edits, with a casual flick of the Undo button, and persistence. It has graduated this time to a flick of the Crucify button.
    •"Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages..." For the class of improper capitalization immediately after "[[" but before "|", it's hard to discover the ones which do "affect the rendering of" the page (true miscapitalizations) without addressing the ones "which don't affect the rendering of" the page. Capitalizing consistently with the context of the word is always right, whether there is a "|" or not. Unnecessary capitalization immediately after "[[" makes reading harder, and using "the pipe trick" cannot even create that condition in a piped link.
    •"... (and which many people don't even agree with) ..." Well, there certainly are a highly outspoken few. Almost every editor doesn't know what I did; most who know don't care; most who care agree; most who don't agree don't disagree; most who disagree aren't annoyed; most who are annoyed get over it; those who can't get over it compound-revert and/or complain. I never complain about their misdeeds except in edit summaries (e.g. "Don't re-break it. Don't compound-revert. Don't edit to make a point. Don't erase other editors.") and in replies to their objections. There are lots of things I "don't even agree with" that I don't mess with.
    •"... is disruptive, ..." Maybe it is disruptive. And maybe compound-reverting is more disruptive. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing only talks about "content". However, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary says a lot about reverting, that fits quite closely: It says "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad..." "...your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit". "Even if you find [that] an article was slightly better before an edit, [don't revert]." "Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality..." "Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." It is quite clear to me that every revert done to my edits over "mostly unnecessary", etc. changes went against the spirit of Wikipedia in several ways, and deserves be dissuaded, loudly. Other editors who are annoyed by my "mostly unsubstantive", "mostly pointless", "mostly unnecessary" changes are entitled to [express their objections on my talk page] and [express their objections here on WP:ANI], and I am entitled to reply. I have replied, usually friendly, sometimes argumentative, and usually annoyed when they did reverts. Nothing mandates anyone to revert my changes; and several statements strongly urge editors never to do so. Does scanning a few dozen touch-ups hurt them that badly? Can't they "take one for the team" (as obliged) and allow "an editor [to] enjoy the fruits of his crimes", rather than grow indignant, ask me not to, tell me not to, belittle me, revert, persist in reverting, and complain? I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert. I make the markup as consistent as I can, at the expense of creating a one-time "annoying" diff.
    •"even if substantive changes are made during the same edit." However, WP:COSMETICBOT says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Okay, they "should not usually be done on their own" (doesn't say "must not", not even here), and I never do them "on their own". Even one "substantive change" puts an edit into the "may be allowed" category. (Sadly it uses weasel-words "may be" instead of "is".)
    •"trying to sift through the changes to see [whether] any of the substantive ones were problematic" is more of auditing, not editing. How many people "sift" and audit every change? How many watchers does each page have? Maybe I really am collapsing Wikipedia under the burden of all my "fiddling" if, for example, 100 people review each of my edits.
    •"A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted" First of all, it's a consistency thing. Most articles consistently use no-space; inconsistent articles mostly use no-space. I recently found something on Wikipedia urging no-space, to prevent line-breaks from awkwardly putting the closing "==" at the beginning of a line, when the line is made long by multiple {Anchor}s. (Do you actually prefer with-spaces, or are you lawyering for a silent majority that actually cares and "prefers" them?)
    •I am "irritating other editors". Oops, add "infuriating other editors" when I reply in defense my actions. I wish it wasn't that way. Let me try to rewrite that in E-Prime. Whenever someone edits a page, Wikipedia saves a new version. Anyone can examine a "difference" report between any two versions of any page. Some editors file standing orders that make Wikipedia tell them whenever someone edits specific pages. When I edit a page, I edit in markup-view. I make my changes. I like to fix as many details as possible in each edit. I also look at the markup. Because I have to edit through the markup. I find serious discomfort ignoring ugly markup and submitting ugly markup. I call "ugly" any markup that does not match other markup on the same page, markup on other pages, or my general concept of correct and current markup. I mostly reject unnecessary variations of some forms. I tolerate some variations of some forms. The final markup is freer of distracting, meaningless variations of form. I try to make the markup match, as close I (quickly) can, the markup that I would expect to find when I open the page for editing, free from randomness, accidents, and variations introduced by multiple editors. As a side-effect, the resulting "diff"s often include multiple changes that are not visible on the rendered page. Some editors carefully examine every edit of some pages. Some editors take annoyance at seeing multiple non-impactful edits. They correctly state that my edit makes [a little] more [one-time] work for them, when they examine the diff to make very sure that none of the non-rendering changes did any damage to the rendered contents. They dislike a lengthy "diff" despite it resulting from a better page.
    •"making pointless changes," All are pointful, directly and indirectly. Calling them pointless does not make them pointless. I explained the points several times. Not agreeing with the points does not justify saying "pointless".
    •"[and] then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless". I only said "hypocrisy" in one context. I tell those who revert that they are wrong, because they are. I tell them they are wronger than they think I am, because they are. Reversion is not the way. (See above.) The entire edit is never pointless; it always includes "substantive" changes, so undoing them is a "compound revert". Undoing is not mandatory, is not recommended, and is strongly advised against.
    •"Really? Really?" Really. Really. Even if the change actually was "pointless" (here taken to mean "did nothing substantive"), reverting it is just as pointless, plus it is more wrong, because it actually is wrong, for multiple reasons.
    •Like everyone here, I don't set out to annoy people. But other people sometimes take annoyance with any of us. What I have been doing is sensible, at least to me and I don't know who else. I am surer now that it is allowable. I am surer now that one should revert such edits. I have tried to answer objections. I might go through and address the latest list of crimes. I refute arguments that apply the wrong rules, condescend, insult, attack, abuse, and repeat false arguments; are insincere (pretend not to see the obvious); claim that random variations of markup spacing somehow represent individuals' "preferences"; or claim that reducing randomness "has no benefit" (it improves readability to find real errors; it makes text-searches less likely to fail). The credible objections allege that my tidying is not worthy of their effort to review/verify/check/audit the one-time hairy edit – it annoys them so much they ask me to stop and/or argue me to stop; some deem it so worthless that they stop mid-review and revert the edit, and persist in that reversion, as if that helps and/or delivers deserved punishment. Perhaps I should not do things that "annoy" others – not make adjustments that some "don't like" and object to – especially not annoy outspoken and "important" editors by cleaning up "important" articles. I don't want to annoy anyone. I already pay significant attention to keep my diffs readable – they could be much worse. The prospect of never cleaning up the crap that so many pages "are comprised of" is quite painful. MediaWiki could (and arguably should) automatically apply a set of adjustments similar to mine. MediaWiki should fully understand its syntax, fully parse every page at edit-time, and replace most optional variations with the one preferred form, leaving minimal randomness and no undetected malformed pages. - A876 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that was quite the wall of text. Let me try and be brief and hit the two major points.
    "I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert."
    A876, you're an editor just like everyone else. Your edits are not specially blessed. Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place) or take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). Claiming your edits are always fine but reverts are pointless is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. (That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) If you want to do this as a WikiGnome wander-by "helper", stop. WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless, invisible-to-readers, preferred Wikitext style imposition. And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    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)

    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:

    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)[reply]

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

    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[24] to Unknown[25], to East Med [26] to The Levant [27], 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 [28] 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 [29] 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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    AManWithNoPlan and Citation bot

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

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

    Template causing false error messages on huge scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Proposal

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

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

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

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

    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."[35] [36] (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. [37][38]
    • 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. [39] [40]
    • 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 [41]. 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. [42].
    • Posting long, multi-paragraph block quotes repeatedly in multiple discussions, and refusing to respect the Poll/Discussion division in the first RfC. [43] [44] [45]

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

    Objective3000 In any instance where I applied a tag, it was after raising an issue on the talk page. This is completely proper according to the tag page policy. What is not, and what you have done at this page and others (and encouraged others to do, like Selfstudier in this case) is to unilaterally declare there is no issue and remove the tag on that basis. That is non-compliant with the tagging policy, and disruptive -- it sends the message to other editors that you don't think their concerns are the least bit valid, and would rather shut down any conversation about them. Further, your only contribution to the discussion referenced above thus far has been to egg on the problematic behaviors described. You have shown a tendency to comment on any thread where I am involved, but I suggest you bow out of this one; your behavior has been an issue here as well, and I'd rather address one thing at a time. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look up the word unilaterally. [51] O3000 (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See here for your indeed unilateral removal of a tag, in contradiction of WP:CLEANUPTAG, WP:DETAG. A cleanup tag accompanied by a rationale posted on the talk page should never be immediately removed or assumed to be in bad faith. You did that here, though Selfstudier is just more persistent about it and pairs that with other disruptive behaviors listed above; but trust me, I was considering filing a separate report about both of you for repeatedly removing it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have threatened me with admin action now six times. This is become boring and boorish. O3000 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:THREAT. I do not have the capability to "threaten you" with an admin action, and use of dispute resolution is not a threat. If you are truly "bored," then stop seeking conflict. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Not really other than to say there's a handful of POV editors around the Gaza/Palestine/Israel topic. I'm keeping an eye on Gaza War. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, sounds good. Thanks, EvergreenFir. El_C 20:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the monitoring and warnings, EvergreenFir, particularly the closure of the "counter RfC." I think this was necessary to get the discussion back on course. However, as you noted, this editor continued to make contentious to the page after your closure. And note how they actively refused simple requests to keep block quotes out of the Poll section of the discussion and continued adding them after a polite request not to. Absent an acknowledgement from Selfstudier, I am very concerned the behaviors above will continue, if not immediately, then within a couple of hours or a day or two. This has already caused a substantial amount of disruption. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's no further action called for here, I will close it myself and accept that EvergreenFir will be vigilant about future problems at that page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to complaint

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

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

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

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

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

    Other relevant Diffs:

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

    Mentioned editors will be notified after this is posted.

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

    Comment Selfstudier notified two users that have same POV that he has [52],[53] though he notified one user[54] that have different POV.I think its still don't look good.User:Selfstudier why did you choose those users? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

    "Fell out naturally?" Why wouldn't you tag GreenC? He was a participant as well. Because you supposed he wouldn't be one of your "defenders?" This editor will never fess up to anything. Also, my willingness to close the complaint lessened when you came here and basically accused me of POV again and somehow criticized me as "only recently" becoming interested in I/P (untrue, and irrelevant? Been editing I/P for 2+ years.). Of course, this isn't just about me: it's about all of the participants in that discussion who had to deal with your behavior here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Read wp:boomerang, Yes this can also be about you. I really suggest you drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did tag GreenC here and you have now tagged him twice more. I think that is enough now, don't you?Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also read psychological projection. No this is not a PA; it is advice that would serve you well here. You could spend more time successfully gaining consensus and less time on drama boards. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of POV pushing are indeed personal attacks. See WP:NPA. The discussion was well on-track for consensus in favor of addressing the issue I raised. When an editor engages in a sustained campaign to disrupt a conversation, ANI is exactly the place to bring it. It's also something you don't necessarily need to concern yourself with, Objective3000. You seem to become involved at a majority of threads I've either opened or participated in over the past few weeks. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By my count, you have now made this odd inference or outright accusation six times with me alone. I suggest you stop. I'm too lazy; but someone else might keep track of what appear to be attempts to bully. WP:BATTLEGROUND O3000 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Track" whatever you like, and understand that when you show a pattern of following someone around, particularly when it's to harass, pester, and criticize that editor is likely to take notice. Your involvement here has been exclusively to instigate conflict, namely to encourage Selfstudier to edit-war over a tag, and participate in that yourself, on a content issue you haven't even weighed in on in a substantive way. Learn when to back off and stop looking for trouble. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]

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

    45.48.22.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked by El_C -Indy beetle (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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:

    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"):

    Extended content

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I have lbocked the IP and the account. Any evasion, please report. El_C 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP spammer again

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    An attacker is afoot

    Socks blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. SemiHypercube 15:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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)[reply]

    Interestingly enough, the following are  Confirmed to WorldwideBallcaps:
    I'll block and tag everyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. Some facade. DawgDeputy (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Harassment from Psychologist Guy

    Psychologist Guy, please stop hounding Josh Milburn. You have presented your concerns about a possible COI and now the community is aware of your concern. No action needs to be taken as long as you keep your distance from Josh Milburn and do not comment on him further. Liz Read! Talk! 01:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Vegan meatpuppets??? EEng 23:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I'll second Black Kite on that. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    (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 ([55]). That you are WP:OUTING Milburn is of more concern to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco

    I have warned Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco not to disrupt this deletion discussion. Admins should feel free to issue a block if it resumes. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

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

    Kingsif reported by 79.109.111.97

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

    Kingsif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism in [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. Hello, I know that I am only one IP address. I would like to report the user Kingsif due to manipulate the nationalities of several people. That user replaces the spanish nationality by others that are not valid (regions like Catalonia or Valencia) because these user has a catalan independence ideology. I would like to warn the user of non-compliance with the rules and that will be restored to the articles referred to above, the Spanish nationality. Also note that the user in bad faith i falsely denounced to provoke me locking a day in wikipedia. 79.109.111.97 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) I Add: If you tolerate that people with Spanish nationality appear in the articles with the nationality of their regions it's the same like if you're English the nationality of Churchill is "South East England" instead of Britain. Or if you are American, is the same as the nationality of Obama is Hawaiian instead of American. No article of a spanish famous (of the most guarded by users) comes another nationality other than the Spanish (and the same with the rest of the nations of the world). 79.109.111.97 (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IslamBro edit-warring, accessibility issues

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

    Creation of others' User pages by ธนบดั เมืองโคตร

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

    I don't think you should be allowed to create other people's user pages. I came here to report this same thing. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed by Bbb23. Deor (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential CIR issue

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

    I'm taking a quick glance over other edits of theirs, not seeing anything as severe. Mostly stuff like this, which, while great, doesn't quite fall into WP:CIR territory. They are editing from their phone, which does make it a bit harder to see edit summaries and may be why they're not seeing how they're screwing up the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, just needed a 2nd opinion. If you reckon it's negligible that's good enough for me. Cheers. Robvanvee 10:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing from a phone does not give someone a free hand to ignaore warings or to edit war. They are continuing to edit war to keep adding their random pictures of some unknown celebrity's feet to the article. Can someone apply a block or suitable protection to stop the disruption?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Has removed the copyright tag from File:Namik Paul 2.png 4 5 times now - clearly doesn't understand the requirements. Also edit wars to keep these strange images in articles - Arjayay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. I'm sorry if I intrude but this diff is great: [62] --Gtoffoletto (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't work out if he's fetishising feet or height. Narky Blert (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    lol well, looks like he is determined to keep those feet...he just reverted again! Curdle (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my concerns were not unfounded. Also, imo, a prerequisite to competence would be the ability to reply to warnings/messages/concerns on your talk page, something this editor has yet to accomplish. Robvanvee 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Who can blame him/her. Just look at those feet! And Namik is really THAT tall. Jokes aside this whole thing seems clearly problematic to me but I'm just a bystander.--Gtoffoletto (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked for a week, and I've speedy deleted the two several obvious copyvio images (under WP:F11, with a hint of IAR over the seven days thing as the non-permission is so blatant) - one was claimed to be "own work by screenshoting". I've asked them to respond to the issues raised, but if they don't and the problems recur when the block expires, feel free to let me know and I'll deal with it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      And, having looked back over their talk page and seen copyright violations stretching back two years, I've upped the block to indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent disruptive editing / probable sockpuppetry

    Range blocked. The IPs are evading an older block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

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

    Misuse of User Talk Page

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

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

    Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

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

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

    Boud, that's only three edits. The second and third edits in your list are the same diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My error. Fixed. Now I see that the third "removal" was not actually a removal; it created hidden-by-default, viewable-with-a-click maps, but Ythlev didn't give an edit summary to explain. I'm not fully convinced that a block is necessary; it depends whether Ythlev intends to continue aggressive editing of a COVID-19 page without letting the active editors come to consensus. Edit summaries and using the talk page to concentrate on arguments for/against are what are needed. There's also a problem with others having to tidy up proper attribution for using ODbL data, but a block would not solve that. Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would seem that if the issues are solely on COVID-19 pages then a topic ban would probably be more appropriate than a temporary block, I’m not sure thats necessary though from what I see here and in Ythlev’s edit history. Do you have any examples of disruptive behavior on pages other than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No; his/her edits (per capita maps) seem to have been accepted on several other COVID-19 pages with no obvious objections. I get the feeling that Ythlev has been involved in some edit conflicts on Taiwan/China issues, but that's a separate topic. Maybe if @Ythlev: joined in the discussion here the temperature might cool sufficiently... :) Boud (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV is locked

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

    Disruptive promotional account

     Done - account blocked. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Contributor10000000 reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan

    Moved to WP:AN/EW. --MrClog (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    Moved to WP:AN/EW

    Page: 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Contributor10000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948226929&oldid=948204422
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948184683&oldid=948183627
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948183113&oldid=948183066
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947876173&oldid=947875387
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947873249&oldid=947869686
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947863914&oldid=947857096
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947856948&oldid=947856238


    Diffs of talk page discussion:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=946664359&oldid=946663584
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947553204&oldid=947552331
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947564590&oldid=947558288
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947837524&oldid=947578976
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947837799&oldid=947837600
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947850280&oldid=947837799
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=947865028&oldid=947852895
    8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2020_Conservative_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election&type=revision&diff=948148478&oldid=947893404

    Comments:

    This user is being rather disruptive on in the article (edits above) and talk page, in particular see the section he/she created titled "Liberal Bias". As far as I can tell from the talk page, some of the entries from IP 23.92.130.169 appear to be completed by Contributor10000000. I believe this requires attention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry Investigation

    This is almost certainly a blocked editor who's just wasting our time with pointless reports. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    Who are you? GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Newslack

    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 [63] 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 [64]. They’ve also repeatedly levied accusations of COI at me [65][66] 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 [67] (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.”[68]. 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)[reply]

    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: [69][70][71] and engaged it excessive "citation needed" tags when it was in the middle of my editing process[72]... 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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 [73] from Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Taiwan News [74] with zero attribution. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I didn’t troll your talk page, two of those posts are notices of noticeboard discussions. The other one is [75] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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 ([76]) which were undone by HEJ and then partially restored in this edit ([77]). The following day, Newslack restored the original text ([78]), which HEJ reverted ([79]). 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 ([80]). 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 [81]).
    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 ([82]) and after I notified them about WP:GS/COVID ([83]). 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 ([84]) lead me to issue a block under WP:GS/COVID for disruption. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=948279874"