Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shyam (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 18 March 2020 (→Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam: correction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Latest comment: 4 years ago by Shyam in topic Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion

    IP editor using multiple IPs for vandalism

    Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

    IP from Hungary keeps removing "present" from people's current relationships on the infobox in several articles without any explanation. They get reverted, warned and come back with a new IP the next day. I've found 21 IPs so far. They're also removing sourced portions of the article[1] and adding past boyfriends to the infobox, which is not allowed.[2][3][4]

    In December, another editor warned one of the IPs (2A02:2F07:D60D:7300:8CE7:8E3C:4941:8907) to not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia,[5] and they got blocked for 72 hours for persistent vandalism on December 22, 2019,[6] so they may be using more IPs than these 21 listed below.

    IPs:

    Diffs:

    Zoolver (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Comment: I have looked through the diffs and the links in your statement. I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing a formatting issue. Regarding removing sourced material, you link to one instance - that is a content issue which should be discussed on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Zoolver: If you want any action taken here, you're going to have to present this in a simpler way. First, create ranges of IPs, not singles, and make sure that those ranges are all doing similar activity, meaning no collateral damage if the range is blocked. Second, at least some of the IPs in a range must have edited recently. I don't care about edits that occurred last month, let alone last year, but I'm willing to consider blocking a range for longer if the activity is recent and has been going on for some period of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • What else is necessary for you people to consider something as vandalism and block several IPs from the same editor doing the same thing for months after being warned several times by different editors and refusing to stop? First I reported it for sockpuppetry but you guys said that there was no sockpuppetry and suggested that I should take it here, now there's no vandalism, so what should I try next? @Bbb23: Did you even check the damn diffs and 15 IPs listed here? there are diffs from this week on that list. If that wasn't clear, the first diffs showed how it started last year and were followed by the most recent edits from this week showing the same pattern. No wonder Wikipedia is this mess when the admins aren't willing to resolve such an obvious vandalism and expect regular editors to be experts and do their job for them. @Lightburst: nobody is checking those talk pages, let alone the IP editor who started it all and got warned to stop it several times. They won't stop, that's why I took it straight to ANI instead of taking it to 50 talk pages and wait for an admin to check it someday when they feel like it, but now I see that it was useless anyway. Zoolver (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Hey EEng, I can't find what MOS says about the desirability of "2007–present" vs. "2007–" (diff). Wasn't that talked about recently ... somewhere? Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      MOS:TOPRESENT. I don't recall any recent discussion on this and a lazy look at MOS and MOSNUM archives didn't find anything either. EEng 02:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks, that confirms that the IP is wrong and style is "2007–present" while omitting "present" is wrong. Persistently unhelpful edits waste good editor's time. I'll try to have a look later. Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The 2020 contributions of the IPs listed above are covered by Special:Contributions/2A01:36D:119:0:0:0:0:0/48 and it looks like it's one person. Their last edit was 08:23, 5 March 2020 which is a bit long ago for a block. @Zoolver: Please monitor the /48 link and let me know if it continues. An attempt should be made to engage them on their talk (not a warning but a friendly 'please stop removing "present" from infoboxes because the manual of style (MOS:TOPRESENT) requires "present"') but there's no point doing that unless using the talk page of a recently active IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    It's not clear that "2007-present" is a good thing to have in an article. It would certainly not do for a person's lifespan, for example. It also implies that if the qualified item expires it will be updated immediately, whereas "2007-" is clearer that it's a time of writing statement. In prose it could be cast "Foo started in 2007,, and was coninuting as of 2020" (wiht or without {{As of}}.
    Having said that if there is consensus that this is vandalism, or even just undesireable, the place to look for help may be WP:Edit filters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 20:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).Reply
    The IP's edits are strongly opposed by MOS:TOPRESENT. I requested a temporary filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#MOS:TOPRESENT but blocking the IP might be needed if that doesn't work. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Repeated bogus OR accusations

    Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

    IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)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.[16][17][18][19] 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.[20] 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.[21] He has made personal attacks on talk pages[22][23][24][25] and in edit summaries.[26][27]

    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

    User:The Rambling Man and User:190.233.207.10

    Latest comment: 4 years ago56 comments25 people in discussion

    The Rambling Man is clearly proxying for the sock of the blocked IP cluster 190.233.207. The block of one of the IPs is good through at least mid-March. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    No, as discussed at length with Rubin, the rambling guy is not "clearly proxying for the sock", he's actually trying to make articles better by including decent images and requesting Rubin to stop making fake edit summaries such as "bad images" en masse. To be accused of "proxying for a sock" is deeply offensive and I demand an apology and perhaps some remuneration for my time. Let's call it £5,000. To whom do I send my invoice? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I blocked the IP for block evasion. But policy says that anyone can restore the sock's edits if they want to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I could be wrong. It seems possible that The Rambling Man is editing in good faith. However, he has, in the past, reverted my edits for no apparent reason, other than that I made them. That would be even worse than proxying for the sock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:56, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The IP-evading sock hasn't actually uploaded those images and certainly in the case of File:General Marcos Evangelista Pérez Jiménez, Venezuela.jpg, for example which was uploaded by a regular Commons contributor, the image is indeed far better. You need to look at TRM's edits and say "is this an improvement?" and if it is, then there's no issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Arthur Rubin is actively working in bad faith here. We discussed this on his talk page and he said if I didn't review each image he would report me. So I reviewed each image, and he still reported me, and then accused me of being a proxy for a banned editor. I am disgusted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Is there a diff in our future here about any of your accusations? If not, I suggest you review WP:NPA or otherwise, perhaps, expect a boomerang heading your way. - Nick Thorne talk 00:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (ec) And while we're here, please Arthur Rubin show me the edits that back up your casting of aspersions that I simply revert your for no apparent reason, other than that I made them. Making such an accusation without evidence is a personal attack and we need to get that sorted straight away. People making such assertions are routinely blocked if there is no evidence to support such accusations. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The Rambling Man is clearly proxying for the sock of the blocked IP cluster 190.233.207. this is the kind of crap which leads to disharmony and upset here. Seriously. After 15 years? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    disharmony and upset? Them's fightin' words! PackMecEng (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Reply
    And now this harassment which states among other ramblings, And you have, in the past, either proxied for blocked editors or reverted my edits for no apparent reason. Please could someone ask Arthur Rubin to either substantiate these accusations or remove them with an apology, or block him for a bright-line violation of NPA. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 00:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment - Quite frankly I think this treatment of TRM is disgusting and pathetic. You're wasting valuable time trying to drag him through the mud with wild accusations of socking/proxy editing/whatever the hell you want to obfuscate in order to get him penalised. Quite frankly, if it were up to me I'd be tossing Rubin out on his arse already - maybe put it to the community to ban him over this behaviour. You're setting a poor example and it makes prospective editors like myself unwilling to give it a shot if this is what we're going to face. Get out. 86.140.87.97 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Treatment of IPs

    Looking at the above, and ignoring (for this section) the TRM / Arthur Rubin issues, the main issue seems to be a GF IP editor getting blocked over and over again for making good faith, correct, but not optimal edits. Yes, this means that by now they are block evading, which is a handy excuse to block people. But looking back, I see an awful lot of warnings and blocks of the IP for what are basically correct edits. Evidence of this are not just the image improvements leading to the above discussion, but also things like:

    • [28] is a series of correct but unsourced additions of TV series ending on the date indicated by the IP edit. This is not sensitive BLP material or anything else that needs to be immediately sourced, but material that can be sourced by others or tagged as unsourced if necessary. Still, it lead to a "final warning before a block" warnnig[29]
    • [30] a final vandalism warning by Arthur Rubin, for these 3 edits: the edits were not even reverted, and contain no vandalism Ariel Winter is an actress and voice actress, and the two image changes replace other (acceptable) pictures with the pictures actually in the infoboxes of the articles.
    • For this edit, the IP got another vandalism warning from Arthur Rubin[31]. The IP added Jay Moloney to the deaths in 1999, on the date 14 November. As the article on Moloney makes clear, he was born on 1 November 1964 and died 16 November 1999, so the IP made an understandable minor error here. But such an addition is not vandalism and should never get a vandalism warning.
    • Another vandalism warning by Rubin for this, because the IP editor added images of two people with an entry in the list. Vandalism???

    Were other warnings (and perhaps blocks) justified? Could well be, there are too many to check them all. But if one adds unjustified or totally wrong warnings as well, then you get some nasty effects:

    • the talk page looks like a sea of warnings, indicating some terrible editor who needs long blocks, instead of having a much shorter list of justified warnings (or warnings with the correct tag)
    • the IP editor involved will be more likely to ignore warnings and blocks, as they are not based on reality anyway and just are typical "bullying" editors and admins which either drive editors away and give enwiki a bad name, or cause GF editors to sock

    Never mind that attempts to actually discuss the issues with the IP seem to be missing as well. Can we at least get some guidance for Arthur Rubin (and others if necessary) about what is and what isn't vandalism? Fram (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    All things being equal, it's kind of odd that an editor of >14 years tenure and ~130K edits really needs guidance in something so...pretty much at the heart of what we do here. ——SN54129 15:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "I have been here >14 years and have ~130K edits" may be part of the problem. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I agree completely with what Fram says here. I'm not sure what we can actually do with Arthur Rubin aside from indef blocking, which is kind of like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I always want to put over-aggressive wiki "police" under revert restrictions. Maybe that could work here. 73.93.154.97 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    While I like the idea here, the problem is that subject to the usual exceptions would mean reverting vandalism would not be covered, and here we have an editor that, at least judging by past behavior, seems to be under the false impression that's exactly what they've been doing, so I'm not sure this would fix things. I do agree that while an indef would be a definite overreaction, I don't think shrugging is the best response either, a formal warning may be in order however. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Well I'd suggest that misleading edit summaries, personal attacks, casting aspersions, editing in bad faith, edit warring and the general treatment of these IPs is very much worthy of investigating how to deal with Rubin going forward. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And as noted by Fram below, the problematic behaviour continues as Rubin makes more such edits while refusing to redact the personal attacks and evidence-free accusations. Something needs to be done about this user. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You have a point, I only checked the diffs provided above earlier, but the fact that this behavior is continuing while it is under discussion at ANI is very concerning. A short term clue-block may be in order, or perhaps a partial-block from mainspace to encourage participation in this thread. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Meanwhile, today, Arthur Rubin is reverting good edits from a non-blocked I editor "per WP:EVADE": [32] (typo correction), [33] (changing an acceptable image to the image actually used in the infobox of the article) [34] (adding a birth entry to 1920, for a person whose death is included in the 1967 article since at least 1 January 2020 and perhaps a lot longer).

    Looking at his older reverts: the "evade" reason may be correct, but the end result is that as far as I can tell, nothing vandalistic is reverted, only a lot of good edits and some which Arthur Rubin (and perhaps others) disagree with, but which are a case of editor consensus (which names to include in a list, whether to "U.S." (the IP) or "United States" (Arthur Rubin), ...), which should be discussed with the IP. By not discussing these issues, but giving them in the past incorrect vandalism warnings instead, Arthur Rubin can now revert the IP and get them blocked without any problem, without having to deal with the actual merits of the edits.

    It looks to me that by doing this, Arthur Rubin is actively making enwiki worse, not better. These are all not major issues, but in each case the IP version was better than the Arthur Rubin version: [35],(why the easter egg on Disney Channel, by the way?), [36], [37] (the end date for the client is right with the IP, and wrong in AR version), a president of Brazil seems important enough to include in a year list, ... Fram (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I looked at the history of 2001. Oh my word. Can somebody explain to me why I shouldn't block Arthur Rubin for persistent edit warring and assuming bad faith? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Ritchie333:. No. No such reason can ye be given or hope to receive. ——SN54129 11:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yep, support block. It's clear there are serious issues here and Rubin needs to mend his ways or face an indef block, because this conduct is incompatible with the goals of the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    May be someone can propose a topic ban on reverting all IP edits with the exception of obvious vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Except judging by the warnings being handed out by Rubin, they incorrectly believe they are reverting obvious vandalism. The appearance judging by the evidence presented so far, and there is no nice way to put this, is of serious and ongoing WP:DE and WP:CIR issues. I would prefer to hear back from them and allow an opportunity for a defense before advocating for a long-term/indef block. The preferred option should always be to cut some slack and forgive, the key thing is that the community have confidence that disruption will cease, sanctions after all should only ever be preventive and not punitive. But it's very difficult to have that confidence when an editor refuses to acknowledge that a problem even exists. Also @Arthur Rubin: I humbly advise you to stop editing in mainspace and focus your efforts on engaging here until this thread is resolved. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In 2001, I couldn't see the difference. If someone says he added a space which belonged there, I believe it. As the IP uses VE, odds are that he doesn't know whether he is adding or removing spaces. I am now checking each of his edits, and will try to revert only those which have errors, although I will still mention WP:EVADE. If consensus is that images used in the article are more appropriate than better images, for the birth and death images, I will comply, but, it seems contrary to guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This still doesn't address the ongoing profoundly offensive personal attacks and accusations of socking which have made in various locations. Nor does it address your abuse of the rollback tool. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WP:EVADE is specifically listed as an allowed justification of rollback. If you want to suggest editing the rollback guideline, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    When are you going to redact and apologise for your unfounded and shameful personal attacks? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes WP:EVADE is listed as a reason, but it clearly does not apply in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It also appears I was wrong; the IP isn't using WP:VE; he's using the mobile interface. I've tried to prevent my editing through the mobile interface, because of difficulty in avoiding errors. It also explains why the IP doesn't see warnings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "I am now checking each of his edits, and will try to revert only those which have errors", and then 40 minyres later you go and revert one where the image you prefer is changed to the image used in the infobox of the article involved[38]. Whether your or their preferred image is better is debatable, but neither is an "error" by any stretch of the meaning, it is a "preference". Fram (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Astonishing

    Rubin continues to edit without responding to the multiple requests to redact his accusations of bad faith and direct brightline violations of NPA. Please could someone actually do something about this, or just close this ANI thread down in the understanding that certain editors are entitled to repeatedly attack me with impunity. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Comment I would expect the community to ask for sanctions against an editor who casts unfounded aspersions. As a group we cannot make the editor apologize.... but the reverting, and accusations are a disruption to the project. If someone can propose a sanction for the WP:IDHT editor perhaps we can consider.Lightburst (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @The Rambling Man: I see the editor has just been blocked Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I have blocked User:Arthur Rubin from editing the mainspace until he responds properly to issues raised in the sections above. Stephen 22:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I think a one-way Iban might be in order. At least it would be a better result than permabanning AR. See: this case has a curious echo from this mammoth ANI thread of nearly two years ago. That also focussed on poor treatment of TRM by AR (the leitmotif of the day was "Request for diffs"), and was also sabotaged by AR refusing to participate further than a couple of opening comments. Yet again, the only way the community was able to encourage AR to join the discussion was the drastic step of community banning him until he responded, and this was noted by ArbCom: Arthur Rubin did not adequately respond to concerns raised by the community was a finding of fact.
      Yet, his failure to respond to questions seems, with hindsight, and in light of the current thread, to be more in the way of an instinctive response than a one-off lapse of judgement. ——SN54129 11:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Is there such a thing as a ban from edits relating to the filespace? The trouble with one-way ibans involving two such prolific editors is that genuine mistakes can arise so easily and policing the Iban is so laborious.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Topic ban

    Arthur Rubin seems to me to be a self-appointed one-man "year page police force". Therefore, to prevent further disruption to these pages, I propose that Arthur Rubin is permanently topic banned from editing all year pages. Mjroots (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I think it's more general than that. It appears to me from Rubin's edits that he literally assumes bad faith from every IP editor. I acknowledge that the majority of his edits are in the "year" pages so I think your fundamentally right to stop it at source on those pages, but sadly then the bad faith could be transferred to other areas that Rubin edits. It's a shame that Rubin has caught ANI-flu after lodging his original bad faith complaint, but it now seems that his indefinite block in the mainspace should just remain in place. Which is a little odd to say the least. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The Rambling Man I think you are likely right as far as it being a broader issue. I've pretty much given up editing any year related Wikipedia page because Arthur Rubin reverts almost every edit that I make. That in and of itself wouldn't be bad (there's nothing wrong with reverting edits that you disagree with) but his overall high handed and imperial approach to interacting with editors in general (not just IPs but also registered users like The Rambling Man) really needs to be curtailed in some way. It doesn't make sense to give one editor -- especially one with a relatively weak grasp of policy and a lack of interest in consensus-based editing -- such broad carte blanche over such a wide swathe of article. He's apparently gotten other editors blocked using misleading edit summaries and inappropriate warning templates in the past. Why is that OK? Michepman (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    J. Johnson using WP:INCIVIL language despite repeated requests to stop

    Latest comment: 4 years ago118 comments18 people in discussion

    J. Johnson has been warned several times for escalatory incivil language and has been told to comment on content instead of contributors, both recently and in the past.

    Here is the most recent incident at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#"Ceased to exist" and Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake#RfC on "Ceased to exist" over the course of the past two weeks.

    Please note that all of the bolding below is what MarkH21 has added to show the passages he complains of. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC) Please do not delete my comment, which was in place before you added the following line. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The note about bolding was in the post from the beginning above your comment before you made it, and now you’ve moved it below. Redundant. — MarkH21talk 23:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Not redundant, as your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content.

    Initial comments on contributors

    The second half of this comment by J. Johnson's is very strange, but their reaction in the discussion afterwards demonstrates that they have a very narrow definition of commenting on contributors:

    I don't what you mean by "more standard neutral wording", other than utterly bloodless. I imagine that for most residents the experience was F...ING DEVASTATING!, and a plain statement of cessation seems quite bland, and even colorless. You seem to be most opposed re dramatic, but that seems like a personal feeling that you just don't like it. Perhaps (to the extent this is historical writing) you have always thought history is boring, and therefore WP must be boring? Sorry, I don't agree.

    — 00:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    My initial reaction to the comment:

    It's not a personal feeling and I don't understand where you're drawing these bizarre and incorrect personal inferrals. — MH21 00:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    J. Johnson's response about me characterizing it as bizarre:

    Incidentally, it is not helpful to characterize my explanation as "bizarre", or "ceased to exist" as a "cheap idiom"... The concept of WP:I just don't like it is where you have opinions, but can't base them on any standards or polices or such. Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

    My explanation that both are comments on contributors and first warning:

    What is "bizarre" was your inferral that I personally find history and WP boring because I find the wording overly dramatic, idiomatic, and non-encyclopedic... That, plus your quip "Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?" are commenting on the contributor instead of commenting on the content. Stop. — (MH21 07:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC))

    J. Johnson's's denial that it is a comment about the contributor and tries to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question:

    I made no "inferral" of your beliefs; I only questioned whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history), which might in turn explain your view. If you don't have such a belief, fine, just say so (a simple "no" would suffice). My "quip" is a straight-forward question of why we don't seem to be on the same wave-length; it is your "inferral" that this is a comment about the contributor (distinct from the contributor's behavior).}} — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    My response and second warning:

    Your comment about "whether you might have a certain belief or attitude (about history)" is literally a comment about the contributor and not the content. The possible belief or attitude of a contributor is a property of the contributor. That and the other comment are both inappropriate. — JJ 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Continuation in RfC

    In the RfC, J. Johnson continues to comment on contributors instead of on the content:

    But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary I suppose we could replace it with "city". Is that clearer? — JJ 23:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

    I followed this with the third warning:

    Your inclination to comment on contributors, what you think they like, what you think they find boring, and what you think is in their vocabulary is grossly inappropriate. Cut it out, you’ve been warned multiple times now. — MH21 23:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

    J. Johnson's response mocks the earlier protest about commenting on contributors instead of content, tries again to play off the Why am I having to explain this to an experience editor? comment as a genuine non-rhetorical question, and is dismissive of any complaints as petty squabbling:

    In the second instance ("Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?", @ 21:25, 1 Mar), that seems to be a very reasonable question, given that we seem to have a disconnect in our understandings of basic WP concepts. At any rate, it seems that you have missed that I allow this could be as much a misunderstanding on my part as anything to do with you. That in both instances you have claimed these as comments about you seems to me to indicate a failure of WP:AGF. I could as well complain that in your comments at 02:45, 29 Feb. ("Can you see what I mean here?", bolding added) and 00:50, 1 Mar. ("Do you not see...", ditto) you are saying that I am blind. (GAWK! A PERSONAL COMMENT!!!) Can you see why such a complaint would be just petty squabbling? — JJ 22:43, 5 March 2020

    I respond with the fourth warning:

    Your comment Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor? comes off far stronger as a pointed vent of frustration at me than a genuine question. Do you really expect anyone to interpret it as a genuine question and to somehow answer with a oh you have to explain it to me despite my experience because I don't understand WP policies like you do! It's a pointed comment about another editor that doesn't help anyone. I never pointed to AGF, but I pointed out that those two comments, in addition the comment my vocabulary, are about contributors and not content. These don't help anyone. If you can't acknowledge that, you should still stop making such comments because you'd be hard-pressed to find an editor to whom those comments are useful. — MH21 23:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

    Final warning and continued incivility

    J. Johnson has described me several times in the discussion as disputatious several times. At first, I did not react to avoid making it more heated than it already is, but I found it particularly insulting when combined with obtusely / obtuse:

    1. That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful. — JJ 21:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
    2. Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you — JJ 00:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    3. All very disputatious — JJ 00:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
    4. Since you are so obtusely disputatious — JJ 23:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
      • My last warning: Again, tone down your aggressive language. "Obtusely disputatious" is language for escalation and is not helping resolve anything. It's WP:INCIVIL and inappropriate. This is your last warning from me. — MH21 21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

    I called for a cessation of incivility several times and gave five warnings to J. Johnson over the course of two weeks. However, after I pointed out that J. Johnson previously said that I am rather neutral, so any continued heated debate is an unproductive use of both your time and my time (21:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)). But J. Johnson continued and doubled-down by calling all of the unproductiveness a result of me being disputatious and obtuse.

    5. I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation... Your rejection of the engineering interpretation as being inferred and not explicit does seem obtuse — JJ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

    General trend of incivility

    J. Johnson has made far too many incivil comments about me over the course of two weeks despite five explicitly worded requests to stop. This isn't the first time that J. Johnson has been brought to ANI over incivility over articles relating to earthquake prediction (JJ was nearly topic banned twice in 2014, and had another incident in 2013, all of which were for WP:INCIVIL, WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, and WP:OWNERSHIP) or otherwise warned for incivility (trouted just last month by Femkemilene for escalating another discussion by calling RCraig09's comments here as your weasely bitching), twice warned by NewsAndEventsGuy in September 2019 and August 2019, and warned by Dmcq for making threats in June 2019). To my awareness, J. Johnson has not accepted that they have overstepped boundaries, apologized, nor retracted the offending statements in any of the non-ANI warnings linked above, which are only just scratching the surface.

    The latest incidents at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake do not really rise to the level of personal attacks, but demonstrates a clear tendency to speculatively comment on contributors and dismiss requests to stop even after 5 warnings there alone.

    Despite J. Johnson's portfolio of positive contributions to the project, it's overwhelmingly clear that there is a greater long-term trend of J. Johnson not being aware when they're stepping over boundaries of WP:CIVIL and reacting negatively, dismissively, or with greater fervor when confronted about it. — MarkH21talk 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC); penultimate paragraph added 05:25, 10 March 2020 (UTC); link third old ANI discussion in third-to-last paragraph 05:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • This complaint seems ridiculously overblown. I see no substantive incivility on J. Johnson's part. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • Because calling someone's comments your weasely bitching or saying that another editor is so obtusely disputatious is civil language?
        How about the threat And you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.?
        Maybe why are you being such a jerk? here followed by yes, you are a jerk here is civil?
        There are so many examples from JJ over the past several months, like the above and Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read. (here), that are rude, offensive, belittling, etc. and have no place here. — MarkH21talk 05:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I disagree with Carrite here. J. Johnson's odd hostility and excessive markup thatbolds and emphasizes words to be LOUD is rather disruptive and uncivil. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    MJL: Please note that all that bolding in the comments MarkH21 provided are his augmentations, and do not correctly reflect the tenor of my original comments. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @J. Johnson: [Thank you for the ping] I'm referring to comments like the one in the diff I provided.
    No offense to MarkH21, but I skipped over most of the report and just looked at the talk page sections in question myself.
    To your credit though, you didn't begin the discussion with WP:SHOUTing, but you started to only after you lost your temper but to the detriment of following that talk. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I don't think I lost my temper, but I was venting some over-pressure. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) MJL was clearly talking about JJ's markup in the diff that he they linked, wherein you italicized/emphasized 8 words and bolded 11 words. — MarkH21talk 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @MarkH21: I use they/them pronouns btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @MJL: Sorry! Slip of the mind. — MarkH21talk 00:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The use of the plural "they" and "them" is confusing. I am okay with the male pronoun. For other single individuals where gender is unknown I would suggest something like "s/he". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Singular "they" is at least as old as Shakespeare. That is a perfectly acceptable choice when an individual's gender is not known and, in this case, it is their preferred pronoun. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I agree with MarkH21 that many of JJ's contributions are useful and appreciated. Unfortunatly, I also echo the perception of incivility. While most of the incidents are not grave, I do think they form a consistent pattern that may make it less attractive for other editors to participate in discussions. I find that very worrisome especially in the article space I'm most active, climate change, where neutrality and quality are best achieved with a larger set of contributors. Some smaller examples spring to mind; [39] In this diff J. Johnson alleged that other people are unwilling to consider their proposal, after three people had given an argumented response already, while not responding to the arguments. Here J. Johnson accuses me and quite a big group of editors of bad faith, claiming that we had changed global warming in scope (instead of merely thouroughly updated). And here JJ dismisses a newer user by saying they should 'start a blog', because JJ assumes they are activist. Each of the incidents smaller than MarkH21's examples, but pointing to the same problem; JJ asserting things about the editor which deteriorates the atmosphere. As such, I think the editing would improve if J. Johnson wasn't allowed to comment on other people's behaviour or beliefs any more, but only on content. Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The "quite a big group of editors" would be, what, five? At any rate, the "bad faith" point is a red herring, which I will comment on below. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I would not comment if the worst occurrences were mere breaches of etiquette. However, J Johnson's perennial hair-trigger incivility reflects deeper problematic attitudes and habits that frustrate others' attempts at amicable collaboration in a complex subject area. I concur with MarkH's characterizations and Femke Nijsse's observations, but I think the underlying problem can't be solved merely by improvements in language and etiquette. Some history:
    ¶1 → JJ "introduced" himself to me by sending me straight to ANI—without prior discussion—asking someone else to investigate his suspicions re supposed "linkspamming" in the then-new Warming stripes article. (diff of closer, 2 July 2019)
    ¶2 → After I had spent an hour or two trying to understand one of his suggestions and I cited references and asked for clarification/confirmation of what he meant, JJ responded with "Get a better grip". (diff of 22 Jan 2020) (His suggestion was not adopted.)
    ¶3 → Even a cursory review of Talk:Global warming#Second discussion on titles for potential move request (which followed a now-archived month-long Preliminary Discussion,) will show numerous of JJ's needlessly verbose tangential lectures. These discussions followed his claim that the Move/Renaming discussion for Talk:Climate change (general concept) (implemented Oct 2019 after ten full days and 14 laptop-screenfuls of discussion, and after extensive preliminary discussions there), were supposedly closed "prematurely": see Femke Nijsse's link, above, re JJ's claim that the year's-long trajectory of this family of articles was made in "bad faith".
    ¶4 → JJ's comments show a difficulty grasping the context of others' arguments. Example: when I cited references (a NASA page, and the vice-president of Associated Press Media Relations) to prove that "global warming" and "climate change" are often used interchangeably by the public and press, JJ responded, with typical sarcasm "AP Stylebook applies to AP staff, and (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff" (italics added re sarcasm, boldface in original). (diff of 19 Jan 2020) — Same post as JJ's "weasely bitching" retort that MarkH quotes above.
    ¶5 → Similarly, JJ went to great length (citing five references saying "global warming" and "climate change" are scientifically distinct terms—which no one had disputed), in his refutation of an argument that was never made (classic strawman argument). He later sarcastically refers to his five references "did you perhaps miss that big, grey box just above?".
    ¶6 → Likewise, JJ posted a claim that "This entire debate on name and naming criteria" was based on {an argument JJ manufactured: See diff of 7 Jan 2020} for which he has provided zero examples—a classic strawman. Yet he has accused me of not WP:HEARing: 13 Jan 2020 diff: "do you have a hearing problem?"
    In summary, whereas JJ has contributed to low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram, his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view, will not likely improve though admonishment over his use of language. Any corrective action should deal with deeper issues that energize JJ's incivility. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I object to RCraig09's "his inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments ...", which is an outright slur, and false. I also object to his characterization of my work at Global warming as being "low-level tasks such as citation formats and arrangement of blocks in a block diagram." The block diagram was actually his, where I (and others) made various suggestions for improvement. The "low-level" work I have done is foundational, being the basis of verifiability, and some of it has been on working out some difficult issues of citation (see WP:IPCC citation).
    I also object to his (and Femke's) statement that I alleged bad-faith. The "year's-long trajectory" refers to the planning to rename and refocus Global warming, much of which was arranged on personal talk pages. My comment was not that there was bad-faith, only that their process smacked – that is, gave some appearances – of bad faith. Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety.
    He falsely states that I sent him "straight to ANI". I saw possibly questionable editing, which I did not feel informed enough to judge, so I asked if anyone else thought it warranted looking into. Nothing came of that, and that was (for me) the end of the matter.
    I dispute these other points, but unless someone wants to explore them I'd rather not spend time on them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Just another example of JJ making an uncivil comment about other editors in this very discussion: saying that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety in reference to RCraig09 and Femkemilene just adds further hostility. The points that you haven't covered — I dispute these other points... I'd rather not spend time on them — are your actual comments of incivility from across various discussions. Continued abstention from addressing the fact that these are escalatory and uncivil demonstrates a serious problem here. — MarkH21talk 00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    MarkH21 is correct. Hopefully it will be apparent to any admin/closer that JJ's replies here embody the very behaviors of which he is accused. His unrepentant attitude and his deflections endure. What he calls a slur (23:17, 11 Mar) are observations that I supported with three gross examples (¶4, ¶5, ¶6). He admits that it was "possibly questionable editing" that motivated him to send me without prior discussion to ANI—which is supposed to be "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". And he appears unwilling or unable to recognize that, in this context, saying other editors' "process smacked...of bad faith" does not differ from accusing those editors of bad faith. etc. etc. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That would be your interpretation. I have tried to be clear on the point, but it seems you reject any possibility of good-faith on my part. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    JJ: you state that we reject the possibility of good faith, among other things, because we don't interpret the phrase smacking of bad faith to mean gave some appearances of. But that's significantly weaker, with The free dictionary giving a definition of the former as to give a strong indication or implication of something. As such, I don't think RCraig09's interpretation is completely off here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Femke: In that case, I regret that the word I chose came across much stronger than I intended. I also regret that you did not explain that much earlier (was there something I missed?), so we could have sorted this out much sooner. Will you allow that, despite the mis-impression, no imputation of actual bad-faith was intended? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The objectionable term is not "smacks of" but the explicit use or direct implication "bad faith"—not just in "This proposal smacks of bad faith" (01:50, 17 Dec), but also, minutes later, by more definitively claiming "To stuff this article with CC material, then complain that the title no longer matches the content, is not in good-faith" (02:17, 17 Dec; noting the ongoing use of insulting language: stuff ... complain...). So it is not a matter of merely "sorting out" a nuanced meaning of "smacks of"; the meaning is clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This is a good sample of what is going on here. In a strict and narrow sense, yes, MarkH did own-up to the bolding. But buried in text, not set out very visibly in stand-alone text as he has done here, and outside of the box where he repeatedly quotes me. And in no way as prominent as the bolding itself, thus failing to prevent misperception as to who did the bolding. I call that misrepresentation. I added a more prominent note, inside the box, to clarify the matter. Mark then removed my note on the grounds of being redundant. If he had any issue with that a more civil approach would have been something on the lines of: 1) He asks why I added the note, 2) I explain, 3) if he demurs we discuss it, 4) he shows that no harm was intended by immediately replacing the bolding with something less, well, bold, and then 5) we move on. But no, he wants to argue that I made a false statement re misrepresentation. Not unlike the beginning of this little affray, where, having different interpretations of a phrase, he must argue why his interpretation is right, and mine is not. All of which has gone well beyond the original issue with the article. His complaint of incivility quite overlooks his tendency to battle. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The phrase Mark has misrepresented my comments is a claim of misconduct. I clearly wrote that the bolding was mine in the third sentence of the thread, immediately above the auto-collapsed box. My subsequent response was to to dispel the suggestion that I acted inappropriately, not to argue about the linguistic interpretation of the phrase misrepresented my comments (which you have now explained means that you found the disclaimer at the top of the thread wasn’t prominent enough, not that it was absent). — MarkH21talk 07:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I did not just "now" explain that the disclaimer was not prominent, I said that four days ago (22:54, 11 Mar., "comment re bolding"): "your ownership of the bolding was not near nor as prominent as the bolding itself, and lead to misperception." (Even for me: I had to go back and check whether the bolding was mine.) The effect, in fact, amounted to misrepresentation. I have not complained, nor made any claim, that you did so with any deliberate intent to misrepresent. Even if you did, I think that posting an effective notice is a sufficient remedy. If you wanted to further "dispel" any suggestion of inappropriate intent you could have simply said that any seeming misrepresentation was inadvertent. But no, your "subsequent response" was to delete my notice (diff), a clear violation, per WP:TPG#Editing others' comments, of "The basic rule [...] is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission." (Bolding added.) I don't know whether you did so out of bad intent, or the basic disputatiousness that you have shown all along, or perhaps some other reason, but your deletion was NOT inadvertent. Even so, I would consider that matter closed, but it seems that on every point you have to prove that you are right and I am wrong. I believe that constitutes battleground conduct. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There’s a difference between directly editing another editor’s comments, and removing one that is inserted into my own post. There’s a difference between explaining my actions in the face of an editor labeling my actions as misrepresentation, and arguing that I am right and you are wrong. There’s a difference between explaining actions, and continuing to labeling other editors as disputatious. — MarkH21talk 22:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The "basic rule" is as stated. And I have not labelled your actions as misrepresentation, only the result. Which, as I just explained, was remedied very simply, and it is a wonder that you continue to dispute the matter. As for explaining anything to you: that is what go us going here, when I tried to explain why I thought you might not have read the source, and you insisted on arguing the rather petty issue of whose linguistic interpretation was right. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Reply

    It should be noted right off that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution.

    I have previously been reproached (by Femke) that I could speak more gently, and I allow there is something to that. But in the present case I think the more significant factor is that MarkH21 tends to misinterpret things. In particular he has been quicker to take offense based on his understanding of my language than to inquire whether the offense is in my language, or in his understanding if it. In that respect he has failed to assume good-faith. And I would note that his own comments are not without fault.

    A problem with Mark's complaint is that he has not provided the full story. E.g., what he complains of actually arose on 28 Feb., where I said:

    Your view of continued existence seems to be based on having some fragment of the city's physical fabric surving intact, while Dr. Housner's view was that it no longer existed as a functional, living entity. This would be clearer if you would read the source (your "even if" suggests you have not), where he describes the failure of practically all city services.

    He replied: "I'm not sure why you think I didn't read the Housner & He source..." (02:45, 29 Feb.), to which I replied that his use of "even if" came across to me "as questioning whether Housner wrote that" (which I view as entirely indubitable). My comment was not intended to be uncivil, but to clarify whether we were (literally) "on the same page". I then suggested that perhaps "despite" better resolved what he meant to say with my understanding, and at that point I thought the matter was resolved. Even on a parallel issue (regarding "ceased to exist"), where I proposed a way of dealing with a concern of his, I thought we were close to a resolution. But in his following comment (00:50, 1 Mar.) he wants to argue that he is right regarding his use of "even if" (which I regard as immaterial). At that point the situation goes down hill, especially when he states (threatens?) that "If you refuse to consider any proposals or alternatives, we can just go to RfC", when I had not refused to consider any proposals or alternatives, and which I consider a very uncivil insinuation. This is where I deem him to be warrantably disputatious.

    The rest of the affair is pretty much on similar lines. I will elaborate if anyone has questions. My take on this complaint is that MarkH21's broad reach and canvassing of other editors shows how weak his own complaints are. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • J. Johnson clearly favors the passive-aggressive approach to talk page editing, which isn't particularly conducive to cooperation. I completely agree that all comments should be required to be content-based. His belligerent personal attacks don't serve him or anyone else well.Ames86 (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • (edit conflict) Your accusation that Mark has misrepresented my comments: all that bolding in the box is entirely what he has added, without attribution is plainly false. From the very first posting here:

      The bolding in the following quotes (except for the quote about blindness) is mine to emphasize the precise comments that are incivil or about the contributor as opposed to content.

      — MarkH21 04:34, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    Your accusation of canvassing is plainly false.This ANI is about your general long-term incivility. The editors to whom I gave ANI notices are editors who have given you warnings about your incivility over the past several months and were mentioned in the subsection on your long history of incivility; therefore they are user[s] mentioned in the discussion and editors who have participated in discussions on the same topic both of which fall under appropriate notifications.
    Your only response to the demonstrated long-term incivility issues is to 1) deflect onto the issue of whether it was appropriate to open an RfC after you said Because of your disputatiousness I am disinclined to discuss this any further with you and 2) state that you thought the issue was resolved by your comment ending with That you are so inconsequentially disputatious is totally unuseful.
    You have nothing to say on whether these are inappropriate?
    • your weasely bitching
    • you're starting to annoy me enough that if someone were to suggest changes I'd be more likely to support them. Your interests would likely be better served if you just drop this discussion.
    • why are you being such a jerk?
    • yes, you are a jerk
    • you are so obtusely disputatious
    • Bullshit. Perhaps you should put on your reading glasses when you read
    • Why am I having to explain this to an experienced editor?
    • I attribute the unproductivity here to your many mis-interpretations and "inferrals", and general tendency to disputation
    • But if "entity" is not in your vocabulary
    • Get a better grip
    • (hopefully this is not too simple for you) we are not AP staff
    • do you have a hearing problem?
    Even after being told that you use incivil language and create an atmosphere of hostility by at least five different editors at least nine times over only the last nine months, do you still only want to deflect the question and focus on others? — MarkH21talk 23:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Not to mention that your quote is another example of you focusing on the other editor; here you repeatedly assert and speculate that I haven't read the source, e.g. This would be clearer if you would read the source as above on 28 Feb & Another reason why I sometimes wonder if you have read any more of the source than the Overview (or perhaps just the Prologue to the Overview) 10 March, to which I have to repeatedly respond that I have read the source. — MarkH21talk 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    All of the editors he notified (as he lists below) except EdwardLane, who would have been advised if Mark had put an ANI notification in the Talk page (which still has not been done). Note that I am not making this an issue (Femke has some pertinent comments, and I allow that RCraig09 feels agrieved); but it does show that Mark is trying to broaden the issue and involve editors beyond his specific complaint. Mark has linked to WP:APPNOTE, but I don't see (I'm blind?!) that any of the criteria listed there apply. It does say that the "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions", and Mark does seem to be angling for editors that might have complaints. (There is also something about neutral titles – see also WP:TPG – which the title here is not, but I don't know what can or should be done about that.) I do see Nil's point that someone mentioned should be notified, but, as he says, that just pushes the issue of selection into the discussion. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WP:APPNOTE says (not including all bullet points):

    An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

    • On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion
    • Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)
    All of the editors in question satisfy one of those two criteria. In fact, only EdwardLane does not satisfy both simultaneously. I am not angling for editors that might have complaints. Some of them might have complaints because they previously warned you for the exact issue brought up here, i.e. precisely what qualified them for the second bullet.
    I'm also not aware of any requirement or standard of posting ANI notifications on article talk pages. I have never seen that done before and Nil Einne's point about pings (similarly, informal notifications elsewhere) being insufficient for ANI still stands. — MarkH21talk 00:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • @MJL: Here are all of the editors that I notified about this ANI discussion: J. Johnson, Femkemilene, RCraig09, NewsAndEventsGuy, Dmcq, and EdwardLane. I mentioned all of the editors in this list in the original report except EdwardLane, whom I notified because they commented and suggested arbitration at Talk:1976 Tangshan earthquake in an attempt to find mediation. — MarkH21talk 00:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • @MarkH21: That's a few too many tbh. Imo a ping for any editors you mention in a report is all that's needed (either in the report itself, or in a subsequent comment with an explanation as to why they are being pinged). Otherwise, most editors when they see a notice like that will assume the report is about them. I know that's how I'd feel at least. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • @MJL: Perhaps I take a discussion about an editor and an issue with which you may have been involved (Template:ANI-notice) too literally then, in that they were involved in the same issue recently and are mentioned in the discussion. At least I've seen the notice applied that way sometimes. I'll be happy to adjust this for the future.
            But either way, it's still not canvassing by virtue of WP:APPNOTE with them having given warnings / been involved recently regarding the same issues. — MarkH21talk 01:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
          • @MJL: I strongly disagree. If you're going to specifically mention someone in your ANI thread, you should notify them even if your thread is not mainly about them. Pings are not sufficient, the same as always at ANI. Just because you were not criticising their actions doesn't mean someone else won't in the thread. And that person may reasonably assume that the person they are criticising was already notified since their actions were already being discussed. It's hardly uncommon that this happens after all. If you feel editors may misunderstand why they are being notified, there's no harm in offering a clarification as part of the notice. I've done it on occasion. Note also that pinging and notifying people equally raise canvassing concerns, so there's no differences in that regards. If the only reason you mentioned someone seems to be to canvas them, then yes it's a concern whether you pinged or properly notified. If there is a reasonable reason why you mentioned them, then it's fine. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You're an otherwise uninvolved witness, and presumably neutral, so your observations and assessments are possibly of great value. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Fair enough - if I had power I'd probably archive the talk page squabbles, block the two of you from editing the page(s) in question for 3 months, get someone to rewrite the section so that this wouldn't be left as either one of you wanted it (if it got left one way or the other it would remain as a bone of contention), the idea being that the two of you could take a time out - and probably would not then be grumpy after 3 months had passed (and so wouldn't go straight back to an edit/talk page war) Also to get the two of you to agree somewhere in writing to try and act in a more civil manner toward each other in future, and recommend that both of you 'let it go' a bit more. Incidentally I'm not the person who has the skill/knowledge/understanding of the subject enough to do that particular rewrite, but an opinion could probably be acquired in a couple of hours of reading. Apologies if this is out of line or seems harsh, it is just how I would try to handle it in real world rather than in the virtual world which is obviously a trickier situation as people frequently misinterpret even the slightest error in punctuation/sentence construction to read more into a phrase than may originally be intended. Best of luck to the admins - I am sure they have a difficult time of itEdwardLane (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @EdwardLane: The issue at hand here is JJ's several incidents of incivility across multiple discussions on different articles (as attested by the multiple warnings from different editors and the quotes above) and JJ's failure to acknowledge any of them; this ANI thread is not about the content dispute itself. I opened an RfC on the actual content dispute so that it could be resolved by uninvolved editors, and any other issues raised were my protests at JJ's repeated inappropriate personal comments. Honestly, civility and DR (like the RfC) were all that were needed from the start. — MarkH21talk 12:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Τrend of incivility re "VAN"

    Breaking this out into its own section. "VAN" refers to a method its proponents claim can be used to predict earthquakes. This has been very controversial, and after 1996 largely ignored by mainstream seismologists. See Earthquake prediction#VAN seismic electric signals, Earthquake prediction#1983–1995: Greece (VAN), and VAN method for details and source. See also Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 8#Ask a seismologist for the views of a prominent seismologist – Dr. John Vidale, currently the Director of the Southern California Earthquake Center – re the mainstream assessment of VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
    From the nutshell of WP:FRINGE: "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". Earthquake prediction controversity does not apply as fringe inside Earthquake prediction article but it is treated as such in an uncivil manner by JJ.   ManosHacker talk 09:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

    Have a look here, too, by JJ: I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature.".   ManosHacker talk 02:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Also have a look at JJ's distortion of a Wikipedia article: These statements, that have been tagged, make a false claim of sources that do not directly support the content, and are part of a slow edit warring.   ManosHacker talk 02:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I dropped by ANI to check on another editor's situation and saw the section heading. My immediate, unfiltered thought was, "So what's new?" J. Johnson used to be much less abrasive (evidence, just in case anyone doubts it) and more interested in collaboration. I do sometimes wish we had the old editor back. JJ, maybe it's time to re-calibrate your approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Hi, W., good to hear from you again.
    User:ManosHacker is a relatively new user who seems to be channeling a WP:SPA user that has been try to promote a fringe theory at VAN method, the latter having added an unreliable source, and removed two "fringe theory" tags added by another editor. The details were discussed at Talk:VAN_method#Current_work_(2020). The other comment probably refers to the same long-running problem we're having at Earthquake prediction; see Talk:Earthquake prediction#Update on "mainstream claim" for VAN. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    SPAs and the tenure of ManosHacker aside, the quote I call bullshit on your "I just updated the literature" is fairly confrontational and hostile language in response to a mildly worded talk page post. Whether or not the other editor uses potentially unreliable sources or disproportionately represents fringe theories, WP:CIVIL still applies. Inflammatory language is not useful to anyone. — MarkH21talk 05:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Does 10 years of editing and 800 hours of teaching Wikipedia count as relatively new nowadays? — MarkH21talk 08:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Sometimes people count the number of edits in that account (1,932 in this case), rather than the number of months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. Although my thought was more that he is largely unknown in the involved topic areas. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The problem discussed here is JJ's manners in order to keep the articles the way he wants and the cost of this behavior to Wikipedia (retain of editors and content credibility). It is easy to attack people using Wikipedia policy, there is an argument given for any case of another's edit if you act in bad faith and JJ seems to be unable to set limits to himself (building a case on me here is another example yet). JJ had the last word after JerryRussell announced he was leaving Wikipedia in October 19, 2017. In November 25, 2017 an article (in which JJ has great interest)'s balance built on consensus thanks to Jerry's presence in Wikipedia was ruined by JJ. Add the persistive distortion of the sources by JJ, reflecting to bad Wikipedia content as shown above, and the lack of recognizing his way is inappropriate for colaboration, to get a wider picture.   ManosHacker talk 05:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The slow edit war ManosHacker refers to is the long term issue of certain VAN WP:SPA partisans to promote a discredited topic at VAN method and Earthquake prediction, which MH seems to favor. (His "distortion of the sources by JJ" is from one of those SPAs.) His "JJ had the last word" diff, and the insinuation that I ran Jerry off, is misleading, a rank misrepresentation, and I suggest that anyone inclined to give that any credence should read the entire discussion at User_talk:JerryRussell#Going_on_Wikibreak. MH's "ruined by JJ" diff (which is a merge of two edits) is a bit baffling. In the first edit I removed a paragraph about a supposed technique from VAN ("natural time") that simply is not notable (other than for its promotion). In the second edit, I removed a paragraph about a 2008 earthquake VAN claims to have predicted (including a criticism of the claim of prediction) on the basis (as stated in my edit summary) of failing a criterion that had been previously applied to mention of other claimed EQ predictions. It is difficult to find any "incivility" in this, other than certain SPA parties partial to VAN not liking my edits.
    To be continued. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    For what matters in this ANI discussion I see no apology for violation of the community established consensus without any talk from JJ.   ManosHacker talk 07:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And I don't see that your alleged "violation of the community established consensus" involved any kind of incivility, or anything to do with this discussion except you trying to heap the fuel higher.
    But perhaps you have a personal involvement? Perhaps you would clarify whether you are the "M. Kefalas" that has published several times with Varotsos and Nomicos? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Breaking community consensus without talking is disregard and discredit of editors' tons of efforts and thus incivility when it comes from an involved editor. Asking for more on this, your incivil wording regarding well reputated scientists: "In this regard I have come around to the view that VAN exhibits aspects of pathological science" in public is easy behind anonymity, but here we are now discussing on your behavior. I sign with my real identity in Wikipedia and I declare no COI as we speak, proven by the dates of my publications along my career.   ManosHacker talk 09:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The uncivil behavior can be art. One can characterize someone by stating that (unnamed!) others call him things and get away with it. JJ says to JerryRussel: "I have said that vague predictions are a hallmark of charlatanism (6 Aug., 15 Aug.) and I have commented that others have called VAN charlatans (16 Aug.), and I stated that VAN "reject the principal means of distinguishing scientists from charlatans" (20 Aug.). But you should note: I have NOT called VAN charlatans, and I do hesitate to do so. (In part because I think doing so serves no purpose, and in part because slackness on their part, and even hubris, is, in my view, insufficient to warrant that term.)". Does JJ insist on this kind of behavior, i.e. defamation through Wikipedia?   ManosHacker talk 18:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Would be so kind as to provide a diff, so we can better see the context? And perhaps explain how stating that VAN should not be called charlatans is defamation?
    As to possible COI: would you specifically confirm that:
    1) You have never published with P. Varotsos?
    2) You have never published with K. Nomicos?
    3) That you are not personally connected with Varotsos, Sarlis, or Skordas?
    4) That you are not connected with the Solid State Physics Dept at the Univ. of Athens?
    That would be greatly appreciated. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Here is the diff. My detailed personal info are at the disposal of an admin, in case I am asked to for a reason, by email.   ManosHacker talk 00:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It seems to me hard to tell if JJ's attitude towards groups of scientists is more WP:BLPGROUP or WP:INCIVIL, as JJ tends to address thematically related editors as SPA or COI. I would like the opinion of the admins on it.   ManosHacker talk 14:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    If you were not conflicted it would be easy enough to say so. As there is some evidence suggesting a possible conflict of interest this should be looked into.
    By the way, please strike those statements of yours where you accused me of driving off JerryRussell.
    You still have not explained how my saying that the VAN group should not be called charlatans constitutes defamation, let alone any kind if incivility. Perhaps you object to my comment that "others have called VAN charlatans"? That came from an extensive discussion we had on that in 2016 (see Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 7#Libel on VAN 1983-1995), and if you want a source on that you should ask for it, not raise a stink about something just for the sake raising a stink.
    Now you have segued to accusing me of BLP violation, which is totally off-topic, and that I "address thematically related editors as SPA or COI". "Thematically related" is cute, but, well "nonsense" suffices as a description. The fact is that over the years there have been several episodes of editing with a common "theme" of promoting VAN and reducing criticism of VAN, and in every case the editors were, in fact, entirely WP:SPA. And in a couple of cases their IP addresses were at the University of Athens, which where VAN is based. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "Ι declare no COI".   ManosHacker talk 09:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Proposed sanction

    It has been more than three days since this ANI thread was opened. During this time, a clear consensus has emerged that J. Johnson has repeatedly crossed the line of WP:CIVIL and created unpleasant hostile environments for multiple editors in multiple discussions. Femkemilene and Ames86 suggested above to impose a limited community ban on J. Johnson from commenting on the behavior and beliefs of other editors, but this may be difficult to implement in practice.

    So far, J. Johnson has still not acknowledged the incivility in any of the recent incidents quoted/diffed above despite several opportunities to do so across the multiple recent warnings, relevant discussions, and the thread above. Additionally, J. Johnson has continued this behavior within this ANI thread itself, remarking that Apparently these erudite thinkers did not grasp that subtlety and deflected the issues of J. Johnson's incivil language onto the editors raising the objections.

    In light of these facts, a community ban consisting of a three month block, during which time J. Johnson is encouraged to review the principles of WP:CIVIL and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, will serve to prevent further escalation and hostility in the near future. This will enforce a cooling off period for J. Johnson, after which we will hopefully see the editor whose non-abrasive collaborative spirit appeared so prominently in the 2009 diffs posted by WhatamIdoing above. — MarkH21talk 05:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Support (proposer): The separate incidents of incivility by JJ have been brought up by several editors in several different discussions. JJ has failed to acknowledge the incivility and has failed to stop the regular occurrences of hostile tone.
      Such a sanction would prevent further occurrences in the near future while also providing a cooling off period. — MarkH21talk 06:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support? (involved editor): I'm not sure how appropriate it is for me to comment here as involved editor. Also, I'm also not familiar with precedent here. J. Johnson is an experienced editor, who should know better than using incivil language, even if fellow editors are clearly wrong in his/her/their eyes. For the sake of having the lowest sanction possible to remedy the behaviour, a shorter block in combination with a prohibition to comment on other people's behaviour and beliefs may be more effective and less impactfull. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    J. Johnson. What do you think not commenting on people's behaviours and beliefs anymore? I think this would mean you have more time to do wonderful content-related stuff, as this has proven to be quite the time-drain for you? Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support (involved editor). As proposed. JJ's uncivil behavior is not new 1, 2. Failure to address all previous incidents has escalated his uncivil behavior.   ManosHacker talk 08:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support (involved editor). The fact that JJ's behavior and unrepentant attitude endure—even within this very discussion (see diff)—warrants strong action. Given his long history, I'm not optimistic that a "kinder, gentler" prohibition from commenting on other editors' behavior and beliefs, would be effective. We would likely end up spending hours at ANI, again. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support (uninvolved editor) - I hadn't meant to come to AN/I and got here on a misclick. Don't know this editor at all, and am glad because the quotes I'm reading and the utter lack of contrition are over the line of decency and civility I need in a collaborative effort like Wikipedia. Three months off will preventatively protect users from abuse, and give this manners-challenged editor some time to reflect on the the reality that actions have consequences, sooner or later, even here. Jusdafax (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      got here on a misclick – I'm tempted to add a phab ticket urging that an Are you sure? dialog box be inserted as a firewall to protect people from inadvertently ending up at ANI. EEng 00:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose JJ has a wealth of knowledge about earthquakes. His lack of civility is sort of refreshing actually. There's never any doubt what he thinks of you. Unlike so many other editors here, who hide their feelings behind a veil. So all you fragile flowers out there, get used to it. I don't always agree with JJ. But, I feel it would be a big loss to the encyclopedia if he's forced to take a long break. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Antipocalypse (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [40], [41], [42], [43])Reply
    I was only kidding about fragile flowers. Please don't be insulted, anyone. And I know that you're supposed to hide your feelings behind a veil at this site. Has never been easy for me. My point is still the same: JJ is a great asset to the project. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You were not kidding. You came in ANI. And you continue. Are you thinking of striking out "refreshing" or "flowers"?   ManosHacker talk 05:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Antipocalypse: You may find a lack of civility to be refreshing, but civility is one of Wikipedia’s five pillars and breaches of the policy are not refreshing for others. — MarkH21talk 06:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Antipocalypse: one of the reasons why civility is a pillar, is that other editors with a wealth of knowledge may leave the project because they don't enjoy editing in a hostile environment. Making good contributions doesn't shield you from having to follow policy. You can make it abundantly but politely clear what you think about other edits, without commenting on the editors, no veil needed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    unsure Is there a way to do a suspended sentence for these things? If not then just taking a 'gradualist' approach - the encyclopedia will get the benefit of JJ's knowledge eventually - and I think the examples in this Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith might be useful for the people reading back through the conversations they have had with JJ - which may take some of the emotional tone out of the threads (people make mistakes about intentions all the time - and I'm not convinced JJ intends to end up in conflict with other editors, but it does seem to have happened, and once it starts then obviously that naturally escalates to a stage where JJ does sound a bit harsh/unyielding). EdwardLane (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for your wise words, and the essay you linked to. In terms of a 'gradualist' approach; I'm all for that. But I do think we should consider how far we've already come into that, with multiple people covering different editing areas have issues request to stop this behaviour multiple times. I immediately believe that JJ isn't intending to end up in conflict, nor has any malicious intent while editing. Still, they do end up in conflicts easily and repeatedly.
    Given the fact that JJ has not apologized to any of the involved editors, even if they make a momentary lapse of judgement (for instance, not recognizing how stressful it is to bring a new editor to ANI instead of first talking to them), gives me little confidence in a suspended sentence (if such a thing exists). My preferred solution would be something in the direction of a short ban + some further prohibition of commenting on beliefs and motivations. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It is unfortunate that I was delayed this morning by some pressing matters, as I just offered you an apology. See somewhere above. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I appreciate the apology to me. However, I don't think I was the one you directed most incivility against, as I've tried to withdraw myself from discussions with you before things got too heated. Could you extend specific apologies to more of the involved editors? Even if they themselves have not always behaved like angels? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Presumably you refer to RCraig. I am not especially inclined to give him any apologies until he retracts (strikes) his "inability to grasp complex or subtle arguments and reconcile different points of view" and "low-level tasks" comments of 22:31, 10 Mar. If wants to condemn me for the "Repeated abuse" comments that Mark complains of he should not himself be committing even greater incivilities. If backs off from that then we can talk, though I think ANI is not the appropriate venue. BTW, I don't expect people to angel-like. But I am not immune to exasperation. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    - I presume it will be obvious to a closer/admin: the editor who has inspired a ~15 laptop-screenful, >10,000 word discussion at ANI—not his first visit here—listing numerous distributed incivilities, now indicates he is the one who is exasperated.
    - But to respond: I too do countless "low-level tasks" here and don't find it insulting that they are called such. Also, I provided above, three specific instances (¶4, ¶5, ¶6) in which (I am assuming good faith) he simply does not grasp those higher-level arguments or contexts (a level of understanding that may actually underlie his exasperation). Simply put: he has persistently damaged collegial discourse in GW and apparently other projects—damage that this ANI and I simply seek to curtail; however, his enduring remorselessness, deflection, and attempted whattaboutism, make it unlikely that damage will abate without an enforced sanction. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Neutral – I really don't like these parts of the encyclopedia. Yes, I have been brought here several times and have used it to bring problems to the attention of the masses, but I just don't like talking out problems with text like this. Too many problems with being misinterpreted. We really need to work on getting some sort of voice communication going. Anyway, I think that JJ is an immense asset to the project. His knowledge and skillset(s) are intimidating enough; I don't think the snarkiness is necessary or helpful. Now keep in mind that one or more of the times that I've been brought here may have been for the same—being rude or abrupt with someone. I think that I've grown since then and my hope is that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same. Dawnseeker2000 18:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      There is no evidence (sincere apology & promise not to repeat) so far that JJ is on the way to improve in Wikipedia collaboration. JJ has a reputation on this[44][45]. JJ's knowledge and skillset do not serve Wikipedia. JJ is shown to persistingly (reverts) insert false misleading information in the articles, that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with, apart from removing strongly notable & verifiable content that addreses JJ's POV, in the way described by the links provided.   ManosHacker talk 22:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @Dawnseeker2000: I agree with your principles, but disagree that if allowed some time, JJ can evolve just the same without a sanction.
      JJ has been given years since the ANI incidents over their incivility and battleground behavior (one in 2013, two in 2014). More recently, JJ has received at least nine warnings from five different editors for the same issues in the course of the last nine months.
      How much sanction-free time is supposed to be given to JJ to stop the hostility? — MarkH21talk 23:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: could a decision be made as soon as admins have time? A continuation of this discussion will probably only lead to more sour feeling between editors. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      That was a misunderstanding of the process, sorry. Instead, could administrators / uninvolved editors weigh in on the complaints. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: I notice that MarkH21 and ManosHacker both seem very unhappy with their interactions with JJ - but I do wonder if as a result of having reached this state of unhappiness they are now running the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend. So I also think that resolving this swiftly would be best EdwardLane (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      No, it doesn't work like that; unless a situation is genuinely urgent we don't just supervote. Thus far I count a grand total of one comment from an uninvolved editor in the above, which is nowhere near enough to establish a consensus. If the people agitating for JJ to be blocked are genuinely so hair-trigger that they run the risk of losing their temper and accidentally ending up being less civil than they intend, then possibly it's not JJ who's the problem here. ‑ Iridescent 09:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Thanks for the clarification of the process. The fact that a few of the complainants are not as civil as should be, doesn't mean that JJ's behaviour is not a (big part of) the problem I don't think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I do not intend to edit any article regarding the disputes shown here and I do not urge to a decision. I believe in building consensus through the talk page and then make additions and changes to the articles on dispute. I stepped in only to show this process cannot work when JJ is involved in content discussion, the way JJ (until now) treats editors with different perspectives than JJ's.   ManosHacker talk 10:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Sorry, I didn't intend to jump the gun - I think I'm technically a non involved editor with no clear preference on whether there should be a sanction for JJ EdwardLane (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @Iridescent: Both EdwardLane and Dawnseeker20000 are uninvolved to my knowledge, as well as MJL and Ames86 in the preceding subsections who acknowledge JJ’s incivility. I don’t think there’s much risk in losing my temper; at this point, I’m only responding to JJ where an explanation of my own conduct (particularly if misconduct is claimed) is necessary. — MarkH21talk 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      You forget WhatamIdoing.   ManosHacker talk 21:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose. Why the rush? In the first three days we heard from those whose minds were already made up, or have been swayed by Mark's superficial gloss of events. Since then some of the allegations made against me have already been shown to be false, and as the details continue to unfold more thorough readers might come to a different conslusion. Besides, we haven't even had a proper discussion of Mark's complaints, which are so insipid that he is trying to hang me on the basis that I have said worse to other people. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JJ canvassing

    This is blatant canvassing by JJ: JJ’s recent user talk page post linked to this ANI thread called Hi, and I could use your help and stating I could use your help here. Such wording is clearly non-neutral and prohibited by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification.

    That post was immediately followed by Antipocalypse’s !vote and reference to that message, and the connection between the two accounts is only confirmed by the dating of the former account retirement and the new account statement.

    Sorry to connect a clean start user with their former account, but canvassing is a serious issue. — MarkH21talk 07:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Non-issue. ManosHacker made a claim, JJ requested the editor in question to address it. It's within reason for JJ to do so. You're really fishing here. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The point is that I could use your help is non-neutral in a notification to a centralized discussion, unlike a post that would hypothetically say something like There is an ANI thread with competing claims about why you left WP. Could you clarify?
    This is not the main issue in the thread but it is something to note. — MarkH21talk 07:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JerryRussel is a polite editor who chose to leave Wikipedia. I doubt he connects to Antipocalypse. The connection here is only the time.   ManosHacker talk 07:29, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @ManosHacker: The connection is also through Antipocalypse mentioning JJ’s greetings and heads-up while JJ’s only recent user talk page post is the one made on JerryRussell’s page a few one hours before Antipocalypse commented here. I’m not claiming misconduct by JerryRussell nor commenting on their editing history; I have had no interactions with them before. — MarkH21talk 07:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC); correction on number of hours 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    User's contributions speak for themselves on the case here.   ManosHacker talk 08:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, it's me, the editor formerly known as user:JerryRussell. Since you all are so smart at following breadcrumbs, maybe you also can realize that Swiss Propaganda Research is entirely correct when they say that Wikipedia administration and editorial policy is now completely dominated by paid editors who are working for giant corporations and governments. I have tremendous respect for the many, many true volunteer editors here, but you've been out-maneuvered.
    If you all want to waste your time trying to block an honest, valuable editor like JJ; or for that matter, tracking down former editors with new names; I think your priorities are misdirected. But, that's for you to decide.
    I can assure you that JJ was not responsible for my departure from Wikipedia. I too would appreciate it if JJ would tone down his comments about other editors and about their contributions. But he's done great work with his contributions to earthquake-related articles, making sure that they correctly articulate mainstream views, while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views.
    The Wikipedia policy against canvassing has never made any sense at all to me. What is wrong with JJ asking me to reply to false claims made here, that he was the cause of my departure? Why wouldn't it be OK for him to ask me, a long term collaborator, to stand up for him at this ANI? For that matter, why shouldn't he be able to ask my opinion about the lede to the Tangshan earthquake article?
    I registered this account so as to make hopefully non-controversial, fact-based contributions to the knowledge base here, and with no intention of getting involved in any administrative drama. But before I left, I promised JJ that I would be available if he needed me. So when I received his request, I then studied the rules at wp:validalt and regarding fresh starts in general, and determined that I could not answer using my old name. So now that I've been unmasked, I will open another new account in good time.
    Best wishes to you all.... Antipocalypse (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @Antipocalypse:, JJ can speak for himself here (ANI) regarding incivility consequences:

    • For all of his incivility and failure to respect other editors, and for his particular disruptions, I ask that user DePiep be banned from making any edits to Template:M, or its documentation, or to any article or list regarding earthquake magnitudes or magnitude scales. Because of his long history of incivility and personal attacks (see block log), I ask that this ban be made permanent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

    You wish for a different treatment on JJ, while JerryRussel wrote:

    • Wow, just wow, what a biased presentation of the situation by JJ. Yes, someone uninvolved please come and help us out. Thank you! JerryRussell (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The consensus is completely obvious, JJ is the only one who disagrees. But he won't let us close it as involved editors, except on his terms. JerryRussell (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

    As JerryRussel you should know how this action of JJ is in conflict with your saying "while also allowing appropriate coverage of reliably sourced but unorthodox views".    ManosHacker talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    At WP:Canvassing the "Appropriate notification" section (WP:APPNOTE) explicitly allows notification of "Editors who have asked to be kept informed". Which Jerry did ask, as he has said. The guideline goes on to say that an "audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Which should not be an issue here, as on the very point where all this started Jerry's opinion is actually opposite of mine. Unlike Mark's canvassing of editors he identifies as having complaints about me, but not those of a different opinion.
    This entire subsection ought to be noted – as a fine example of MarkH21 making a mountain of complaint out of a nothing, where his basis of complaint is simply wrong. And ManosHacker's "ruined by JJ" statement is shown to be utterly false. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Notifying editors who have asked to be informed is permitted, but only when all of the other conditions are also met. Non-neutral notification of an editor, regardless of whether they asked to be informed, are always inappropriate by Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification. — MarkH21talk 22:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Precisely how is "I could use your help" non-neutral? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    By specifically asking him to help you, the subject of the complaints and proposed community ban, as opposed to asking for his general input. There’s an inherent bias in wording it as a request for him to help you. — MarkH21talk 07:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @MarkH21:, JJ should have asked JerryRussel to step in, to make things clear, as he left Wikipedia saying half words. I achnowledge, on the other hand, JJ's emotional wording on the call for help. I also believe that JerryRussel does not blame anyone for leaving Wikipedia.   ManosHacker talk 00:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I agree that asking JR to comment was appropriate. It is however clear that the note was not neutral, as there was an expection of help for one side. I regard this as a minor breach of etiquette. JJ, with a small apology this issue will become a non-issue to me. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In fact JJ's apology has to be sincere. JerryRussel has mentioned JJ's canvassing tactic in the past, in the middle of a try for consensus in the article he seems mostly interested in.   ManosHacker talk 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Hi @MarkH21: and @ManosHacker:, it's interesting to come back to some of these heated dialogs with JJ from 3 years ago. You need to understand that in general, I felt that my job at Wikipedia was to stand for fair treatment of 'fringe' positions. While JJ stands for the mainstream. This often placed us at odds.
    But in retrospect I see that JJ was often correct in applying Wikipedia policies, and that I was often in the wrong. The linked deletion of "Natural Time" from the EQ prediction article, is a case in point. It was undue weight, and I was wrong to have argued in favor.
    At three years distance, I feel nothing but respect for JJ.
    Even compared to many of the issues JJ and I debated about, this question of whether the encyclopedia should say that Tangshan "ceased to exist" seems a bit trivial. The quote is hyperbole to be sure, and I side with those who wouldn't use it. But shouldn't it be obvious to any reader, that the city and its millions of people didn't literally disappear into thin air? It amazes me that anyone would spend so much time disputing this. And that includes JJ too!! As my wife would say: "children, children, can't you just get along"?? Hmm... I also remember how important things seemed, when I was in the middle of a dispute.
    Ask yourself, will this seem important to you a few years from now? Antipocalypse (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Along with "natural time" deletion in the link, there is also the deletion of 2008 Athens earthquake prediction, which "ceased to exist" as well from the article. There is also the insertion of false misleading information that is unsupported by the sources JJ cites with. Can you make a small edit in JerryRussel's page as JerryRussel?   ManosHacker talk 00:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Done. User_talk:JerryRussell#Hi,_and_could_use_some_help.
    JJ argued at the time that the 2008 prediction was only notable for its use of natural time. All the information is still readily available in the VAN method article, it didn't "cease to exist" from the encyclopedia. But I can't find the "false misleading" aspect of that diff? What am I missing? Antipocalypse (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @ManosHacker:, I see above that JJ has accused you of being an SPA editor with a bias in favor of VAN. I want to add that I also have the highest respect for VAN and their efforts! And for SPA editors, who are often great contributors to the encyclopedia. Antipocalypse (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Correction: I have not accused ManosHacker of anything, and certainly not being an SPA. I am suggesting that there are indications that he has a personal connection with VAN, and therefore an undeclared possible conflict of interest. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you Antipocalypse. This is the diff you have been missing. The strikeouts are the JJ's false claims. As for 2008 prediction, it is notable by itself and does not have to be deleted as an outcome of natural time analysis "fringe process" (sic). The newspapers announced the major earthquake 4 days before it occurred, while its prediction (or "prediction" depending on acceptable criteria or vagueness) had been posted 2 weeks ago on scientific media. I apologize for using ANI space for article content talk, this should continue in proper space.   ManosHacker talk 01:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Akira CA / Ythlev (two sections merged)

    Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments7 people in discussion

    A while ago there was an RfC on maps of China, which concluded that using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV. A few users apparently do not agree with the consensus and have been constantly finding ways to circumvent it.

    The first is by CaradhrasAiguo, who tried to hide the RfC and make it harder to reference it in the future. The user repeatedly removed the reference from the relevant MOS even though it is fully within scope and most users agreed to add it.

    The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus.

    The third is by Akira CA and others, who disregard the consensus by finding excuses on why the RfC results do not apply elsewhere. They've tried to make a distinction between world maps and maps specifically about China. They've argued how such separating Taiwan only makes sense for that map because of the difference in severity. They disregard the core of the issue that including Taiwan on maps of China violates NPOV.

    Finally, after an agreement that maps can include Taiwan if a distinction from the mainland is made, Akira CA attempted to circumvent the NPOV policy altogether. Many maps on the site have Taiwan lumped with China without distinction. I have removed Taiwan from such maps accordingly, but Akira CA reverted my edits on the grounds that Commons files do not need to be neutral. With no clear reason, the user wanted me to upload separate versions instead of replacing the existing maps. However the user then replaced the existing maps themselves with a version they agree with. The user also obstructed the removal of non-neutral maps as the MOS describes (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Violation). Clearly the lack of NPOV requirement on Commons is this user's way of pushing their POV on Wikipedia. They selectively reverted a version they do not agree with.

    The core issue is these users do not agree with consensus. If they wish to challenge the consensus, they should start new discussions, do close reviews, if all else fails take it to arbitration. They should not disrupt Wikipedia like this. Ythlev (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I'm Akira CA, the above user utilized canvassing and cherry-picked other user's comments to promote his preferred MoS version over others and the consensus. In the original RfC, the consensus was to replace the Greater China map wtih a mainland China and that a map that lumps the People's Republic of China and Taiwan together violates NPOV. However the user misinterpreted the consensus and claimed that "All content, including every lists, maps, and tables, related to China should not include Taiwan" despite that Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, with the Constitution of the Republic of China and Kuomingtang claiming the political entity to be the only representative of China. There are also policies on Chinese Wikipedia to ban both "juxtapositioning Taiwan and China" and "including Taiwan as a part of China", because either way violates NPOV and "Wikipedia should keep silence on this matter".

    Ythlev then started mass purging maps all over the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, including those shades Taiwan with a different colour and clearly labelled the island as "claimed but not controlled by China", a long-established convention on WikiProject Maps. The user changed and reverted this, this, this, this, this, this, and this 25 times in total to lobby his prefered version despite being reverted by four different editors. PE fans soon noticed his destruction and rose a discussion against his conduct. Many users supported the "controlled/claimed not controlled/grey" colour scheme (with the reason that they remain unresolved for either side, and the map should reflect this for the sake of neutrality, as with other maps on Wikipedia) for geopolitical disputed territories and voiced their concerns against Ythlev's removal of "claimed not controlled" territories. Even Ythlev himself admit that "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go.

    However, I later found out Ythlev is still mass purging maps, so I posted a concern on his Commons user page to inform his violations of Commons:Overwriting existing files, which states that

    Controversial or contested changes

    Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. Upload wars (a form of edit war in which contributors repeatedly upload different versions of a file in an effort to have their version be the visible one) are always undesirable. As with other forms of edit warring, users who engage in upload wars may be blocked from editing.

    If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion.

    The more known uses of a file there are (through transclusions on Wikimedia projects), the more cautious contributors should be in deciding whether a change qualifies as "minor". Widespread usage of a file makes it more likely that even small changes will be controversial. If in doubt, uploading as a separate file avoids potential surprises for reusers. In some cases, prior discussion with previous uploader(s) or in locations where the file is in use may help decide whether a planned change can be considered "minor".

    and Commons:Disputed territories, which states that

    1. Both versions of any map can be uploaded as separate files, clearly labelled with their POV, and linking one another as Other Versions. Whichever map was first at a certain filename gets to stay there. The Wikipedias can decide which version is appropriate to use in which educational context. Legitimate improvements that are independent of POV can be made with complete consensus, but if anyone objects, they should be reverted and sent to a new filename.

    over his 25 reverts.

    Nevertheless, Ythlev ignored all these Commons Policies and regarded my messages as a circumvention to Wikipedia Policy through Commons Policy. He then threatened me on his Commons talk page and reverted every compromises he did before. Regarding to his conduct and multiple violations of policies across Wikimedia sites — including the 3RR rules — I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Akira😼CA 13:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I wish people would stop creating subsections for their comments here. Anyway, the MOS is under discretionary sanctions. If I find people are disrupting MOS pages, I'm going to become irritable and probably block them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, Ythlev, the only RfC-related notice I even blanked was your blatant canvassing (the ping notifications by that point were likely already sent to each of the targets anyway) which you attempted to deny. In addition to your own disruptive editing, which has appeared on this noticeboard not once, but twice, it is apparent that you are not above telling any lie. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:59, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Akira CA: "Taiwan can be included with distinction" is as far as the consensus go To be clear, that sentence means both a map without Taiwan and a map with Taiwan distinguished are acceptable. Yet your actions show you don't agree with the former as acceptable. You would rather have a map with undistinguished Taiwan than no map at all, as demonstrated by your reversions. In that case, the guideline is completely pointless. Ythlev (talk) 15:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The above paragraph make zero sense as I have never add Taiwan to any maps that originally (before any of your edit) don't include the island. All I've been doing is stoping your disruptive editing with respect to the orginal uploaders and their versions. -- Akira😼CA 23:51, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Even PE fans wrote "However Taiwan should not be included if there is no distinction from the mainland". Ythlev (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "using maps that lump the PRC and Taiwan together violates NPOV" I fully support this. In fact, my opinion is that if there is no distinction from the mainland, inclusion of Taiwan indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is part of China" and contradicts NPOV. However, the key point is that excluding Taiwan from China indicates the support of the POV that "Taiwan is not part of China", which also contradicts NPOV. The long time convention stated in WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps is to mark disputed territories as disputed territories. I believe in that this long time convention fits best with NPOV principle. After a long discussion in the talk page involving many editors, the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles indicates its support on WP:WikiProject_Maps/Conventions#Orthographic_maps. I hope that everyone can follow the current version.PE fans (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • First, stop debating the dispute here. Second, I don't see why we're accusing a user of canvassing when they literally pinged their opponent in a dispute. Canvassing is selective notification that excludes potential opponents. It's not a credible accusation, so quit repeating it, that's a personal attack and WP:ASPERSION. Third, the community's consensus and the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. Claiming that this is POV is irrelevant, when there is an NPOV dispute, the community can decide on what to do about it, and the community has done so in this case. There should be no attempts to override the MOS per a POV dispute that the community has already ruled on. Fourth, WP:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Orthographic maps is irrelevant in a situation where it does not apply, per a community mandate. Fifth, we have no jurisdiction at Commons, but edit warring over Commons images that are hosted on Wikipedia with the intent of subverting Wikipedia consensuses, policies or guidelines is disruptive editing on Wikipedia. There is no "catch-22" that we will not block you because the disruption is technically taking place on Commons. And last, the reported users have been formally made aware of the relevant MOS DS, and I agree with NRP that we should issue blocks if disruption continues. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @Swarm: Where do we go from here? Since then, another user has edited according to consensus and could get reverted by the above users. How are you going to prevent these users from disrupting the site? Ythlev (talk) 05:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts. The "another user" misidentified the map by claiming it is POV on Arunachal Pradesh, however the map doesn't even include Arunachal Pradesh and shades it as Indian territory. The user is indeed damaging the Wikipedia by editing disruptively.

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

    • Nothing at the text of WP:CANVASS mentions the requirement that all the users pinged are inclined to agree with the OP. Only one of the users Ythlev pinged opposes them; notice I participated at the outbreak article, am a frequent editor on East Asia matters (as opposed to some they pinged), and was not pinged. Ythlev is guilty as charged; no amount of apologism will alter that. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Swarm: Also could you give me where the corresponding MOS guideline is fairly unambiguous: By default, Taiwan should not be included. this come from? The current MoS is edited by Ythlev himself one months ago, which he later admitted is a bold changes and doesn't reflect the consensus at the time. After he added his own word the MoS page has been edit warred numerous times, with not only myself but many other editors opposing his bold change to MoS without any discussion. There were no section about Taiwan's political status before his edit, and I didn't find your quote by seaching across the whole MoS space. -- Akira😼CA 05:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept. On global maps such as File:World_marriage-equality_laws_(up_to_date).svg, the long time convention is to mark only areas controlled by each country. This has been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. On country specific maps such like File:Europe-Ukraine_(orthographic_projection;_disputed_territory).svg or File:PRC_Population_Density.svg, the long time convention is to use a third color to indicate claimed uncontrolled territories. This has also been re-confirmed in the discussion in the talk page of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles and has been written in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. I don't see any reason to deviate from the long time convention. It does not respect the efforts of various editors such as the editors involved in File:PRC_Population_Density.svg between 2010 and 2013. PE fans (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I have to admit the Ythlev is an expert in misleading the topics. By saying "The second is by PE fans, who tried to overrule the consensus. The user asked on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles how Taiwan should be coloured on maps of China. A small number of users expressed Taiwan should be coloured as a lighter shade. The user then concludes that maps of China should include Taiwan and tried to force it into the MOS, in direct contradiction with consensus", he gave other people the impression that our key point of debate is on whether disputed territories should be drawn as the same color of a country or a different color of a country. If these are the only two choices, then a majority of editors including me will choose the second one because this is the current conventions on global maps or other maps when there are only two choices available. I was not surprised that the admin Swarm supported the second one. However, in reality, the main topic is a different one: the main discussion is about the file File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and other similar files. In 2010-2013, many editors have spent lots of efforts to draw the border line and colors on the map File:PRC_Population_Density.svg and in 2018, even the small issue about the border line has been carefully treated. The version of Furfur used a third color to treat disputed territories in a careful manner. Even the small islands were drawn in the map. In 2020, Ythlev removed the disputed territories rudely in the sense that when deleting the claimed but not controlled territories on the map, the sentence "claimed but not controlled by China" was not removed. Moreover, he keeps trying to rewrite the MoS to support his version despite being warned by the admin NinjaRobotPirate that "the MOS is under discretionary sanctions". I requested for comments about File:PRC_Population_Density.svg on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Color_for_disputed_territories_(Taiwan_and_Arunachal_Pradesh) and a majority of editors supported the careful, long time version of Furfur than the version of Ythlev. I don't know why he keeps overruling this consensus by saying that the supporters of Furfur's version are "A small number of users". PE fans (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Akira CA: I'm strictly referring to the "Maps" section, which reflects the community's consensus from that RfC that settled the map issue. No one should be inserting maps that disagree with the consensus. That being said, anything Ythlev added to the MoS because he was "being bold" that aren't directly supported by a community consensus needs to be removed. BOLD does not apply to policies, policies merely reflect the community's consensuses.
    • @PE fans: "According to WP:STABLE, by default, the long time version should be kept." Is this a joke? How about you actually read WP:STABLE, and then read WP:STABLE#Inappropriate usage. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Being called "the main problem"

    From my point of view Ythlev is calling other editors "problem", not just their edits. I thinks this is inappropriate and uncivil according to WP:BATTLEGROUND, but he thinks such use of word is acceptable on Wikipedia [46]...At the very end describing other editors as "problem" is really derogatory and uncooperative. -- Akira😼CA 05:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for tagging me Akira CA. You should probably refrain from invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND, civility, etc while at the same time writing things like "Stop deceiving the administrators with all your positively loaded lies ignoring even the most basic facts.” Whats good for the goose is good for the gander and its important to be the bigger person. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Those are directed to the editor's comments not the editor himself. However "problem" is directed to myself, a substantial difference. -- Akira😼CA 00:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Also I can't see why I should probably refrain. Shouldn't both his words and mine be examined under Wikipedia policies? -- Akira😼CA 00:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Nselaa Ward

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Could some uninvolved admin look at the most recent history of both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nselaa Ward and Nselaa Ward? I'm sure that the perpetrator of the recent, problematic edit to the former and move of the latter was well intentioned: if it were me, I'd revert the page move and murmur some amiable suggestions. But I've already said my piece about the article in the AfD, so perhaps it shouldn't be me. -- Hoary (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The creator of this highly promotional article dropped the whole BLP on their first edit a few weeks ago; may need to check whether there are UPE/COI/SPI issues here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Serial Number 54129 has kindly reversed the page move and warned the perp. Good. If you (or anyone) would like to comment on the merits (or not) of the article, then the AfD discussion is the place (though I'd suggest SNOW instead). -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    BLP has been deleted at AfD after an almost unanimous vote. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

    POV-based removal of content

    Latest comment: 4 years ago60 comments18 people in discussion
    Indefinitely blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Partially blocked by El C from NRA article. PackMecEng (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Hi I'd be grateful for any help or second opinions as to why my recent edit on the page National_Rifle_Association is being removed. I did my best to be concise and maintain NPOV, but I suspect some POV or bias is behind removal of the content I am adding. Thanks. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @WinstonSmith01984: I'm not sure you want to do this. PackMecEng (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @WinstonSmith01984: This may already be too late but I strongly suggest you stop edit warring to the extent of self reverting or you are going to be blocked. Then start using the talk page. To be clear, the only thing that requires administrative attention here is your edit warring. Everything else is a WP:Content dispute and you need to engage in dispute resolution just like everyone else. And that begins in the article talk page, and should never involve ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The filer has made false accusation of vandalism, [[47]] has edit warred and refused to take advice from multiple uses (IDNHT). In fact I am getting a whiff of not here. and add to this accusations of POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    They have been partially blocked for a bit, so this can be closed now I think. Hopefully this will have an effect.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Can this be re-opened? Regarding the edit war, I added a Talk section after seeing some users reverting my edit but providing no explanation. User Slatersteven who originally reverted, did not explain why he raised UNDUE as the reason for reverting my edit when asked. There's an un-addressed issue here and my suspicion of bias remains. I'd be grateful to just know what was actually wrong with my edit in the first place! WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This noticeboard does not discuss content disputes. O3000 (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm seeking clarification of whether the use of UNDUE is tantamount to bias or POV-pushing; not whether the content was in dispute - that is being discussed on the talk page section I added. The article has been flagged as controversial and organisation in question has a history of surreptitious activity on Wikipedia. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WinstonSmith01984, that is still a content matter which belongs on the article talk page. The noticeboard is not intended to discuss such questions. El_C 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    WTF? This is not for that, try wp:teahouse, but I would advise dropping this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    From the Vandalism page: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", Mr Slater, you have met this definition by removing encyclopedic content, and continue to attempt making distractions from that issue. This potentially goes beyond vandalism and into the realms of POV pushing, which is why I am seeking clarification. If you are so certain of your innocence, then why not welcome further scrutiny? You have made baseless allegations of personal attacks on my talk page too. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This is not then place to ask for clarification (from the top of this page "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." "If you're just plain confused, ask at the Teahouse." "To challenge deletion, click here.". This page is not for discussing content disputes. Now either make outright and unequivocal accusation of wrong doing on my part (In other words make this a complaint about my alleged POV pushing and vandalism, I would advise against it, you ignored my advise last time and got a block, so please take heed), or take it to the correct venue .Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I've been clear and consistent here. The reversion of my edit is vandalism because removal of encyclopaedic content is one of the definitions of vandalism. Yet I am the one being sanctioned, which is grossly unfair. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Also (although I know about this) I have still not had any notice of it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    WinstonSmith01984, this is the only warning I'm going to issue to you about accusing good faith editors of vandalism —read what vandalism is not— which is a personal attack. Next time you do so, I will block you from editing, and this time the block will be sitewide. El_C 09:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry if this is the wrong place. If offering the benefit of doubt, then it's more like vandalism, but Mr Slater should at the very least be sanctioned for making a baseless allegation of personal attacks on my talk page, because I never made any personal attacks towards him or anyone else. On the contrary, I've been chastised for simply making a bold edit. I'll look into raising this on the vandalism noticeboard instead if his behaviour continues after the BRD cycle. Thanks El_C, warning understood, I think we can wrap this incident up for now. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WinstonSmith01984, definitely do not list this on the vandalism noticeboard. Again, it is not vandalism and calling (or listing) it as such is a personal attack. El_C 10:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Things are getting out of hand here.. can you please ask Slatersteven to pull his head in? I've been trying to focus on reaching consensus but he's now accused me of Tendentious_editing, but I have done nothing of the sort. Although he has conducted tendentious editing, in particular by 'Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others' here:[48]. Please forgive me for being a newbie, I hadn't realised there was a tendentious editing policy - what is the correct area to discuss concerns about that? WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The place to discuss your content dispute is on the article talk page. If you reach an impasse there, there is dispute resolution and accompanying requests to gain more outside input into the dispute. In the meantime, please adhere to WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 10:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for your guidance El_C, I understand the onus is on me to justify inclusion of a contested addition, and am engaging in related discussion on the talk page. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WinstonSmith01984, you are welcome. Glad I could help. Good luck in reaching an amicable resolution to the dispute. El_C 12:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Hello all, requesting help here - the User:Drmies has been reverting[49] a WP:3O request I made. Is there something wrong with my 3O request? Am I prohibited from raising a 3O request while blocked? (The block is disputed BTW). WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Suggest a boomerang for WinstonSmith01984 for continuing uncivil behavior. Following are diffs from this editor only after the editor’s block:
    • [50] Accuses editors of casting aspersions based on political views
    Casting aspersions based on political views is against WP:ASPERSIONS - to simply raise an accusation is not evidence on uncivil behaviourWinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [51] Refers to other editors as belligerents
    Per the dictionary definition, the parties in any dispute are known as belligerents. This is simple English. Not evidence of uncivil behaviour.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [52] “nothing other than an attempt to sully my reputation by an aggrieved editor.”
    I stand by this claim.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [53] Suggestion that editors are engaging in surreptitious NRA activity
    There's a notice on the talk page saying exactly that - I'm not making the claim just giving the gist of notices already on the article.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [54] Accusation of vandalism
    Probably is.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [55] Accusation of vandalism
    Probably is. If it isn't then it's WP:TENDENTIOUS and having valid reason to make the accusation is not evidence of uncivil behaviour.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [56] "I get the feeling you are not intent on engaging in good faith here."
    Quite right.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    • [57] Referring to a editor’s disagreement as belligerence
    As per the dictionary definition of belligerence and nothing more.WinstonSmith01984 (talk)
    This is not actually uncivil behaviour. I have not indulged in ad hominem or lost my cool. I am humbly following procedure and raising a 3O request regarding a disputed edit. Unless something wrong with the 3O request this is basically just a distraction from the issue at hand. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WinstonSmith01984, just a general observation from my time editing here: if you are being reverted by Drmies, it is usually a strong indicator that you are doing something wrong. Did you ask him why he reverted you? You should, and then listen, in full-on receive mode, to whatever he tells you. GirthSummit (blether) 15:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    User:Girth Summit, in my experience, if an editor gets called out for personal attacks, and claims they were not making personal attacks while continuing to make personal attacks, the end result is a NOTHERE block. There are two questions: a. will they be able to turn this around and b. how long until the block if they do not turn it around. As for the 3O undoing, Nil Einne placed a much more comprehensive note than I did, for which I thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No problem, will do. Thanks for chiming in. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    WinstonSmith01984, do not edit other editor's edits except on articles. I have not reverted because your edits display the problem at hand. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It's called an in-thread reply, not an edit of your message, but I'm sorry if in-thread replies are not allowed here. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Actually, it's called "rude, confusing to readers, and NOT WHAT WE DO HERE". Happy to help you. --Calton | Talk 03:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • WinstonSmith01984 seems to be a new editor. He is still learning. There is almost no editor who has read the policies and the guidelines of Wikipedia before editing. We learn a policy when we do a mistake. WinstonSmith01984 should have learnt that he should not call an editor edit vandalism except if it's vandalism. WinstonSmith should have learnt that he should not editwar and instead discuss the matter in the talk page. Editor should be aware of the one revert rule and the three reverts rule. One revert rule means you should not revert more than one time in 24 hours. This rule is applies in some articles. Three reverts rule means you can't make three reverts in 24 hours. This rule applies in all articles.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      almost no editor who has read the policies and the guidelines of Wikipedia before editing – And when such an editor appears, he's denounced as a sockpuppet or LTA. EEng 05:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It's perhaps unsurprising that I should be on the receiving end of all these accusations given the controversy that surrounds the NRA.
    If I am free to speak here, this all comes back to a bold edit[59] I made, which I think may have ruffled the feathers of some NRA supporters intent on glossing over the NRA's connections to the far-right. Which is apparently behaviour already identified as problematic on Wikipedia[60][61]. Hence me opening this AN/I section to discuss. I would also note the user Slatersteven exhibits a concerning ambivalence towards "Nazis" on his user page, but he's free to support that type of thing if he wants and I don't want to cast any aspersions.
    The tirade of accusations against me are in my view, a poorly-veiled attempt to smear my reputation and bury the edit[62] I made using distraction technique. When asking my accusers what "ad hominem" I've indulged in, the reply was further accusations against me. I never called anyone a vandal, and describing behaviour that meets the definition of vandalism - "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose" - is worlds apart from calling someone a vandal. This dispute I've been drawn into cuts to the core of Wikipedia's principles.
    Focusing on the content is my only real concern. Slatersteven has bowed-out of the discussion on the talk page, which I think corroborates my point he is not intent on engaging in good faith. The user Objective3000 has been less noisy, but is engaging in the exact same behaviour. I've acted in good faith and done my best to address their UNDUE concern, by seeking agreeance on alternate wordings and offering additional sources, but these users keep repeating the same point ad nauseam - that mention of the NRA's far-right links is unworthy of inclusion, because the links are to a "pathetically small"[63] Australian political party; in spite of the fact English Wikipedia has a global audience, the political party in question held the balance of power in recent elections, and millions of Australians are aware of this party's extremist views. I comprehend all of their objections and politely refute them, however the same courtesy is not being extended my way.
    In my view, the definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS has been met by the users Objective3000 here:[64] and Slatersteven here:[65] by repeating the same argument without convincing people, ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors, and deleting the pertinent cited additions of others, while simultaneously exhibiting a paucity of interest in improving the article in any manner that does not reconcile with their POV.
    The user PackMechEng was right to revert[66] my edit, because I was in error to revert three times, and I must respect his reversion. I'm sorry PackMechEng - won't do it again. But apparently, according to others, this makes me public enemy number one.
    I accept my response to all this could be better but I don't have the years of experience many of you do, please forgive me for being new, but I think that is my only crime here. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I bowed out because we were going round in circles. Nor has anyone said the NRA's far-right links are unworthy of inclusion, we have said [[67]] re-write this to make it about more then just one minor Australasian political party. I had agreed to comment no further here, but the continued misrepresentation of mine (and others) actions is getting vexatious now, the filer is trying to bludgeon the debate. This was closed, and should have been kept closed, it is a false complaint and the user has now been told he is wrong about my actions more then once. Simply IDNHT is very much the case here. This is not going anywhere so can it be closed, ANI should not be tuned into an attack page.Slatersteven (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for coming back Mr Slater, but exactly why must I make it about more than one? That's an arbitrary requirement.
    The claim of UNDUE has no merit, has also been refuted by people other than myself, yet Slatersteven continues to repeat it. Please Mr Slater, don't take this personally or repeat baseless accusations of ad hominem - you even left a PA notice on my talk page, falsely accusing me of personal attacks. The allegation of vandalism I raised is based on actual behaviour: the removal of pertinent, NPOV, referenced content. I filed this incident report for good reason, and do not make such accusations flippantly or without just cause.
    This has reached the point where I think WP:CRUSH can be established, and in contrast to the tacit haste with which Mr Slater wants to bury this incident report, I'd be grateful for moderators to look into this incident further.
    Slatersteven has tried to water-down the language used, and is giving undue credence to UNDUE. The party being "minor" is not reason-enough to assert UNDUE in the first place, for reasons already made clear to him, which he ignored, on the Talk page. And anyway, the One-Nation party are rather notable due to their extremist views, have a Wikipedia article and are a prominent feature of the Australian political environment, gaining as much as 22% of the vote in some states, which is not "minor" by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually ridiculous to try and continue with an UNDUE objection here. WP:SNOWBALL comes to mind.
    There's a growing consensus the user seems very keen to ignore, and no reliable evidence is being offered to support his perception of personal attacks. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal: NOTHERE

    El C, I'm done with this editor. The most recent personal attacks on Slatersteven kind of settle it for me. I propose an indef-block per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The attacks on Slatersteven are certainly unwarranted, especially since Slatersteven is not a pro-NRA POV warrior in any way shape or form. Still, this is a new editor and perhaps they just need to learn the ropes a bit more. Would something like a 3 month Tban or a soft indef Tban that could be lifted when they show an understanding of what why people are concerned with the behavior be less punitive? By "soft indef" I mean it we understand this is a new editor and all we need to see is an awareness and correction of the problem and there is no time limit on when they could appeal. Just a suggestion for the more seasoned admins to consider. Springee (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Added strike through Springee (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Reply
    But Springee, this new user has been advised a few times already to drop this stick, and they are not letting go. An indefinite block is not an infinite block, of course--what topic ban would be applicable here is also not very clear, given their history. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The editor has been warned numerous times and several editors have attempted to explain the problem to no avail. Indeed, the attacks continue this morning.[68] And another edit suggested an editor exhibits a concerning ambivalence towards "Nazis".[69] If the editor expressed some sense of the problem, that might be different. But, BITE only goes so far. I agree with an indef-block, with no appeal accepted that doesn't include a realization of the problem and steps to improve. O3000 (talk) 15:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Strawman - No personal attacks have been made against Mr Slater, much less proved. The accusation of civil POV pushing has been egregiously perceived as a personal attack instead of being dealt with maturely. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Based on the accusation of Strawman I'm striking my above suggestion. Springee (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Springee, I appreciate your sticking out your neck for this editor. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Would anyone care to look into the validity of the claims against me, rather than assuming that they are valid on an ipse dixit basis? At least some attempt to address the points I have raised should be exhibited, to avoid further substantiating my claims of civil POV pushing. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    With love and respect, there is nothing to tone down. The claims I've made are all in good faith and I genuinely believe them to be true. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In light of the above response, switching to support for a straightforward permanent block and/or community ban. If WinstonSmith01984 considers this kind of conduct defensible let alone appropriate, this is a straightforward WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE case. ‑ Iridescent 16:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    How then, should I have gone about raising a suspicion of WP:CRUSH? It's a sensitive subject I understand, but I'm not afraid of being bold. The page is just a bit light on what to do in these situations, grateful for any advice. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • (edit conflict) Support per SN. --MrClog (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support various experienced editors have offered copious advice, followed by numerous warnings that their actions aren't appropriate, but it's all been ignored and the user continues to assume bad faith of other editors and argue that their accusations of vandalism are valid. In other words, they seem eager to die on this hill, and I don't see why we shouldn't let them. An indefinite block would put a stop to this time sink. GirthSummit (blether) 16:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Nothing has been ignored, and I made no personal attacks. I've aired my disagreeance and it should be okay to disagree. None of this indicates any disrespect for policy and rules, which I pledge to abide by. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Oppose Support Frankly I am not sure this is NotHere so much as genuine lack of comprehension (I wonder if I should write an essay on either "we are not as dumb as you think" or "we are not a debating society, such tactics will not work") and a firm belief that their (self assessed) "superb" oratory will win them arguments. Either way I do not see this ever being a truly useful account (and it my well be a troll account, though I suspect either some kind of social experiment or more likely a badly coached account) and will be a net drain. But as a newbie they should be given a bit of a chance (not as much as frankly they have been here so far). Thus I would prefer a TBAN from all right wing politics.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @EEng: you called it dude :-) Here's the sock-puppet accusation. WinstonSmith01984 (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    What the hell? Seriously, where do I say you are a sock (and this is the first time I have said anything like this)? Change choice, my first instinct were right, the lack of awareness (both self and of others) here beggars comprehension and must be calculated).Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Gerixau and total disregard for V, BRD, CIVIL

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

    A common feature of this editor's content work is to slip short, uncited, frequently trivia-like details into articles; here are examples from their last 50 edits: [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]. Some of these may be sourceable in principle, but others seem impossibly problematic: there's no way [76] could be appropriate without a source, and I can't imagine sourcing the "rarely used" part of [77]. (Again, examples are chosen from their last 50 edits.) As can be seen on their talk page, this issue has been raised repeatedly by other editors over the last 6 years.

    If one of their edits is reverted, Gerixau seems to invariably respond by re-reverting. If they are reverted a second time, they re-re-add the material without using the "undo" feature, presumably to avoid alerting the person with whom they are edit-warring; recent examples are in the histories [78] [79] [80] [81]. When challenged on this (or anything else), Gerixau's responses are invariably hostile and uncollegial; often they take the form of faux compliments (again just look anywhere on their talk page from the last 6 years, or this recent example).

    I feel it's quite clear that something should be done about this; I leave it to others to figure out what the best form of "something" might be. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    "why not search for the cites yourself, and improve it ? That is my approach." a b strikes me as an unconstructive response to a WP:CITE warning - twice. Passive-aggressive/sarcastic Talk Page comments like c, d and e also strike me as uncollegiate. Narky Blert (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Blocked indefinitely. The editor has been made aware of WP:BURDEN and doesn't seem to care much. Once Gerixau agrees to follow that policy, I don't see a problem with an unblock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you. --JBL (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Tambov State University

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Two single-purpose accounts here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS – persistent disruption at Tambov State University. Triskelion2 started in Nov 2018 and Alexadrovalexei started their crusade in Feb 2020. Both started out adding unsourced claims about corruption, and now have graduated to adding sources that talk in general terms about corruption at universities in Russia, but do not specifically mention Tambov as being corrupt, or back up their claims. Both have had their numerous edits reverted by multiple editors, as seen in the page history, and both have multiple warnings on their talk pages. In my first revert, I mentioned in my edit summary – sounds like some disgruntled students, and in Triskelion2's next edit, they did admit to being disgruntled. Alexadrovalexei likes to leave a more detailed account of their experience. Asking for a partial block for both editor's from Tambov State University for persistent disruption, or in the alternative, extended confirmed protection if that is an option. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I blocked both editors indefinitely from editing Tambov State University. Apparently, they are indeed on a crusade and have difficulties understanding WP:V and WP:RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you for looking into this matter and taking action. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Nobody's minding the store at AIV....

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Please block and rev/delete the racist crap by 2603:900A:2005:24AC:FDA0:F934:B844:9180 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Done 2020-03-15T05:34:51 NinjaRobotPirate blocked 2603:900a:2005:24ac::/64 talk with an expiration time of 1 month (anon. only, account creation blocked) (Vandalism) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JesseMRogers

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Heading added to easily mark this section as done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    And I'd appreciate help with JesseMRogers (talk · contribs), who's only here to post personal content and social network links. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I have now warned them about two issues that would make me block them if the behavior continues after my warnings. Feel free to message me on my talk page if that happens. As always, thank you very much for your vigilance and dealing with such disruption. Much appreciated! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    ToBeFree, thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Apologies to Cassianto

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    Whether this is deliberate trolling or jusr a competence issue is irrelevant; nothing productive is going to come of keeping this open. StrangeloveFan101, I'll do you the courtesy of not giving you a formal warning, but I can pretty much guarantee that any more of this battleground nonsense, or any further attempts to weaponise our dispute resolution processes in an effort to bully your opponents in content disputes, is not going to end well. ‑ Iridescent 13:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

    After the stuff that went down yesterday between me and Cassianto, I realize the error of what I did, and I was wrong. I should not have been rash to threaten them, and I'd say there's more I'm guilty of. I tried giving a genuine apology to Cassianto. Here is the full message I sent to them with a short explanation of my former screenname, "Thatstinkyguy:"

    I'm sorry

    Cassianto, I completely understand if you just want to delete this message, I really do. I just wanted to let you know, I'm not here to harass or attack. I came to say that I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you said to me. I will admit, I made a gigantic ass of myself.

    By the way, I also applied to change my name once again to "StrangeloveFan101." The reason I had Thatstinkyguy was not to harass or troll, far from it in fact. I went by the screenname, Stinkyjaden, for a long time, even off site on others for years. But, when I started editing wikis (I started with Fandom's Wikias back in 2015) and I used the name Thatstinkyguy, an offshoot of my previous name edited for the sake of anonymity.

    Anyhow, truce?

    - Thatstinkyguy (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

    But Cassianto just deleted it with the summary, "go away." So, I came here for a dispute resolution between us. I just want to start over and put everything behind, like nothing happened between us. And again, I'm sorry for my words, rash judgement, and anything else from earlier. Cassianto and I may have different opinions, but that shouldn't stop us from maintaining a stable relationship as editors and decent human beings.

    Thank you for your time.
    - StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (formally Thatstinkyguy)Reply

    Sigh. Just let it go. There is no need for dispute resolution here; you just need to leave Cass be. Go edit some articles or whatever else you generally do. Don't ping Cassianto, don't edit their talk page, don't mention them elsewhere. Drop this, move on. You'll be much better off. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Cassianto, I completely understand if you just want to delete this message .... well ... ummm... apparently you don't understand given he deleted it and now we're here, As Elsa would say Let It Go. –Davey2010Talk 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @StrangeloveFan101: If you don't want to be called a troll, don't give the appearance of acting like one. Viz: You left a message for Cassianto apologising for taking him to AN/I, and—when you don't get the answer you want—you proceed to take him back to AN/I?
      Suggestions of trolling might, of course, be mistaking malice for incompetence. ——SN54129 12:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:220.255.71.13

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Blocked by GirthSummit. creffett (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    User:220.255.71.13 has begun using profanity and insults on my talk page here and here. Some admin help please. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Llammakey, I've blocked the IP for harassment, and comments the edits from your talk page. If they start up again when the block expires please report again. I'm sorry you experienced that. GirthSummit (blether) 14:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I need help. A registered user keeps reverting my edits without any explanation and is threatening to block me

    Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

    Hello, could I please get some help solving an issue I have with Feinoa (talk · contribs)? I added some information to Xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic about anti-Italian sentiment in Europe and changed "Asian" to "East Asian" because so far only Chinese and Japanese origin people have faced racism in Africa and the Middle East. Feinoa, however, has reverted my edit without any explanation. I reinstated my edits with an explanation but then again they reverted it again giving a vague statement claiming they "Already explained, not the right article" (I can't find their explanation anywhere). They then proceeded to threaten me by claiming that they will block me if I don't stop. I have read the Wikipedia rules regarding edit warring and I have not officially begun edit warring. I reverted their edit once but they insisted that I was edit warring which is incorrect. I need help with this. I don't understand why they are removing information regarding xenophobic incident towards Italians and changing "East Asian" to "Asian" (a term that is much broader in definition). I would proceed with a discussion at the talk page but I have noticed other people that have brought this up have been dismissed. Could I please get help solving this? I don't want to be blocked when I have not broken the rules. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:7530:104F:34EA:5761 (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC))Reply

    You refused to establish a consensus on the talk page, added materials with vague sources, and then claim to be 'threatened' when your edits were reverted. Quit using sock accounts and feign ignorance. You attempted to do the same thing approximately 2 weeks ago on the same article with a different account. Feinoa (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Feinoa: Firstly, I'm not using sockpuppets thank you very much. It is not my problem that my IP changes. Secondly, I did not do the exact same thing "approximately 2 weeks ago". Can you provide evidence for this claim that you have made? You have behaved in an undue manner and have not followed the rules of Wikipedia. I don't know why consenus needs to be achieved over the fact that xenophobic incidents have occurred towards Italians in parts of Europe. To me, you and a few other people on that page are policing it and preventing any information you don't like from being published. You have not given me any clear reason why you have reverted any of my edits. Your undue warning that you will block me without warning also makes no sense. I reverted your edit once meaning I am not edit warring. I am fully aware of the rules of Wikipedia and you have given me no explanation for your behaviour. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    My IP address changed yet again. I don't know why this happens. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    Please respect the WP:BRD process & bring your propose changes to the article-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @GoodDay: Thank you for your reply. I have started a discussion at the talk page, I shall see what happens. (101.182.48.203 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    @101.182.48.203: The IP is linked to your internet network, not your computer. That is why your IP changes when you change network. In addition, many internet networks have a dynamic IP address, meaning its IP address changes even when you stay on the same network. If you'd like to avoid this, you can register an account--it's free! --MrClog (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Okkar2018

    Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

    user:Okkar2018 just removed a speedy deletion tag from an article that she wrote after a level 4 warning not to do that. CLCStudent (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The artile itself is Aww Bazin Buu, a somewhat obvious hoax article. Michepman (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    How is it a hoax article? Have you any evidence to support your claim? Just because you have not heard of it, does not make it a hoax. It is a well known traditional medicine in Myanmar. The fact that you all seems to gang up without a shred of proof amounts to cyberbullying. Okkar2018 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The problem is that you deleted a CSD tag after being instructed not to. Even if the CSD tag was wrong, you cannot remove it from an article you created yourself. CLCStudent (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I removed the CSD tag after reading the instruction where it said I could dispute this on talk page, which I followed and put my case across. Yet, it seems no one wants to discuss and instead accuse the article of being a hoax without any supporting evidence or proof. Okkar2018 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Well you could look at the lack of hits when Googling for the phrase "Aww Bazin Buu" and take that as proof. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Just because it didn't get hits on Google does not prove that its a hoax. It just goes to show that you clearly have no idea about the subject of the article and you lack general and cultural knowledge of the part of the world you have never set foot in. This is just pathetic excuse. The fact that you offer that as proof is astonishing!Okkar2018 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That is not proof, because transliteration inconsistencies can get in the way, but the fact that this article said that its subject was invented in the reign of a particular king, but the date given was half a century before that king came to the throne, is pretty damning. More to the point, the instructions say to dispute deletion on the talk page, but not to remove the tag if you are the article creator. There is no guarantee that any such disputation will be accepted by the reviewing admin. You could, of course, fix the issue once and for all simply by citing a reliable source. The article had none. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It was "launched" in 1809. You should read Wikipedia's own article on King Mindon Min before offering this as "pretty damning" proof as it was not half a century before. How did you even come to conclusion that it was "half a century" before when the king was born in 1808 and the medicine was launched in 1809??? And how could i fix the issue when the article was deleted without offering or citing any proof of it being a hoax? Just as the article didn't have any source, Admins does not have any proof of it being a hoax either! So it is clear that this is a case of cyberbullying and abuse of admin privileges?Okkar2018 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    He might have been born then, but his reign didn't start until the 1850s. Just cite a reliable source and have done with it. Or someone block this editor who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "Aww Bazin Buu" literally means "Balls (Testicles) of Monk" in Burmese. The other words which included in the article are also vulgar terms. The article is obviously hoax. Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:Elmidae

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

    Can you tell them to stop deleting the article The Magic of Christmas (Celtic Woman album) and let us edit it to achieve independent status BEFORE they redirect it? It's annoying, and their not even giving us time to add stuff! Kay girl 97 (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Kay girl 97...may I suggest NOT restoring a previously redirected article to the exact same undersourced state with a comment that basically says "it is clearly notable because it charted", and then expecting it to stick? If you can add evidence of independent coverage, by all means go ahead, but the expectation for people to wait for you to do that was more realistic... um... on 12 December 2019. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (Non-administrator comment) If you're concerned about having time to add content to the article, it can be useful to work on a draft of it in your userspace--you could create it under User:Kay girl 97/whateveryouwanthere for example--and move it into article space when you're ready. It would give you time to add enough sources to demonstrate notability and avoid the article being turned into a redirect. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 19:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Kay girl 97 Note that you can work up a draft in your sandbox or in draft space, get it all ready with references etc, and then suggest moving it into article space. I'd be happy to review any such draft once it's ready, I'm sure Elmidae would be as well, they're a really experienced, helpful editor. Best GirthSummit (blether) 19:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Girth Summit, Kay girl 97, and Elmidae: It got nominated for deletion and then copy/pasted into draft space (Draft:The Magic of Christmas (Celtic Woman album)) while the discussion is ongoing, which is problematic, due to a loss of attribution and such (there were other contributors). I'm not sure of the best way to proceed here, but it would probably be a good idea to figure out before it gets more complicated. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Deacon Vorbis, thanks for the heads-up - it's sorted now, the copy/paste draft was deleted and the article properly draftified. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Persistent WP:BLP violations at Nikhil Chinapa

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
    Looks like me and the IP were able to sort this, with some followup now attended to. El_C 22:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    No sooner does page protection end, than the puerile edits recur. Requesting a longer lock on this, as well as consideration given to rev/deleting as far back as necessary. I suspect the impetus to post the number of boyfriends his wife had before marriage is intended to be demeaning. Let's remove the juvenile history of attempted humiliation. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Semi-protected for a period of 2 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 22:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:186.96.116.138 and their unsourced additions

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    This anonymous user has persistently continued to add the same unsourced information to Tokyo 2020 related pages despite multiple reverts and warnings not to do so. I first noticed their behavior on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round with their unsourced claim of a cancelled match well before the announcement of postponed matches. All edits so far have related to Japan events and sports teams, most of which have been reverted as unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I have posted a warning notice to their talk page in addition to the current notices there. Please let me know if they continue to make unsourced edits. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Complaint about Jasper Deng

    Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

    Hi, I have a complaint regarding the edits of Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) at Talk:0.999.../Arguments. This user has repeatedly been removing my last comment because he believes further comments by me should not be seen by anyone. Also, in order to hide all my previous comments from view (simply because they dislike my opinion) Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) keeps inserting a malicious collapse command together with a derogatory note telling the world "PenyKarma keeps blinding themselves while pretending to understand real analysis. Their further comments are to be ignored.". As I am writing this complaint I can see that Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) has decided to declare this discussion closed to prevent further contributions! Despite my polite requests on this user's talk page to desist from this action (which the user has also deleted). Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) has caused talk page disruption on several occasions on this talk page alone, with personal attacks and insults, and not just against me. I suspect he has removed other users comments as well because one day I saw a comment by Algr (talk · contribs) and the next day it was gone. Please can an administrator tell this user to desist? PenyKarma (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Maybe my closure wasn't civil or neutral, but @Deacon Vorbis: agrees it's necessary. @PenyKarma: refuses to drop the WP:STICK and consistently WP:IDHT. This really should be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG since looking over PenyKarma's other edits, it almost seems as if they aren't actually WP:HERE to contribute to the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    We all agree that it wasn't civil or neutral, and I agree with @PenyKarma: that it WASN'T necessary. If you have to resort to deleting other people's arguments in order to "finish debate" then you are wrong. I asked you a reasonable question and you made no attempt to answer it. Your use of "not even wrong" is just fancy name calling, no better then what "Dunning–Kruger" has become.
    This kind of behavior only makes higher mathematics itself look bad. @Deacon Vorbis: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs). Algr (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Algr: Considering your history at that page, you would be well-advised to stay out of this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Is that a threat? Is this how you think consensus is achieved? Algr (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No. It's a curt way to say that your involvement is considered unhelpful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "Is considered" by whom? Passive voice does not invent consensus. The reason these discussions never end is that people who support the equality keep falling back on invalid forms of persuasion. Argument from authority and circular logic are the main tools. If you are getting frustrated and find it hard to be civil, just stop. Walk away. Or at least make a good faith effort to understand what people are trying to ask you before "refuting" them incorrectly. It doesn't matter if you are "right" if you argue so badly that you drive people away from the "truth". Algr (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Hello Algr and PenyKarma. Our math articles should be edited by people who are willing to defer to what is written in the literature. Our intention is to accept as given the "modern definitions and wording that is currently accepted as real analysis". It looks like you guys are re-fighting the 19th century. We don't have to be able to answer your objections. Perhaps there is an online forum where you can pursue this. (Articles have to be based on sources anyway, not on editor's personal opinions as to which theorems are true). If the argument continues, blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Then what is Talk:0.999.../Arguments for? This isn't a question of who is right, but of disruptive conduct that violates wikipedia's guidelines. Deleting other user's questions and rude conduct is not excusable just because you are "right". Everyone is "right" in their own mind. Algr (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The space at Talk:0.999.../Arguments is not to be used for taking a vote on theorems. If something is sourced, then we follow what the source says. Even if you personally find what the theorem says to be unbelievable. It is common to see editors deleting others' comments under WP:FORUM, when they perceive a problem. Such deletions can be taken to an admin board (like this one) if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Talk:0.999.../Arguments is for discussion of the issue, it isn't there for someone to go banging on and on about their pet theories despite it having been explained many times to them what the problem is. Obviously, the page was created as a space to expand on the theorem without clogging up the main talkpage, but there are limits to it. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Sure, but it's also a reasonable question why JD thinks that repeating the same argument to a crank for a 3rd time is a sensible or useful thing to do. There are easier and less confrontational ways to disengage, like not responding. --JBL (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    irrelevant
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Jasper Deng—in this instance you are hatting a post that I made. That is from August 2019. That dispute made it to AN/I. Is this not similar? Someone is complaining that "This user has repeatedly been removing my last comment because he believes further comments by me should not be seen by anyone." We have disagreements here at Wikipedia. There is nothing out-of-the-ordinary about that. When a person takes time to compose a statement that they think constitutes reasonable input to a discussion that they feel should take place—under such circumstances it is unreasonable to hat that person's comment. Either don't respond or take your time to compose an appropriate response. Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • The arguments page is well outside normal WP practice and exists because of IAR. It's a container for stuff that shouldn't even be on the talk page. If we aren't going to allow people to use it, then it's time for MFD #5.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I thought Talk:0.999.../Arguments was created so "enthusiasts" on the subject could argue to their heart's content, without disrupting the article or article talk page. Doesn't hatting discussions on this page completely defeat that purpose? If someone just isn't getting it, and won't stop talking when you think they should stop talking, then yay; they're on the right page. Just walk away. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Second (maybe third) time this weekend I've come here, because there's nobody at AIV

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Case in point: Couchpotato11 (talk · contribs). Should have been blocked immediately. Reports languish there, and reversions and warnings are meaningless without administrative enforcement. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Hi Bob! I just went through AIV and handled all of the reports there. Since I only saw one report, I figured that another admin must've seen the discussion you started here, or just happened to patrol through it just now. Either way, the AIV noticeboard is no longer backlogged, and I apologize for any frustration that the delay handling these reports caused upon you. I agree that it can be frustrating and put no words behind the warnings left if action isn't taken in an adequate period of time after a user, who is causing a high amount of vandalism or blatant disruption, is reported to AIV. I'll be active throughout the next few weeks; feel free to reach out to me directly if you believe that AIV needs urgent attention and if other methods of trying to reach out to admins for attention doesn't go anywhere. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    2601, you do understand that this is a volunteer activity right? Most people have a lot of stuff going on in their lives these days. Wikipedia may not be the highest priority, 24/7. I think filing six reports on ANI over a weekend is probably sufficient to bring attention to AIV. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'll back away for a bit, both out of exasperation, and because, with sequestration offering a lot of time at home, I'm clearly far too invested here. My thanks to you both. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Take a break but please do return, 2601...we need your vigilance! Just be understanding during this stressful time. Liz Read! Talk! 14:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:Lowercase sigmabot III is malfunctioning

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Unless Lowercase sigmabot III has gained sentience recently, it's not creating wrong information. Closing. creffett (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    Entire information regarding jammu and kashmir is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvian97 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Considering that Lowercase Sigmabot III only archives talk pages, how is this not an attempt to litigate a content dispute under false pretenses? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 04:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Tagging concerns

    Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

    I am quite concerned with the fact that the image File:Mrs Right and Mrs Wrong - Sylvia Ashby.png has been tagged as not illustrating critical commentary. The article Sylvia Rose Ashby in fact goes into the whole "Mrs. Right vs Mrs. Wrong" in great detail. I was concerned enough to review the history of the person doing the tagging, User:JJMC89 and noticed at least four images he tagged out of process. Can someone please review the taggings by this editor? I appreciate that tagging fair use is important, but the person needs to at least show that they read the article itself before they make a claim like "Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding". The history shows itself as merely "F7", which means very little to the one who did the upload. I also provided a fair use rationale. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Please note that I have advised him of my concerns User talk:JJMC89#Concerns with your tagging but given the sheer volume of tagging that he is doing I feel that this needs to be reviewed at an admin level. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Please note that he has removed my notification. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (Non-administrator comment)@Chris.sherlock: I get that you're frustrated that a file you uploaded was tagged for deletion, but you need to be careful of WP:POINT in going around and removing other speedy deletions notices from files unless you truly believe that the tagging was done in error and not just because the file was tagged by JJMC89. Three of the files (File:Scott Pilgrim the Videogame Soundtrack.jpg, File:The black hammer.gif and File:Empty albrook mall due to coronavirs fears.jpg whose tagging you've challenged actually seem to have been appropriately tagged by JJMC89 as clear-cut violations of WP:NFCCP (the photo of the empty mall in particular seems to completely fail WP:FREER). Some of the other files you challenged might not be as clear cut, but I don't think their tagging was done in bad faith. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There was nothing pointy about it. I didn’t in any way remove every tagged CSD, none of them were done in bad faith and every one of them was challenged on the talk page with a detailed explanation. In fact, some of the tagging I agreed with so I didn’t touch them. I would appreciate some assumption of good faith here. I think there is nothing wrong with me looking at the tagging he did and disputing some of it. I followed the procedure and some of them are going to files for deletion, which is fair. Quite a few of them are not though.
    The images of the soundtracks looked to me like they didn’t clearly fail NFCC#8, unfortunately I wasn’t aware of the guidelines around movie soundtrack images - possibly this was pure ignorance but not helped by the act it wasn’t mentioned by the nominator for CSD. If I made an error there then I apologise. The mall photo was not tagged under WP:FREER, but nominated because it didn’t improve the subject matter (NFCC#8) so this just underscores my point about tagging correctly. Not, by the way, that I actually think that - I don’t encourage anyone to go around taking potentially risky photos that might get them infected so I dispute that rationale anyway, and would do so had that be made - but of course it wasn’t so it’s a moot point. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    P.S. I didn’t ever talk about bad faith. I am concerned that he may be working too quickly to get through a backlog and is making some egregious mistakes. In fact, I did message him in good faith, he told me I just don’t understand the policy (believe me, I do - I’m the guy who removed a huge number of Time covers for bad fair use reasoning many years ago) and I’m not in any way hugely new to the criteria. But if you look at the rate he tagged those articles, he was tagging them sometimes within seconds via Twinkle. There is no way that I believe he read even half those articles. This means that people who upload acceptable fair use images have been caught in the crossfire and given I spent a lotof time researching, referencing and judiciously picking relevant and informative images it is indeed frustrating to see someone misuse twinkle to have completely valid images deleted. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm assuming good faith on your part and only suggested that care be made not to be "POINTY" partly based upon someone posting about this being a possible "abuse of power" by JJMC89 on his user talk page; so, I apologize if my post seem to imply something else. FWIW, the mall photo was tagged with two deletion templates ({{di-fails NFCC}} and {{Di-replaceable fair use}}), and the wording "it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information" in the one of the templates has to do with WP:NFCC#1. Even if FREER wasn't an issue, this photo would, at least in my opinion, also fail WP:NFCC#8 as well since there's no content at all in 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Socio-economic impact that requires that this particular image of this particular mall be seen the reader to be understood. For reference, Only one of the ten non-free content use criteria needs to not be met for a non-free use to be considered non-WP:NFCC compliant and the fact that the mall photo clearly seems to fail two of the ten indicates, at least to me, the the tagging was appropriate and not a misuse of Twinkle.
    As for Quite a few of them are not though comment in reference to some of the file's JJMC89 being subsequently nominated for further discussion at FFD, that doesn't mean the uses of those which have already ended up at FFD are NFCC compliant and that they won't end up at FFD since JJMC89 or any another editor could nominate them for further discussion if they still feel their respective non-free uses are not policy compliant in some way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No, I don't believe it was an abuse of power. I feel I need to point out that I never removed the other tag from the mall photo. And I have no problems with them going to FFD. In fact, a lot of them should have been put through FFD and not been tagged as CSD, as they were quite controversial. It looks very much like to me he got a list of files uploaded from a particular date and just started tagging them quickly. Have a look at the logs for his tagging and you'll see that many of them were done within a minute, some even in seconds, of each other. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 09:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    A file can be removed per WP:BOLD, prodded for deletion per WP:PROD or tagged for CSD in good faith by any editor. It only becomes contentious when another editor re-adds the file, WP:DEPRODs the file, or challenges the speedy deletion tag. Until those things happen, there's no way to state that the remover, prodder, or tagger should've known better no matter how fast they're editing. Some editors use bots or scripts to quickly revert vandalism, remove unsourced content or make other edits that they think are beneficial to Wikipedia and it's only when such edits are challenged that they are considered contentious. JJMC89's tagging of files are all subject to administrator review and the files would only be deleted after seven days if another administrator reviews the tag and concurs with it. So, unless you stating that JJMC89 is re-removing, re-prodding, re-tagging files after their original removal, prodding or tagging has been challenged, or even worse that he's somehow deleting the file' he's tagging himself without allowing the possibility for any further discussion, then I'm not sure how quickly he's working is relevant. Being "too quick" seems to be sort of a WP:CIR type of argument. Is that what you're arguing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No, you have not understood my argument. I don't mind fast work, I've done it myself. I actually did it a few times when I was an admin and I started clearing backlogs. What I am saying is that it is evidence of sloppy and rushed work.
    Let's look at this. I removed the tag. He reverted it and put it back. How, out of interest, am I meant to be defending my decision to upload the photo? I have now done the only reasonable option left to me, I have listed it on FFD. What I am arguing is that there is no way that he could argue that my image didn't meet the test for countering NFCC#8. I literally wrote an entire, researched, paragraph about the photo. Without the photo present, it suddenly becomes much harder to know what I was talking about. Only someone who actually read the article would have known this, and he clearly did not read the article or he would not have removed it.
    The text is from Sylvia Rose Ashby#Formation_of_the_Ashby_Research_Service something I agonized over for at least a week. The text is:
    Ashby's methodology was to mainly employ women who she believed were better and more conscientious investigators than men, were "much more patient with other women" and further felt that "women will talk to another woman more freely".[15] She preferred unmarried women however, as she believed that "a single woman is better able to concentrate solely upon the problem on hand [and] she has no home worries to distract her [and] she has more time to keep herself physically fit". Ashby essentially believed that unmarried women had "a singleness of purpose denied to the married woman".[16] She found focused interviews made directly to housewives the most effective approach to market research. In a later interview with Australian Women's Weekly, she showed two small wooden, jointed mannequins – one showing "Mrs. Right" and the other "Mrs. Wrong". Mrs. Right, she explained, "is erect, relaxed; the left arm (holding her bag and papers) is slightly to the rear; the right arm is forward; the head is slightly tilted – she is the epitome of confidence." Mrs. Wrong, however, "is a bundle of nerves; head downcast, bag clutched to her – the epitome of apologetic timidity." Those who displayed a lack of appropriate deportment, she maintained, would cause suspicion and sometimes hostility, and the interviewee would be unresponsive to questioning, leading to poor survey results.[17]
    I am not the only one who thinks the tagging was done wrongly, on the image talk page someone else agreed. I'm also curious - when did it become the sole domain of administrators to make decisions on whether a CSD is valid or not? Something must have changed and nobody has documented things, because I see nothing in the policy or guideline that states this.
    So what I'm saying is, based on his action in tagging the image, I checked to see how he could not have seen such an obvious paragraph in the article. The log shows that he literally went through all the fair use images uploaded for that day and within minutes started tagging them. In fact, he tagged them with the same text, and even you saw that a few of the tags were quite iffy. I think I can extrapolate that he is not carefully reading the articles before he tags them. This then becomes a numbers game, on most he will be correct, but on others he will not be and then the onus is on the uploader who added the image in good faith and for the right reasons. And that, I'm afraid, is really unacceptable, because the uploader has no way of objecting effectively. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm not sure what tag you're referring to but if you look at WP:CSD it states in bold "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag"; so, if you removed a tag from a file you uploaded that might be why it was re-added. Another editor may remove the tag in good faith and if they do it would be a good idea to explain why on the file's talk page. You can challenge the tag by following whatever instructions are given in the template and posting on the file's talk page and the administrator reviewing the tag should check the talk page before deciding whether to delete the file. If the administrator feels that further discussion should take place, they will suggest FFD or even start the FFD themselves. If not, they may just delete the file, but even in that case you can ask for further clarification on their user talk page.
    FWIW, I've never said that any of the tags were quite iffy; I posted some might not be as clear cut, but that doesn't mean I disagree with them or think they were done in haste without the reading of any articles. It'ss possible I guess that some of the files were reviewed previously by JJMC89, and those which he felt had non-compliance issues were set aside to be dealt with together at a later time. Only he, however, can clarify the process he uses so it serves me no purpose to try and speculate on his motivation. Is it possible that some files that were tagged should be discussed further? Yes. Does that mean it was disruptive or an abuse of something to tag them for speedy deletion? No, I don't think so.
    Finally, You challengedthe use of a file JJMC89 tagged at File talk:Empty albrook mall due to coronavirs fears.jpg. After reading your post, one might assume that your didn't really read 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Socio-economic impact or might not have a good understanding of WP:FREER or WP:NFC#CS because there's nothing in that particular section that would justify the non-free use of any image yet alone one of empty mall in Panama that's not mentioned anywhere in the section. Every other image (and they're quite a lot) used in that article is freely licensed, but a non-free one about an empty mall that's not mentioned anywhere in the article is justified according to what you posted on the file's talk page and in the edit summary you lef when removing the tagt. I'm not trying to belittle you in anyway, but just point out that your assessment as to what's NFCC compliant might not necessarily be better than JJMC89's, at least not with respect to that file in whichwhere you did removed the speedy deletion tag. That's why an administrator is usually the best person to review and assess speedy deletion tags like this and the ones who tend to do so have lots of experience dealing with files and usually figure out the best thing to do. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for some minor copyediting and other cleanup; Anything added is underlined and anything removed is strickenthrough. -- 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)]Reply

    (reindent, what's the template for this?) So let's look at the image he tagged - File:The black hammer.gif. That's a a highly racist cover on a well known book with a foreword by a Mormon preacher. Now you could try to describe it, but to fully understand that first edition cover is to see the image of a decapitated black man's head dripping with blood behind a Soviet style sickle, with the text "A study of black power, red influence and white alternatives". It should at the least have been taken to FFD. There is no way he can justify that it fails NFCC#8. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I agree with you in that this particular cover is offensive, but at the same time my personal feelings about it don't really matter when it comes to Wikipedia. The only thing that matters are what reliable sources are saying about that cover and any controversy not only associated with it, but also associated with Ezra Taft Benson. Any content related to the book cover not properly supported by citations or otherwise properly attributed is going to be in Wikipedia's voice, which means it can be removed at anytime. Moreover, Benson seems to have written only the forward for the book, not the book itself. There's nothing about whether he had any input in the selection or designing of the book's cover or that he even stated any opinion on it later on. We might guess that he knew about it or perhaps even approved iof it, but we can't really say as much without citing some reliable sources in support. If he designed the cover and this could be verified, then sure it might make sense to show it. Just because he wrote the book's forward, on the other hand, isn't in and of itself sufficient justification for using the file. So, I don't think tagging the file was inappropriate and I don't think you removing the tag was inappropriate; the file is now at FFD where it will be discussed and a consensus about its use established, but there was no reason why it needed to immediately go to FFD from the beginning.
    The template you're looking for is Template:Outdent. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly for some minor copyediting and other cleanup; Anything added is underlined and anything removed is strickenthrough. -- 00:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)]Reply
    So what about my Ashby image then? How was that justified? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That file is currently being discussed at FFD just as the file about above-mentioned book cover is being discussed at FFD. FFD is where any discussion specific to these files should take place because that's where the consensus on there respective uses is going to be established. Some others have already commented in good faith at FFD and anyone else is also welcomed to do so. However, whatever the consensus in either case turns out to be, I don't see that as any indication that JJMC89 acted out of process or otherwise did something else inappropriate. What happened is kind of the way lots of things happen on Wikipedia: an editor acting in good faith is bold because they that their edit is WP:HERE, another editor comes along and challenges the edit in good faith because they disagree with that assessment, discussion/review takes place and some kind of consensus is established.
    As I posted in my original post above, you uploaded a file in good faith because you think is complied with relevant policy. JJMC89 challenged that use because he disagreed with your assessment. You challenged the speedy deletion tag which JJMC89 added because you didn't agree with his assessment of your assessment. So, that seems how the "process" is intended to work, at least in my opinion.
    You apparently were frustrated about having an image you spent a lot of time being challenge by someone else in apparently such a quick and casual manner; so, you then started looking at other files JJMC89 tagged perhaps to find some examples of inappropriate tagging which might establish a pattern which could in turn might perhaps support your claim that the file you uploaded shouldn't have been tagged for deletion to begin with. You found some that you believed supported your feeling that something wasn't right and challenged their tags. You then posted on JJMC89's user talk expressing your concerns and providing some specific examples in support. Your tone was a bit confrontational in that you seemed to be implying that he done something wrong rather than simply asking for clarification. JJMC89 responded in kind disagreeing with you; so, you started this ANI thread seeking input/action from others. I apologize if I'm got the exact timeline a bit wrong and anyone is free to correct me.
    I've already posted enough in this thread and the wall of text I left in my wake hopefully won't deter others from commenting as well so this will be my final post for the time being. Tagging a file for speedy deletion can be done by any editor who feels the relevant criteria are met; they are not required to go to FFD first or be expected to "know better" with respect to a certain file unless perhaps they're aware that there has been prior discussion or the file was previously tagged and that tag was disputed. There is a review process in place which means that any tagging is going to be reviewed/assessed by someone else before anything ends up deleted, and there's a grace period before anything is deleted which gives others a chance to disagree. There are even ways to request a review of anything that ends up deleted. You could search through every file JJMC89 ever tagged for speedy deletion and find some where the tag was declined by the reviewing admin or further discussion at FFD resulted in a consensus in favor of the file's use. You could also probably find examples of files being deleted because the tag wasn't disputed, but finding something "out of process" would require you finding examples where JJMC89 deleted files that he had tagged. If you are aware of any such cases, then feel free to bring them up for discussion here. — Marchjuly (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That’a lot of assumptions in a lot of words... that file is being properly discussed... because I placed it there. Where it should have been in the first place. I find it slightly odd that he has not commented here. Can I ask if you have any prior relationship to him? Genuinely curious. -Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I’m not sure what you mean by prior relationship, but you seem to be implying some kind of inappropriate behavior on my part. All of my edits are in my contribution’s history which are there for you or anyone else to check as much as and as often as you/they like. You’ll find edits for MCQ, FFD, the old PUF and NFCR as well as other pages where images tend to be discussed. You’ll also find lots of edits made to files. Furthermore, if you check my global contributions, you’ll also find me active on Commons in discussions about images. If you’re seeking some kind of smoking gun, you can check JJMC89’s user talk page history and you’ll find that l’ve posted there numerous times as well. If you think any of that information is going to help support your claim of JJMC89 acting “out of process”, feel free to bring anything you believe to be relevant to the attention of others. If you want to add some claim of inappropriate behavior on my part to this discussion, feel free to do so. I saw your post on JJMC89’s user talk and looked at some of the files whose tags you challenged/removed and came to the conclusion that you were wrong and he was right. If you believe there’s just got to be something more to my involvement in this matter than that, you’re free to dig as deep as you like and post whatever diffs you like. — Marchjuly (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This discussion reminds me a lot of the discussion below about draftifying a single article. Maybe tagging that one file was inappropriate, maybe not. ANI discussions about a single non admin action are rarely useful unless they are severe enough to warrant it. I don't see how this can be. If you engage with another editor on a minor mistake you feel they made, and they disagree with your view, you either need to find compelling evidence there is a widespread problem or just let it go. The attempts to find evidence of a widespread problem seems to have been unsuccessful this far. Therefore it makes sense to let this go until and unless evidence of a widespread problem is found. BTW, I have no connection to anyone involved that I'm aware of other than commenting on or maybe it was disagreeing with Chris.sherlock's unblock or unban request a few months ago. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That may well be. However, I highlighted a number of images I felt were tagged problematically, unfortunately the mountain of text that has subsequently been posted largely obscures the problem I was highlighting.
    Could you clarify what you mean by “disagreeing with Chris.sherlock’s unblock request”? I hold no ill will to anyone who opposed it, I’m not sure I have shown any such malice in my behaviour. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    If you feel that what I’ve posted is somehow preventing others from properly understanding and assessing a problem you strongly believe exists, then I don’t mind if you or anyone else collapses my posts. They will still be there to read if anyone wants to, but they won’t really break the flow of whatever you’re trying to get people to read. —- Marchjuly (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Editor on standard offer

    Latest comment: 4 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion

    This ANI, a very long one, highlighted Krish!, who promotes Priyanka Chopra over various articles. After being back on the standard offer he is back to the same. He was warned by many users, including Hell in a Bucket to not revert, when his edits have been questioned. Since the previous unproductive ANI, he continued his agenda by removing more information even minutely critical of Chopra, here and here. In another article, Andaaz, a film starring Chopra and Lara Dutta, he is repeatedly removing (sometimes sneakily) a win for Chopra's co-star Dutta in favour of a nomination for Chopra. This aligns with his continued attempt to highlight Chopra at the cost of her co-star. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This user has been trying to get me into WP: edit warring Andaaz, an article I have been working since yesterday. He has reverted removed several of my edits. Also it should be noted that this editor has been stalking my every edit in order to get me into edit warring and get me blocked. This editor has WP: I don't like it problem. He reverts my edits just because what he thinks is a bias. He called my expanding of lead as sneakily editing out something to show bias against another actress". Wow. This editor has been trying to get me blocked. So now I have to ask this editor's permission to add even a comma in an article? I have written over a dozen of film articles and I have been highlighting few awards in every single one of them yet I was never questioned but suddenly my every edit is been questioned by this editor.Krish | Talk To Me 07:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    NOTE: Another prominent Indian film editor agrees with my edit . Plus I think Krimuk 2.0 would be reporting me to ANI every time I don't comply with his orders.Krish | Talk To Me 07:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Krish!, I support both your and Krimuk's views but in different ways; Krish's view that the lead shouldn't be bloated with awards; and Krimuk's view that awards should be listed if there's anything important to it. For this reason, I do not want to face charges or be blocked again. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    It should be noted that this editor reported me here just because he thought my edits on biased which none of the editors think of my edits as biased.Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This editor has been hurling WP: Personal Attack towards me by calling me biased and white washer which nobody has called me on wikipedia. BUT look at what he did in 2018. He removed the criticism of Padukone'a and Singh's performance (the Anupama Chopra review used in the article criticised him a little but you won't see now; just praise) in Bajirao Mastani article and removed Chopra's quotes, image, mention from the lead etc. Note that the version he completely changed was a version that was reached after a CONSENSUS on that talk page. Yet that editor changed it without any discussion. How can anyone remove consensus reached version of any article? Yet I am biased?Krish | Talk To Me 10:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • (1) Please quit with the boldface and other non-standard formatting. You were warned about this at the last ANI. (2) Why are you continuing to remove critical material from the article without any reasoning? This material had been in the article for years, for example. I am strongly minded to at least block you from the Chopra article at this point. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Honestly I think that could well just be best. Canterbury Tail talk 11:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail I am really sorry. I thought the colored texts were allowed but it's not. So I won't be using it. Also, coming to the removal of that casting withdrawal, as I mentioned in the summary I thought that it suited in the film article instead of Chopra's article. After Krimuk 2.0 reverted it, I realised he had a point. I myself am the biggest contributor to Chopra's article and one of the people who nominated it for FA and it passed. My edit was not in a bad faith. He reported me here beacuse of Andaaz, an article I have been expanding since yesterday. In fact those edits were not controversial yet he reported me here. You see what another editor thinks on that talk page. Krish | Talk To Me 11:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail Krimuk 2.0 accuses me of removing things from article without any reasons but he himself majorly restructured the article in 2018 without discussions. Yes, that version was there in the article for over 6 years yet he did not hesitate to change it without any discussion but I see no ANI reporting for him. Yet I have to ask for permission to add even commas otherwise Krimuk 2.0 would revert me and report me at ANI. This is the thing that I cannot understand. When he does it it's okay but when I do it with reasons in summaries, I am reported to ANI? Why is it like that? Because of the concerns with the changes he made in that article that violates WP: NPOV, I had started a discussion on here on the talk page. Also, this editor is not ready to discuss any of the things and directly reports me here. I had asked Cyphoidbomb to look into the matter yesterday and he askedKrimuk 2.0 to discuss saying "Communication is a two-way street". Krimuk 2.0 does not want to discuss things as he had yet to reply to my last posts on two others discussions on Chopra's article. You can check there. If this editor is not ready to discuss how am I supposed to edit? He just wants to revert my edits without any discussion. Isn't this WP: OWN? Plus he is the only editor on wikipedia who has a problem with my edits.Krish | Talk To Me 12:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Could you stop wasting our time and answer the question, please, without mentioning any other editor? Why are you persisting on removing criticism of Chopra and adding puffery to her article (see previous ANI), after you were previously blocked for sub-par editing in exactly the same area? Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Black Kite I was never blocked for my "sub-par editing". You need to see the Barnstars I have recieved for my work on wikipedia. I have written 1 FT, 2 FAs, 20 FLs and 22 GAs. How is that sub-par? I am not removing negative stuff from Chopra's article. I had few concerns with Krimuk 2.0's addition to the article which I was discussing it on that article's talk page but he has yet to talk back on it. You can see there what my concerns are about the article. It is as simple as that. It's Krimuk 2.0 who is wasting everybody's time not me by reporting me here for small thing which can be fixed by a discussion like this, the reason he reported me here today. He refused to discuss with me yesterday when I went to his talk page to discuss. Now you tell me? I have been busy writing a article which I expanded 3x in last 12 hours.Krish | Talk To Me 12:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "I was never blocked for my sub-par editing" - Krish, you were blocked multiple times for edit-warring, personal attacks and sockpuppetry! Meanwhile, you still can't give a straight answer without mentioning Krimuk, and you still claim not to be removing negative stuff / adding puffery despite diffs here and at the last ANI showing you doing exactly that. I really don't see an option other than that I mentioned above. Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (Edit Conflict) This was your indefinite block reason "(WP:CIR. History of personal attacks and edit warring, couldn't even follow "don't even talk about the other user.")" So yes, sub-par editing. Your behaviour and your edits since you returned are suggestive that you may not be have the competence to edit this encyclopaedia in a collaborative fashion. Given the fact that you were asked specifically above by Black Kite to respond WITHOUT mentioning the other editor, and you launch straight back into talking about them and not your edits, suggests to me that you may in fact lack that competence. Now please respond to Black Kite's question without mentioning Krimuk 2.0. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Black Kite and Canterbury Tail: I would like to apologise for not properly reading "without mentioning the other editor". I thought you were talking about Cyphoidbomb and Kailash whom I have mentioned above. I am really sorry for not properly reading Black Lite's post. Now coming to my answer to your question, few things were added in Chopra's article which should be fixed like her positively reviewed performances have been shown as mixed and mixed/generally positive as negatives so I tried to fix that and started two discussions on the talk page. Also, I removed this which you questioned above because I felt like casting controversy/criticism should be in a film article (I write a lot of film articles). It was not for the purpose of "removing negatives". I had given my reasons in the summary as well because a film from which Chopra was kicked out at last minute is not discussed either in her article, only in that film's article so I thought this should also stay in the film's article and not in her article. That's all I have to say. And I am really sorry for not properly reading your above post about "not mentioning the other editor". I am ashamed.Krish | Talk To Me 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    JzG Forgive me please tell what rules I have broken that I should be partially blocked? I have raised questions on the talk page of the article and I am yet to receive response there regarding my issues with violation of NPOV in the article. This is clearly Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard issue as Peter James said. The problem is regarding the content of an article which can be only resolved through discussions. The editor who reported me here has refused to discuss any of the disputes so what am I supposed to? Plus, the reason I was reported here was resolved after a discussion, with the editors agreeing with my edit and also the other editor's edit. It is clearly dispute issue. But as an administrator you know the best. What can I say. I only wanted to tell you that I am being misunderstood here and may have not been able to express it properly. After coming back to wikipedia, all I have tried is to contribute here, expanded one whole article, updated another article, working on another and has planned to work on a dozen more in the next 15 days. I have also been suffering from a life threatening disease in real life and all I have done here on wikipedia in last 15 days is defend myself yet no one has questioned the other editor for significantly changing articles without discussions, removing Consensus-reached version of articles without discussions and constantly reverting me even for non-controversial edits. What am I supposed to do? Am I only to be blamed here?Krish | Talk To Me 01:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Puddleglum2.0 None of my edits have caused the disruption to Wikipedia. So why should be partially blocked? This is clearly a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution case as which says This policy describes what to do when you have a dispute with another editor. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." And this is what exactly I did. I first tried to fix the few NPOV-violation of the article by adding neutral worded edits. All of which were reverted. Then I went to the editor's page to discuss but he reverted. Then I asked several administrators to intervene (here, here and here) because the said editor was not ready to discuss. Then an administrator advised him to discuss with me but he did not. He had also not replied to the the two discussions about NPOV violations in the same article. I have given all the evidences/sources for the NPOV violations on the talk page which you can see there. I had opened another discussion at the same talk page of the article yesterday to resolve the dispute. Then that editor started accusing me of bias at Andaaz, an article I expanded 2 folds in 12 hours. Then he accused me of bias towards another actress but I had only added whatever that source said. You can check the source. Note I did not revert any of his edits and continued expanding it then he removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re added the supporting nominationsaying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion. I took part in that discussion and gave my thoughts which were exactly as my summary. Then without replying. He immediately reported me here. During all this, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly. I did not engage in Wikipedia:Disruptive editing yet I was reported here. And the reason I was reported here was RESOLVED on the talk page with the help of other editors through a discussion. Yes, a discussion which that editor refused in the case of that other article. So how am I eligible for partial block?Krish | Talk To Me 04:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Krish!: Thanks for this. Are you familiar with what a partial block is? I don't mean this at all to offend -- I'm just curious. Perhaps your right about a partial block, I'll have to think about this some more, but I still do think a two way IBan between you and Krimuk2.0 would be a vastly beneficial outcome for the community. Would you be amenable to that? Thank you for bearing through this thread; I know how stressful it can get. =) Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 04:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Puddleglum2.0 I think partial ban means I won't be able to edit some section of article. This is a clear case of content dispute which is very much solvable by discussion and I have been asking to discuss this whole time. I tried extending an olive branch several times to the editor but no luck. And, yes, I would support an interaction ban if necessary but I still think the matter can be resolved by a discussion. I have given all the sources and evidences on the talk page as you can see. And, I have not violated any rules. It's a content dispute that should be resolved by a discussion(s).Krish | Talk To Me 04:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks... I think personally that the best option would be a temporary cooldown partial block, and an indefinite IBan between these two editors. Thanks, Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 16:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    How does one enforce an interaction ban when both the editors have overlapping areas of interest? And if one makes an edit and is reverted by the other, what then? Do they not discuss? If Krish! isn't willing to voluntarily walk away from the Priyanka Chopra article for a while, then perhaps another admin might consider an article block. In my personal experience, there is no article so precious to me that I wouldn't be willing to unwatchlist it and walk away if there were a major dispute. So both of them should consider that option. Although I don't understand Krimuk's objection to having discussions on their own talk page, Krish should avoid posting comments on Krimuk's talk page and should post them on the relevant article's talk page. If Krimuk opts not to participate in those discussions, then they will not be able to assert consensus. And for both parties involved, if there's any inkling of reverting out of spite, that's not going to fly. Both parties need to be behaving in a civil fashion, and that means assuming good faith and not accusing each other of X or Y. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    It really isn't a simple content dispute that can be resolved by two editors talking it out. It's about one editor's continued process of removing negative information from articles related to Chopra. To rewind, these are the things that Krish! removed from Chopra's article in less than a month:

    Under normal cases, this wouldn't have been an ANI issue, and the editor could possibly have been reasoned with. But in this case, the editor is back on the WP:Standard offer, and these repeated infractions should not be ignored. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    My Answers:

    It is very much a content dispute and you refused to discuss. You added negative stuff in 2018 without discussions which violated WP: NPOV rule of Wikipedia. I tried to fix it by adding neutral worded edits and I have given all the evidences and sources on the talk page of the article. A Wikipedia rule says "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add."

    • 1) These two negative reviews were added by you. You added negative reviews for her largely positively reviewed role in Jai Gangaajal and her largely acclaimed performance in Dil Dhdadkne Do as proven on the talk page. I first tried to fix this non-controversial edit but then you reverted it and I moved on and started a discussion which you are yet to reply.
    • 2) "Widespread success", is what that section (her most successful phase in terms of BOX OFFICE) was called for a very long time till you changed it in 2018 without discussions. Also I renamed it "Wider recognition" (and not widespread success which you claim) as per the lead that says " Chopra subsequently gained wider recognition...." There are two mentions of her starring in "highest-grossing films of all time" with sources. The section also says "Chopra starred in four biggest Bollywood grossers of all time in two years" in the section itself.
    • 3) Again, I fixed a biased edit that called the film was Box Office Bomb but there is no mention of that word anywhere in the source which means you violated a rule by adding WP: UNSOURCED text. I had explained this while fixing it as my summary says "I replaced with a better source from Box Office India" which is widely accepted on Wikipedia. The source I gave mentions "the film is doing poor business" which means a failure or "the film did not do well" which I added, a more WP: NEUTRAL word. Also Moneycontrol.com is NEVER used to cite box office details.
    • 4) As I have said several times which I also said in the summary that "I felt this casting withdrawal controversy suited more in the film's article as opposed to her article since there are no mentions of the films where she was removed by last minute either." You reverted it. I accepted it. What's problem here when I accepted my mistake?
    • 5) How is the criticism for the screenplay relevant when describing her performance which is acclaimed and the film overall was positively reviewed and has 83% on Rotten Tomatoes? You had added this negative review in 2018 by replacing a positive review which was there in the article since a very long time. What was the necessity to remove that positive review and add a negative one? Also, I did not remove (as you claim), I replaced it with a more neutral review that was critical of the overall film and not just screenplay. That review said "Chopra rose above the material". So how it that problematic?
    • 6) This editor removed a major acting nomination such as Best Supporting Actress by saying that nomination is not noteworthy enough. I re-added the supporting nomination saying "supporting actress category is a big one and major awards are added in lead like other films. Wikipedia does not work according my rules." Then he reverted me and started a discussion and it has been resolved.
    • This "unsourced puffery" was in this article since a very long time until you removed it in 2018 without any explanations. You hid this edit by only saying "trim redundant info; add 2 new important lists".] summary so that no one would notice.
    NOTE: All the five points he raised above was already discussed in the last ANI. So what did I really do that the editor reported me again? The reason he reported me has already been resolved on the article's talk page with the help of other editors. He keeps saying "Standard offer" but none of my edits are disruptive and all this time, I did not engage in edit warring or personal attack or anything. I dealt with it calmly.Krish | Talk To Me 09:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Also Cyphoidbomb I am ready to walk away from Chopra's article for some time. I have not touched that article since few days. I won't be editing Chopra's article from now on without any discussion on the talk page. There are 3 open discussions on the talk page and from now and I have been waiting for the response.Krish | Talk To Me 09:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal

    Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

    JackAtkinson22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Today, I had a disagreement with a new user JackAtkinson22 who started to mass-remove Arabic script Kazakh names from the articles. They insist that my reverts are vandalism and keep calling me vandal even after I provided them with a reference to WP:Vandalism. I obviously did not handle this in the best way, and the issue itself is debatable (if there is discussion, I would probably support removing Arabic script names - the justification to keep them is, as I can recollect, that Kazakh was written in Arabic script universally until 1929 and is still being written in this script in Xinjan), but I do not think that them to continue calling me vandal is acceptable. Could someone please have a look at their talk page and see whether it is in any way justified, and if not how it could be stopped.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Ok, I’m ready to apologize if my statements about “vandalism” were wrong, but: First off, I'm not a new user. You can see it on my page, I have been registered here for a long time. Secondly, this user threatened to ban me. I understand that he has administrator rights, and in fact he can do it, but in any case, I will challenge this decision. This user is mistaken when he claims that the Arabic alphabet is relevant today in Kazakhstan. It is not true. But if this is so, then for his part, he must provide evidence. Evidence that shows that in Kazakhstan, today someone uses the Arabic alphabet. Because he claims it, and I deny it. I believe that his actions are wrong, since he misinforms people. He writes false information, and even more. He does not allow me to make edits, he immediately corrects my edits, this is suspicious. P.s. Xinjan is not affiliated with Kazakhstan. Please look at the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    JackAtkinson22, you were certainly wrong about the vandalism accusation - that's a personal attack, which can result in a block. You should seek to gain consensus to remove the Arabic script names - I suggest you start an RFC to see if others agree with you. If someone challenges an edit, a discussion is required to decide on the right way forward - you certainly shouldn't carry on changing multiple articles after someone has challenged what you are doing. GirthSummit (blether) 13:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Despite claims to the contrary, Special:Log/JackAtkinson22 indicates the user account was registered recently, on 2020-02-22. I have some concerns about JackAtkinson22 making legal threats (see WP:NLT), but these don't rise to the level of blocking in my opinion. JackAtkinson22 should be advised to read WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:VERIFY. --Yamla (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Girth_Summit Yamla Ok, you can block my account, you can delete it, I have already made sure that ordinary users here do not have any rights. I did not intend to act against the rules. But just answer one question: if I add the Arabic name for example to the city of Amsterdam, or Paris, then you will delete it? Because the page of each region contains a name in several languages ​​that are somehow connected with this region, for example, Canada. The names are in English and French, as these 2 languages ​​are common in this country. But what does the Arabic language have to do with Kazakhstan? Why does this user add just Arabic names, namely to Kazakhstani regons? It's just absurd, I'm confused. P.s. And once again, I in no way want to translate the conversation into a negative tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @Ymblanter and JackAtkinson22: I'm not an expert on any of this, but it seems to me that the Arabic names are significant historically. This is an encyclopedia, after all. – Athaenara ✉ 14:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    They are not Arabic names, they are Kazakh names written in Arabic script, and in any case they should not be removed without discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Ymblanter: As I said, I'm not an expert. The point stands. – Athaenara ✉ 14:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Sure, I think this is a valid point, which should be taken into account if discussion is really started.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


    Ymblanter Athaenara I still say, I did not claim that these are Arabic names. I’m talking specifically about the Arabic script. Today, it is not officially used in Kazakhstan. Therefore, it is not correct to write the names of Kazakhstani regions in Arabic transcription. This is just an insult. Yes, this alphabet was used in the Kazakh Khanate, but today it is a different country. Yes, even if so, the Arabic alphabet was used in the southern regions of the country. And you added the Arabic alphabet to all cities. There has never been a given alphabet in the West. I understand that you are an administrator, and you think that no one can argue with you, but just think about what you are doing. I studied this story, provide it to knowledgeable people. I do not state that you do not know the story, but give at least a chance to other users to express their opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @JackAtkinson22: ANI is not the place to resolve WP:content disputes. If you want to propose we remove names in Arabic script from Kazakhstani place names, start an appropriate centralised discussion somewhere and try to reach WP:Consensus. No one is stopping you from doing so (unless you get blocked for your other behaviour). Just don't go around mass removing the names before you have consensus. And especially don't falsely accuse other editors of vandalism. That is personal attack and needs to stop. This is nothing to do with being an ordinary user or an administrator. An administrator who mass removes stuff without consensus or repeatedly falsely accused others of vandalism is likely to get in trouble as well. Also it's fairly weird to say you've been here for a long time if your account is less than a month old. Did you used to use another account? If so, it might be best if you disclose which account that is unless there is a good reason why you are not doing so. If you are referring to the Russian Wikipedia, then do bear in mind that each Wikipedia has it's own specific norms. Your experience elsewhere may not well inform you about the norms here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    BLP violation

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    User:IVFC14 has repeatedly added Gregory R. Johnson as a student of Richard Velkley. Professor Velkley does not consider Johnson as his legitimate student and even deleted his name once. I think it is a BLP violation. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    That's why I added two official sources.--IVFC14 (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No you did not. You added one archived version of some sort of spreadsheet whose authenticity cannot be verified, and one Scribd thing that I can't read but comes from the subject himself. You need better sourcing, reliable secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I think IVFC's whitewashing edits deserve closer scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    What do you mean? Its located at the official page of the Catholic Univeristy of America. This is not archived
    Drmies, Another official source, p. 5 (or 228): The Review of Metaphysics, 56(1), pp. 225-244 (you can use sci-hub to see it)
    Drmies, Pirhayati: I added an official source. Richard Velkley is lying.--IVFC14 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Canvassing by Seadoubleyoujay

    Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) The IP has been blocked, and there's a strong consensus that Seadoubleyoujay didn't do anything wrong. Since I don't see any more to discuss, I'm closing this. JOEBRO64 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    There has been a somewhat extended and convoluted between Seadoubleyoujay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I (109.159.72.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) over whether content relating to 'Squadron 42' should be split off from the existing Star Citizen article, a contentious article concerning the funding and development of as-yet-unreleased video games. So far, though the debate has been heated, with more than a little sniping from the pair of us, it has otherwise been fairly conducted. Unfortunately though, Seadoubleyoujay, who had earlier added a neutrally-worded link to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games (a reasonable enough thing to do, though as our article makes clear, the Star Citizen project is of interest to more than just video gamers, having attracted commentary from, amongst others, the BBC and the NYT), has now decided to use the WikiProject talk page for canvassing. I had no real problem with the original, neutral, post but after I stated on Talk:Star Citizen that I was shortly going to start an RfC issue, Seadoubleyoujay (who must have seen my statement re the RfC - see [82], which follows my post on my intentions almost immediately) has now posted a highly-partisan 'summary' of his arguments on the WikiProject talk page.[83] Even without an RfC imminent, I would have considered this highly questionable, but knowing that an RfC was about to occur, I cannot see any justification for this whatsoever, and I cannot see how it does not constitute a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing guidelines. I am unsure at this point what the best course of action should be: regardless of whether Seadoubleyoujay is sanctioned, the potential RfC has been tainted at this point, meaning that going ahead with it could be problematic, result in even further acrimony, and make any conclusion void. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    This is very WP:BITEY. Seadoubleyoujay seems to be a good faith editor and the best course of action is to remind him in his talk page rather than bringing up the issue here or WT:VG. OceanHok (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Would it not have been appropriate to note that you have been a participant in the discussion, and are in agreement with Seadoubleyoujay's perspective, OceanHok? 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    My stance on the discussion has nothing to do with him canvassing or you being bitey and not assuming good faith though. What I can say is Seadoubleyoujay didn't word his WT:VG summary in a neutral manner but it is far from intentional or explicit canvassing. OceanHok (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I would be interested to learn how you could possibly know Seadoubleyoujay's intents. Telepathy perhaps? And presenting one side of an argument only while asking for input is precisely what Wikipedia:Canvassing says must be avoided. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Because we are talking about a new account which registered 2 months ago and I am assuming good faith? Is it appropriate to jump straight to ANI without telling the newbie what canvassing is? Is an ANI really necessary for all this? Wouldn't a friendly reminder in his talk page solve the issue? This ANI is probably going to cause even more "acrimony" than an ill-fated RfC ever could. OceanHok (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Aren't you stealthily canvassing here as well since you mentioned "the Star Citizen project is of interest to more than just video gamers, having attracted commentary from, amongst others, the BBC and the NYT", a rather unnecessary remark that happens to be one of your arguments in the conversation between you and me in the Star Citizen talk page? OceanHok (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    While WP:ANI is intended to cover behavioural issues, it may sometimes be necessary to at least provide a context regarding what is behind them. Indeed, I'd suggest that the majority of ANI threads require exactly that. And I'm not asking anyone here to participate in the discussion. In fact it has been suggested (by you) that the proposed RfC be postponed, which I have already stated I am in agreement with. Making any supposed 'canvassing' here by me somewhat pointless. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm gonna have to agree with OceanHok in that it's pretty petty to report a good faith editor to ANI for something like this. He's simply clarifying his arguments and the current outcome of the discussion - that isn't WP:CANVASSING, it's clarifying the discussion for editors that wish to comment on it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Regarding a 'new account', the apparent level of knowledge of Wikipedia's inner workings displayed in Seadoubleyoujay's early postings might make people wonder how new to it all they were, though I'm not sure it matters much, since Seadoubleyoujay seems to know the inner workings, and ought surely to understand that making partisan postings to raise support for an argument is inappropriate. (And before anyone asks, I'm not new myself. Been editing for a decade. Edit under an IP, as Wikipedia policy permits. IP number changes whenever my ISP feels like doing so...)109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In the interest of making it easier for people addressing my initial ask of splitting the article, I summarized my points at WP:VG because two separate editors commented about the length of the discussion and you have even directly commented about the unwieldiness of the section. That post was meant as an invitation to discuss my ask with opinions of editors from this project, not force them to read through days worth of your and my arguments, parts of which have devolved into personal attacks, accusations, and non-constructive dialogue. If you wanted to add counterpoints to further balance my post, there wouldn't have been an issue with that (though the post was written to avoid beginning another long discussion and rather represent a summarization for newcomers to the SC discussion). An RfC shouldn't be affected by additional input on my initial request and justifications from WP:VG editors. — seadoubleyoujay [talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ] 17:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, you summarised your points at WP:VG. Which constitutes canvassing, since you only presented your side of the argument. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I don't know why this editor is so determined to report SeadoubleyouJay. WP:CANVASS list inappropriate and appropriate forms of canvassing. Everything SeadoubleyouJay did coincides with appropriate canvassing.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: I suggest to have this thread archived as soon as possible since IP editor hasn't followed the suggestion as stated in the WP:CANVASS policy page, which is to "politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices" or warn the new editor before bringing the issue to ANI. OceanHok (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And I'd suggest that any proposal by someone so closely involved in the debate that lead to this thread that it be archived should be ignored. And since you are yet again insisting that Seadoubleyoujay is a new editor despite their obvious early expertise in Wikipedia's inner workings, I'd also suggest that people might take that insistence with a degree of scepticism, at least until Seadoubleyoujay has been asked about the matter. 109.159.72.250 (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Even if he is not new, you are not assuming good faith and being overly aggressive by skipping the protocol and directly bringing this issue to ANI. OceanHok (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    To comment on my Wikipedia experience, for the interest of disclosure I created an account in 2014 (User:UnrealDonnie) and promptly abandoned it after a grand total of 1 actual edit. This current profile was my attempt to get back into Wikipedia and I've been trying to catch up on policy, but there is quite a bit to get through. I would've welcomed actual education on policy I may have been misunderstanding or unaware of rather than yelling about my actions and, as the IP user wrote, a "long list of Wikipedia policies [I] don't understand."[84] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadoubleyoujay (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I've 31 hour blocked the IP for disruption at WT:VG and the general tone of bad faith assumption throughout this entire thing. ANI is not a bludgeon to swing around when you don't get your way. -- ferret (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I think the block is very well suited in this case as a WP:BOOMERANG. No WP:AGF and clearly not able to read the room/antagonistic. This is clearly not a serious case of canvassing, and especially not such a grievous error to push to ANI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Speedy close - the IP who started the discussion has been blocked for disruption, as addressed above. This entire "discussion" has been nothing more than him pointing fingers at people and lobbing many passive-aggressive comebacks at those who have refuted his arguments. He has also failed to provide any definitive evidence that Seadoubleyoujay has done any canvassing with a malicious intent. This entire thing has been a colossal waste of time for everybody involved, and purely exists because the nominator disagreed with the other's actions, not because he actually violated site policy. ANI is not a weapon at your disposal. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Raymondocarling

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

    User:Raymondocarling persistently adds unsourced and incorrect content to articles despite being told not to. He frequently inserts comments about volcanoes and edits pages about 20th century labor union workers. This has taken place on the articles about John L. Lewis, Samuel Gompers, George Taubman Goldie, Reuben G. Soderstrom, and Mary Harriman Rumsey.

    John L. Lewis

    • (Diff): Dubious. Unlikely the article subject became president of the Zimbabwe Pirate Society (which does not exist). Information was cited from American Strides in the Early 20th Century by Ian Brook, but neither author or book exists.
    • (Diff): Dubious. Comments about volcanoes and a cocaine addiction.
      • Warned for adding incorrect information (diff).
    • (Diff): Dubious. After being reverted, user adds comments about volcanoes and cocaine.
      • Warned for hoaxing (diff).
      • User responded on their talk page and mine (diff)
      • I responded on my talk page, telling them their information was unlikely and told them to make sure their information was verifiable by citing it (diff).

    On Samuel Gompers

    • (Diff): Dubious. Comments about cigar manufacturing and spreading article subject’s religion.
    • (Diff): Dubious. Comments about subject’s desire to have his ashes scattered into a volcano, to represent his contribution to cigar manufacturing. Note that user previously made comments about volcanoes.

    On Adolph Strasser

    • (Diff): Unsourced, but plausible. Reference on the next line was from a different editor. I reverted because these rumours are unencyclopedic, unsourced, not notable, and cannot be verified.
      • User given another warning (diff).
      • User given explanation by Chris troutman (diff)
      • User responds with a vague message of a historian somewhere who may not exist and we cannot track down (diff)
      • User given more explanation (diff)
      • User asked to stop making hoaxes (diff)

    On George Taubman Goldie

    • (Diff): Edit was reverted by Orenburg1
      • User responds, but this is not really related to content (diff).

    On Reuben G. Soderstrom

    • (Diff): Comments about volcanoes, again. User’s citation, [85], does not support content given.

    On Mary Harriman Rumsey

    • (Diff): User cites three sources, but all return error screens and thus probably do not exist. [86] [87] [88]

    I have notified User:Raymondocarling on his talk page. ~ Tridwoxi (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Blocked indef as a vandalism-only account. That's a very detailed, clear, and organized statement of the problem, Tridwoxi, but (and I really hate to say this because I don't want you to feel discouraged) you could probably have just listed them at WP:AIV as a vandalism-only account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • @Tridwoxi: Right or wrong forum, a really well documented report like yours doesn't half make life easy for anyone following up. I can imagine how long it took to prepare. Narky Blert (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Category dispute at Stephen F. Austin

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

    Stephen F. Austin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    Docktuh has added the category "White supremacists politicians" to the article Stephen F. Austin and several others in violation of WP:CATVER. Neither this article nor the others I examined make the claim that these persons were white supremacist politicians. If this is the case, it is the editor's burden to produce the RS that makes this claim and add it to the article; otherwise, policy is clear that it should not be so categorized. I informed the editor of the policy and asked for the place in the Stephen F. Austin article where the claim is made and backed up by an RS, and the other editor did not respond to the point. The other editor either does not understand the policy or shows no willingness to comply with it. Here is the thread on the talk page: User_talk:Docktuh#Category.

    No doubt that similar disputes have arisen on this subject, so I am looking for guidance. Thank you, Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    A war of extermination is raging in Texas—a war of barbarism and of despotic principles, waged by the mongrel Spanish-Indian and Negro race, against civilization and the Anglo-American race ... the Anglo-American foundation, this nucleus of republicanism, is to be broken up, and its place supplied by a population of Indians, Mexicans, and renegadoes, all mixed together, and all the natural enemies of white men and civilization ... it is deceiving yourselves and your constituents to believe that the Texas war is not a war of extermination against Anglo-Americans and their principles and interests ... How is this to be done? By exterminating the American population in Texas, and filling that country with Indians and negroes ... I have, in times past, had more kind and charitable feelings for the Mexicans in general, and have been much more faithful to them than they merited ... I am, therefore, for the independence of Texas, and I am so from the soundest principles that move the human heart—those of liberty, justice, humanity, and self-preservation.
    — Stephen F. Austin, May 4, 1836

    Sounds like a white supremacist to me. Also, he was a slaver (as pointed out at User talk:Docktuh#Categories). In any event, this is a content dispute that should be handled through dispute resolution rather than an ANI report. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I'm with Levivich - this is very premature. The editor has responded to your questions and seems willing to discuss. True, they shouldn't have undone your revert and should have started a talk page thread, but we're a long way from 3RR - continue discussing it, ideally on the article talk page so that others can chime in, and seek dispute resolution if you can't agree. GirthSummit (blether) 20:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks for your comments, and I'll take your advice about the use of this board and dispute resolution. First of all, I was not denying that Austin was a white supremacist. My claim is that the article itself does not make that assertion, and I stand by that. I should also remind Levivich that there's a Wikipedia policy favoring secondary sources over primary ones, though I must admit that their Austin quote makes a very good case for Austin being a white supremacist in 1836. The point is this judgement was made without consulting any secondary sources. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I’d expect that quote has as much to do with hyperbolic wartime propaganda than it does with simple racism, and I’d suggest that use of “white supremacist” this far before the post-Civil War southern retrenchment is anachronistic. Qwirkle (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Anachronistic? You’re not suggesting that white supremacy is a post-US Civil War thing? Our article White supremacy#History has some good information on that. Q: Who were abolitionists arguing against? A: White supremacists. Q: What do you call a white person who owns a black person? A: A white supremacist. (You kind of have to be, in order to believe that it’s OK for white people to own black people.) But yes, a secondary source should be provided in preference to a primary source, and these things should be worked out on the article talk page. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Indian Politics

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
    (non-admin closure) Indeffed by El_C. creffett (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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


    Hello, can an administrator review this User:Diamond Head green contribs. Seems to be POV issue, at 3rr at this point and unexplained removal of content since the account was created. Userpage shows multiple warnings. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Redacting edits

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi, could you please make the external link on this article Greg Alyn Carlson that I added as a 2019 murder in the United States unviewable, since I have been told him being shot dead was not unlawful. Thanks. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @Davidgoodheart: I'm a bit confused. If there was an edit with erroneous information that you have undone, that is good enough. Unless the edit contained defamatory or libelous information or was extremely insulting, we do not need to make it unviewable. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, thanks for letting me know this. Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Weboflight

    Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

    I just blocked Weboflight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a Scientology-promoting WP:SPA. My review of xyr edits indicates that xe is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather to buff up the encyclopaedia's reflection of Scientology and Hubbard. If others think this is unnecessarily harsh, feel free to unblock. This was a "gut feel" block as much as anything. Guy (help!) 22:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I'm thinking it may be a bit harsh. They clearly have an interest, but I'm not seeing their edits as being particularly problematic. For instance this edit is them asking for a citation for something that's a core tenet of Scientology. Doesn't strike me as an edit someone trying to promote Scientology would do. Canterbury Tail talk 22:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And this series of edits, if they were promotional or pro-Scientology I'd expect them to try and delete those sections, not make valid tidying up edits. I think they'll probably a reasonable editor, but my opinion. Canterbury Tail talk 22:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I have as much respect for JzG's gut as the next person, but I think it's led him astray here. Can anyone point to any problematic edits in the past 3 years? I see one edit that *might* have a *minor* POV tinge last October. Might. Everything else seems helpful to me. People are allowed to have interests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Yup, I think this is just a focused editor. Non-promotional, doesn't seem to be trying to whitewash or cover up anything. And now they're asking for an unblock. I honestly don't see a reason to block this editor. Your instincts to ask for another opinion I think are right here. Total respect for your edits normally, but his one I don't agree with. Canterbury Tail talk 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Floquenbeam, this is why I posted for review. I am absolutely prepared to be wrong here. It looks fishy, but I have heightened Spidey-senses about Scientology. Guy (help!) 23:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I'm going to unblock in an hour or two unless someone really objects; my instinct is to unblock right now, but I admit I'm not as familar with Scientology-based POV pushing as Guy and Grayfell, so I'll wait a little to be talked out of it. While I understand the desire to short circuit potential pro-Scientology POV pushing, I don't think we can just assume that someone making legit gnomish edits to Scientology-based articles is such a person just because past pro-Scientology POV pushers also started out making legit gnomish edits to Scientology-based articles. If such users typically shift to more problematic edits, I don't have much of a problem being more proactive with them than normal once the problematic edits start. But blocking before any problematic edits even start seems a bridge too far. I'm not saying Guy and Grayfell's intuitions are wrong, just that this seems way to early, and prone to too many false positives. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      I've unblocked them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Floquenbeam, thank you. Guy (help!) 21:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I gave Weboflight a welcome template a few months ago. While that editor has been superficially productive, they follow the same pattern as various pro-Scientology sock accounts (the one that comes to mind is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsnag12, but there are some others, also). I think meat puppetry might be plausible, also, as technically unrelated accounts seem to follow a shared guide or similar. The pattern is to make gnome edits to random articles, usually with enough specific idiosyncrasies to make it unlikely to be a coincidence, then wait a while, then expanding Scientology articles with boring minutia to drown-out critical content. Straight-up removing critical content is rare, but on balance, the goal is clearly to tip the balance in favor of Scientology. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Grayfell, that was my thought, but I trust Floq's judgment. Guy (help!) 21:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    User:Hyrdlak edit-warring with WP:SYNTH/WP:OR commentary on Alfried Krupp Institute for Advanced Study

    Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
    The article in dispute is about a institute which was "created from the holdings of the Krupp family upon the death of Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach." Krupp was a wealthy German industrialist who served three years in prison for crimes against humanity in World War 2.

    User:Hyrdrlak has edit-warring against several editors (myself, User:Objective3000, and User:DGG), insisting that a section on the institute created after his death have a section titled History and Holocaust denial, despite there being no sources to suggest that the institute is involved with or promotes Holocaust denial. The article about Krupp already details his WW2 activities and subsequent conviction for those actions; it's clear WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to accuse the institute of denialism simply by virtue of it not prominently mentioning Krupp's activities and conviction on it's website; this is a case of trying to use Wikipedia to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Attempts were made to resolve this on the article's talk page; Hyrdlak has been notified. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Thanks for the entry, and happy to be in such good company. This is a slow-motion edit-war. But, it's worse because it makes an accusation of Holocaust denial, an egregious accusation that trivializes actual Holocaust denial. (Getting tired of saying this) In addition to RGW, SYN, OR; violations include WP:AGF WP:CONSENSUS WP:EW WP:IDHT, WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE -- that is, a general inability to discuss. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Resumption of sockpuppeteer activity

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

    Having noticed the resumption of activity by an indeffed sockpuppeteer, by IP User:92.13.79.121, I lodged an investigation case, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cassandrathesceptic, but was disappointed to see that it is to be closed, per "IP edits too old". I'm most grateful to @JzG: for blocking the new activity. He has requested that I highlight it here for further review.

    I'll point out the two most glaring examples, each being a post by the recent IP which effectively paraphrases an old post, raising the very same points and quoting the same passage from each article in question, verbatim: cf this with this,and this with the initial post here.

    Would you agree? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The investigation has since been archived: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cassandrathesceptic/Archive. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    2607:fb90::/32 unblocked

    Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Just saw that this range got globally unblocked by Martin Urbanec. I'm gonna be worried if there's a lot more activity by other vandals/LTAs. Please block this dude, almost more than 50% of their contributions were undone because of vandalism. I just saw that some blocks were already put in place. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    That's a huge T-Mobile data network range. We need to have good cause in order to even consider such an action (and even if there was, applying blocks onto smaller ranges first would be the recommended action)... especially given the fact that the range was unblocked due to participation in an edit-a-thon... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I think that global block was also weird, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I also saw that this topic's been Googled by many, too. 2607:FB90:5E94:B1BD:D855:70C:5FE1:F35 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    User:GSS is rolling back my article for meenakari even though the original link goes back to Kundan with no information on meenakari. I believe he has ulterior motives for doing so. Please have a look at the situation and take action if necessary. Link for article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meenakari. I am sure he has put a bot to do the rollback. Thank you. (Interesting009 (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC))Reply

    @Interesting009: You are hijacking a redirect without making a draft. You have been asked twice to stop this. Please use AfC. Also, please stop casting asperations. NonsensicalSystem(err0r?)(.log) 09:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    misuse of Draft space

    Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion
    Seems like more heat than light at this point. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    When an editor believes an article to be underreferenced or otherwise in need of improvement, the proper course of action is to discuss on talk, possibly using cleanup templates. Perhaps even using PROD or AfD.

    What User:Citrivescence did instead was to move the article Raegan Revord into draft space Draft:Raegan Revord with zero prior warning or discussion.

    I asked them [89] twice [90] to undo their action, and instead detail their grievances on the talk page first. Judging an article unfit for publication (by moving it to draft) should not be done unilaterally (unless the case is obvious and uncontested).

    Please inform Citrivescence of proper procedure, so that other users aren't subject to the unwelcome surprise inflicted on me. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    CapnZapp I'm not sure what the issue is here. By moving it to Draft space instead of nominating it for deletion, they gave you the chance to improve it as an alternative to deletion. They also invited you to move the page back but warned you that it was possible it could be deleted. If you are willing to take that chance, then move it back. So what's the problem again? 331dot (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) @CapnZapp: Didn’t Citrivescence tell you that you could move it back if you wanted to, twice? If a WP:BOLD action is contested, the editor who made that action doesn’t have to self-revert. — MarkH21talk 10:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    According to WP:DRAFT#Requirements for page movers, "If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD." In this case the editor who made the action should self-revert. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    CapnZapp Just chiming in to agree with 331dot. Draftification is a standard outcome of the New Page Patrol process in certain circumstances - see the flowchart at WP:NPP for more. It is correctly done unilaterally if the conditions described in that flowchart are met. I'd suggest just improving the sourcing and resubmitting it. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    (edit conflict) Unilaterally moving an article into Draft space sends a clear message the article isn't ready for publication. Such a move needs to be consensual and discussed. It comes across as a slap across the face to an editor with experience. And it cannot be undone (you need to move it back). Telling an experienced editor his articles are trash is NOT acceptable, and putting the onus on the editor to move it back is NOT acceptable. Why would it be okay to move an article out of Wikipedia entirely with no prior discussion, when making even the slightest change can be easily reverted and then subject to intense scrutiny? Obviously a move to Draft space needs to be discussed first. At the very least giving a heads up ("gonna move article in 7 days") is the obvious courtesy. We have talk pages and cleanup templates (and AfDs etc) for a reason - using Draft space this way completely bypasses all our procedures! CapnZapp (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    CapnZapp, I agree that it's not nice to have this happen to you, but you are mistaken if you think that it isn't standard practice - this is a possible outcome of an established, consensus-driven review procedure. Again, please familiarise yourself with the flowchart at WP:NPP. If you disagree with the reviewer's assessment, you can move it back into article space - another editor will review it and make a fresh assessment. Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Note: I have moved back the article and asked the user to detail his misgivings with its quality on its talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Moving it back is undoing it. You were invited to do this. You are also free to discuss any move after it has occurred. I don't see where what you wrote was described as "trash". You were politely informed on your user talk page that the reviewer felt that what you wrote did not meet guidelines. The reviewer followed proper procedure for new page reviews, and there is no issue here that requires action. 331dot (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    You were also already informed as to the issues the reviewer saw. 331dot (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    "cannot be undone (you need to move it back)" - that's a very weird definition of undone. Moving it back is undoing the move by most common definitions. There are plenty of times you cannot use the undo button to undo an edit, e.g. intervening edits such as an auto-signing, but it is still counts as undoing. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    (ec)Are all repliers looking at the same page? I have no problem moving pages to draft space, independent of who the creator is and whether they are experienced or not; and I don't normally use the NPP flow chart. But This article? Not only is it not a new page, it was more than 4 months old, had 12 sources, including seemingly good ones like the Holllywood reporter, CBS, ... This page should, if necessary, be tagged for problems, or nominated for deletion if the subject isn't notable. But moving it to draft is out of line, and not supported by the NPP flowchart at all, as this article clearly follows the left side of that chart all the way down. The reviewer did not "follow proper procedure for new page reviews" here, and should have nominated the article for deletion instead if they felt that the subject was not notable (which was their reason for draftifying it). Draft is for poor articles with potential, not for decent articles about a non notable subject. Fram (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The author moved the page back, as they were invited to do by the reviewer. There is nothing further that needs to be discussed here, if the reviewer was completely wrong in their judgment of the article, they can be told directly on their user talk page. 331dot (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    A user can actually draftify an article that they believe does not meet WP:GNG or a subject-specific guideline, if the article contains useful prose, and nobility is borderline or they suspect that some information not available to the reviewer is likely to proof notability. At least, according to the flowchart that is. I'm not sure if the article in question fails to meet GNG (I haven't reviewed it). --MrClog (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you User:Fram - this is exactly the message I hoped ANI would send.    Thank you very much! CapnZapp (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Fram, it's a new page in the sense that it hasn't been reviewed - the backlog is, unfortunately, massive, I'd guess that the reviewer was working on the tail-end of the queue. I'm not aware of any agreed cut-off date after which reviewers should mark articles as reviewed without going through the normal steps. As for whether the reviewer was correct in how they assessed the article, I haven't assessed it myself - I was addressing the OP's assertion that the draftification was somehow bypassing our procedures. GirthSummit (blether) 10:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This isn't about skipping the procedure (marking them as reviewed without reviewing them). This is about editors not anticipating their articles being yanked out of article space after months. A patroller that decides to draftify an article that an editor can think of as perfectly acceptable, and that decides to do so after several months, should play nice by first informing the editor(s) of this fact. Instead of treating the article as freshly created by a newbie editor. CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I didn't look at the article. There was no need. My sole issue was the completely dumb comment "it cannot be undone" when the editor then went on to, or had already, undone it. If editors want people to take their complaints seriously, it helps a great deal if they don't say stuff which makes others think there's no reason to take them seriously. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I suggest we close the discussion. If the reviewer would like to have the article draftified anyway, (s)he can start an AfD procedure. If not, (s)he may review the page and, if appropriate, tag it, and otherwise (s)he can leave it up to a different reviewer. The decision to draftify may or may not have been wrong. I will notify the NPP coordinator - Barkeep49 (ping!) - about this discussion, who may chose to review the patroller's decision. Best, MrClog (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    My personal observation: anyone making a comment here without even looking at the page and the actions of editors involved should feel silly about themselves. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    CapnZapp, my personal observation - this page is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, not single instances of another editor reviewing your work and coming to a conclusion you disagreed with. I'm not going to tell you how you should feel about yourself, but I will say that reviewing the article wouldn't have affected my opinion that there is no issue of conduct to examine here. GirthSummit (blether) 14:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Note to involved editors

    An AfD procedure has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord. Best. MrClog (talk) 00:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    My article on Meenakari

    Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

    Originally the link meenakari linked to Kundan which had nothing about meenakari. I had added an entire article on meenakari which GSS reversed to linking to Kundan. I had also included my own images which I uploaded to wiki commons. Then GSS put a copyright notice after deleting my content and putting the link Kundan at the bottom. I had never included images from the site he has included in his copyright statement. Then I was told to submit an article instead of editing that one which I have under the title: Mīnākārī. But I am of firm belief that GSS has ulterior motives. I request an administrator to investigate please and rectify the situation. Thank you. (Interesting009 (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)) :@NonsensicalSystem:Reply

    @Kleuske:
    I think GSS made a mistake in tagging. Their concerns seem to relate to the redirect target Kundan not the Meenakari article. This also means if there is a copyvio you are not responsible. I'm not sure if there is a copyvio anyway, I strongly suspect it may be a backwards copyvio e.g. [91] vs [92] and [93] vs [94] ("Uploaded January 2nd, 2015") Nil Einne (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Exactly, ECD acts crazy sometimes and in this case, instead of checking Meenakari it went to check Kundan. I have reverted my request to delete the revision. Thanks for pointing it out. GSS 💬 11:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Kleuske: Thanks for the reply. But there are a lot that have been deleted on the meenakari page before as well. Anyway, why was my addition deleted without having a look through it? The Meenakari article links to Kundan whereas I wrote a whole new article. So why delete my additions and leave an empty page that refers to Kundan that does not have any information on Meenakari. I submitted a whole new topic for consideration in the draft submissions but I should not have had to since the Meenakari article was empty. Why not revert my changes back? Could you help please and if necessary revert back to my changes. I spent a long time writing and referencing that artilce and I see no point in continuing to edit on wikipedia if it is going to be like this. Does GSS prefer an empty page that links back to Kundan rather than an entire article describing Meenakari? I would like to know exactly how it works on wikipedia to reassess whether I want to continue because as I see it from this experience it seems that people are using wikipedia not to propagate knowledge but a specific idea of their own. GSS has literally decided for anyone referring to wikipedia that they should be going to Kundan for Meenakari! (Interesting009 (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    Can anybody please explain how I got involved in this? I did not reply to anybody in this affair. Am I missing the obvious, here? Kleuske (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Kleuske: Sorry, I was looking for an admin, I thought you were an admin so I wanted to get your help. My mistake. Apologies.(Interesting009 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    Is there any admins that could help?(Interesting009 (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC))Reply
    (Non-administrator comment) You came to the right place. This noticeboard is usually swarming with admins. However, judging from the above, there’s nothing actionable, here. Kleuske (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Edit of others' comment

    Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

    User:CaradhrasAiguo edited another user's comment on a talk page in bad faith. The user has a history of doing so. [95] Please block this user. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Ythlev, have you attempted to discuss this with the user? creffett (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In the previous case, I have informed the user that it is inappropriate. The user continues such behaviour. Ythlev (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Your only contribution on my talk page was the notice of this thread. Eight unique users have since edited the pandemic page, at least two of them admins; none of them apparently view that I had inappropriately re-factored the IP's comments. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You have not only caused the community to engage in massive threads (wasting the community's time) two occasions with your disruption, on the first you even socked your way out of scrutiny (see remarks added by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold at 01:47 UTC 31 Jan 2019, as that revision is hidden). CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    CaradhrasAiguo Why hadn't someone requested a Check User to check if Ythlev was socking or not back then? I do not think we would be talking about this issue right now if someone had. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • There seems to be a history between these two users here that I'm not going to research or comment on. But in this specific instance, CaradhrasAiguo was reverting a bigoted fool (whom I have now blocked for a month). They were the original source for the "Unfortunate that it is not 30,000 in the favelas" section title I just removed, and the section CA removed was the IP babbling about how several groups who aren't white are dirty and at fault. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Is that something any user is allowed to do or only administrators? How is it determined if one is a bigoted fool? Ythlev (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You use your common sense, Ythlev. And, no, every editor is allowed —nay, encouraged— to remove anything of the sort. El_C 16:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Alright then. I withdraw. Ythlev (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Limiting people ability to edit COVID19 content when they add "falsehoods"

    Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
    Sylwia Ufnalska topic banned and blocked. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    We need help. I think partial blocks would be fine. For example this edit:

    By User:Sylwia Ufnalska

    In my opinion deserves a partial block from editing COVID19 content for 3 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    They were already warned to use proper sourcing by the way. Plus we will need more eyes on these articles. Work is going to be picking up for me soon and I may be to busy for a few months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    That seems a bit extreme. Have you tried discussing this with the editor on their talk page or the article talk page? - MrX 🖋 17:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Agree with Doc James. I'm sorry but this is a global crisis right now and we definitely don't need people peddling quackery and medical or scientific falsehoods. Intent might be good but considering how widely read Wikipedia is, there is a duty here to make sure that we're not propagating misinformation. Overall, I think the ability to edit any articles from a medical aspect relating to COVID19 should be heavily restricted to prevent exactly this. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      PS: they're already blocked indefinitely on commons for spreading disinformation on this exact subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • user:MrX I am not asking for a full block. I am asking for an block of all things COVID19 related. These articles are getting more than a million views per day and this is going to increase soon from what I understand. Our reputation is on the line. They were already asked to use proper source and they have declined. These articles may reach a point were they need to be treated like the main page of Wikipedia... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • I understand your reservations, but Urica dioica agglutinin truly inhibited SARS coronavirus replication in a laboratory study, so it's worth testing in a simple form (like commercially sold nettle tea bags, very cheap), especially that it's very rich in vitamins and minerals, also vital for immunity. (That's why people for ages have added it to soups it in early spring). The poster is evidence-based. Italians aggravaated the situation by preventing fever with let me know how I can correct the poster|NSAIDs]], while fever is our natural defense mechanism, fighting off the virus. If you don't believe me, then ask physicians. Also paracetamol should be promoted, as it;s the only NSAID that has only minor anti-inflammatory activity, but still treats pain and lowers body temperature. As for physical activity (like gardening in a lawn under your blosk of flats or waling to a park/forest nearby), it helps in fighting pessimism and is crucial for immunnity. Please let me know how I can correct the poster, so that it could be published hereSylwia Ufnalska (talk) 17:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You were provided a link to WP:MEDRS. You need to follow the advise there which requires high quality review articles.
    The facebook pictures were gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • It's based on available scientific evidence. SARS virus is very dangerous, so it's completely unprofitable to study effects of common herbs on its proliferation. That's why there are no high quality review articles about it. We should start clinical trials now, as Urtica dioica is very likely to save many lives. Since Thursday (when I discovered the article), I've done my best to promote antiviral properties via social media, quite effecively. Anyway, Polish people commonly use various herbal teas, so it's much easier to persuade them then the Westerners, who are very skeptical about medicinal herbs. If you don't believe me, look at the graphs showing the spread of the disease in Poland. It's much slower here, particularly in my region, although the first serious Polish case was recorded very close to me (near Poznan in the mid-west]]. Please discuss my suggestions with epidemiologists, if you can.Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • As I said at WP:AN, admins should simply indef any account (or give a long block to any IP) inserting pseudo-scientific bullshit into these articles. No discussion, no arguments. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BLP violations by IP User:107.77.224.112

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
      Done EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    With three edits today, IP User:107.77.224.112 has persistently added defamatory content to Tilman Fertitta BLP. Please topic ban this disruptive IP. NedFausa (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Blocked and revdel applied. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You might want to go back a couple of days in the history; it appears that objectionable material remains in the article. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Julietdeltalima: Done and semi-protected for 2 days. Email me if there are any diffs I missed. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ymblanter offends my feelings

    Latest comment: 4 years ago28 comments17 people in discussion

    Yesterday there was an unpleasant incident (primarily for me) with Ymblanter user. This user misinforms people by adding false data to articles. After I was banned from editing articles, I decided to write this in the "talk" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Atyrau_Region) . In response, this user left a link to "I can not hear you" page (It depicts a person with a hearing impairment.) I don’t know how he realized that I was really deaf in real life (yes, this is very funny in his opinion), but nevertheless, he did it. He decided to make fun of this defect, and decided to humiliate me with his statement. I understand that this could be a coincidence, but in any case, he did it, he insulted my feelings. And I perfectly understand what this page is, but nevertheless, I think it’s on Wikipedia forbidden to insult users with any defect even using such subtle humor. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to ban me, but for some reason did not do it, respectively, they were baseless (you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JackAtkinson22#Kazakh_names ) I want him to at least receive a warning and stop humiliating other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    @JackAtkinson22: - (1) you failed to notify Ymblanter about this ANI posting and (2) Ymblanter's linking to WP:IDHT is not offensive. Pinging Materialscientist as they have comments on Ymblanter's talk page about this matter. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @EvergreenFir: Materialscientist has turned off notifications, and "therefore can't see pings, sorry"... ——SN54129 12:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • There may be some merit to JackAtkinson22's content-related point, but the way to find out whether that is true or not is to calmly and politely discuss the matter on the article talk page, referencing reliable sources. The "calmly and politely" part is very important; you can't be rude on the talk page, but expect other editors to be sweet to you in response. Both of you, reboot your interactions, start from scratch, discuss the merits and only the merits, and respect the possibility that the other person is correct. It is not possible that the link to WP:IDHT was intended to mock your hearing impairment, Jack, and honestly, you know that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      Floquenbeam But after all, I was always as polite as possible (in contrast to him, he immediately started with the threats of a ban), I even apologized to him for having spoken incorrectly about him. In response, he subtle humor hints at my defect, this is not funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      That is demonstrably false. You called him a vandal multiple times. You reported him to AIV. Your talk page message is dripping with sarcasm and a refusal to discuss. How can that possibly be "as polite as possible"? Please tell me that it is possible for you to be more polite than that. Also, as I type this response, I realize that you are in need of a ProTip: when you are pretending to be deaf, don't call it a defect. People who are actually deaf do not think about it that way, nor do they assume everyone else knows that automatically. Also, just don't pretend to be deaf in the first place, that kind of gamesmanship is insulting. The trolling will stop right this very second or you will be blocked indef. Saying something like "no, I am actually really deaf and not just pretending in order to get Ymblanter in trouble" will count as trolling. Hopefully this is very clear. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Ymblanter is a good egg, how could he have possibly known you were deaf??♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

        . ―cobaltcigs 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Being deaf doesn't mean blindness. It's obvious JackAtkinson22 can read clearly. Besides, typing in the discussion doesn't require hearing. And based on the responses of editors on this discussion, I get the feeling JackAtkinson22 is more like WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Like NOTHERE? His contribution history is crystal clear. We've got a nationalistic POV pusher. Other than make drama at the drama boards, his only edits have been to add and push his considerably idiosyncratic viewpoint of where in the world language exists. Clearly IDHT/STICK/NOTHERE. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I agree OP is clearly NOTHERE and trolling. That said, WP:IDHT does, in fact, use a physical disability (hearing impairment), together with a picture of someone using a hearing aid, as a metaphor for stubbornness. Not exactly politically correct, but then no one really complains. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I believe an indef block will solve the problem. Jerm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    @Levivich: The image is of Louise Elisabeth de Meuron, and judging by our article on her she was known for her eccentric behaviour and used the device in question "so that [she] only hear[d] what [she] want[ed] to hear" -- we don't imply she was a member of the deaf community or that she otherwise suffered hearing loss, although that may be the case. Moreover, despite the apparent age of the photo (deliberately made to appear much older than it is?), she was born in 1882 and looks to be at least in her seventies when the photo was taken, when such ear trumpets had long since fallen out of favour as hearing aids. The intent, therefore, is obviously to convey the idea of someone deliberately and stubbornly refusing to listen, not to make fun of people with disabilities or members of marginalized linguistic communities. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Agree with Levivich—"Not exactly politically correct". It is not a good idea. It is offensive to a segment of the society. Fortunately someone has changed it. Bus stop (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Proposal: NOTHERE

    Per the above discussion, I propose to block JackAtkinson22 (talk · contribs) indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. --MrClog (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    • Oppose This is a new user - February 2020 start date. unfair to call the editor WP:NOTTHERE. It is difficult to find your way around the written and unwritten rules on WP. the editor came here wrongly thinking that the community would have sympathy for a new user. I propose we handle this another way which does not result in sanction for someone who just started on WP. WP:BITE applies. WP:COMPETENCY cannot be gained in 30 days. Lightburst (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      New editor? JackAtkinson22 [97] "been registered here for a long time" don't you know? :-P Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @Lightburst: The user's contributions show that he has been here with the sole purpose of POV pushing. When called out on this, he starts attacking Ymblanter. Even though he has been told at WP:ANI#JackAtkinson22 keeps calling me a vandal that his behaviour is wrong, he continues it and even doubles down with this trolling here. Of course, this block is not infinite. If he shows that he is genuinely understanding of the issues we have with his editing behaviour, he could file an unblock request and subsequently get unblocked. But based on his editing, essentially all of his edits indicate he is WP:NOTHERE. MrClog (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • LightburstLol, name at least one good reason for my ban. What is above is an empty discussion, in which all moderators stand on one side, and literally "agree" with each other. Understand that nobody needs your "respect." You just need to follow the rules. I don’t understand why you constantly repeat about the age of my account, is this the most important thing? New users can not write complaints? I do not troll anyone and do not break the rules, I wrote my complaint where it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @JackAtkinson22: Lightburst opposed blocking you. Anyways, you say that the above discussion is empty. My question then is, do you intend to change your behaviour based on the advice that has been given to you here? Or do you plan to continue your current behaviour? --MrClog (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
      @MrClog:In such an unfair and inadequate community structure, it makes no sense to try to challenge something. I do not refuse my words. I'd rather delete my account myself, and I will no longer participate in this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackAtkinson22 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support per JackAtkinson22, who would rather delete their account, and whose continued trolling after Floquenbeam's substantial warning above indicates that, deaf or no, there are none so blind as those that will not see. ——SN54129 13:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Support They are here on a personal mission that conflicts with our mission and the Wikipedia community doesn't have time for their disruptive behavior. These boards are busy enough and the gnomes are overworked.Slywriter (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Just block - now! I don't see anything controversial. Deb (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Wilkn's behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement

    Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Can we get some admins here to review Wilkn (talk · contribs)'s behavior at Talk:Men's rights movement#"A Review of Parental Alienation, DSM-5 and ICD-11 by William Bernet"? Focusing on my sex/gender, Wilkn has, for example, quoted the following excerpt from the Bible: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." He recently stated in regard to me, "It is clear that that woman does not have the most basic civility that any human should have to be called a human let alone AGF or NPA." And he somehow wonders why the men's rights movement has the negative reputation it has and why my user page/talk page currently states some of what it states? Sighs. He has also repeatedly attacked another editor at the talk page; he believes this editor to be a biased admin. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Why do we always take so long to get rid of these disruptive editors? Indefinitely blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Just going to point out that 1 Timothy is a forgery that was included in the New Testament because of a widespread belief that it was written by the apostle Paul (no book got into the NT unless someone was saying it was written by one of Jesus's apostles or someone close to them)[98] despite the fact that it was probably written close to a century after Paul's death.[99]
    Also, the diff of the "Flyer22 is subhuman" comment quoted above is here. I'm not expressing skepticism that he said it or that (like a number of quotes given in a different thread further up this page) it doesn't look as bad in context -- I'm saying that he definitely did say it, it is as bad as it looks, and he should probably be blocked at least until he apologizes for it (and probably longer if he's made similar remarks elsewhere).
    Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I've stricken my second paragraph as redundant now that NinjaRobotPirate has blocked. I have a number of opinions regarding the answer to his question. However, a more serious issue is actually the editors who hold similar (or worse) views and engage in behaviour that is equally disruptive to the project, but evade blocks for months or even years because they haven't ever done anything as obviously blockworthy as saying "User X is less than human". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Oh, I see now that Wilkn was editing as early as 2009, so it could theoretically be said that he "evaded a block" for more than a decade. Egg on my face, I guess. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Hoax/fraud attempt

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    I'd like other editors to have a look at the editing patterns of KnowledgeIndiaOnline}. There appears to be a number of attempts to commit fraud;

    --Soman (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Looks like a sock puppet of Vyadav7636 (talk · contribs) to me. Blocked indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Persistent addition of plagiarized content at Ormakalude bhramanapadham

    Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

    Relentless, even after Diannaa mopped up a few hours ago. Please block and rev/delete. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

      Already done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    My thanks to you and Widr. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    This [100] says it all. Facepalm. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Way not to get unblocked anytime soon. :) No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I like the stolen apple metaphor. Cleaner than 'stolen intellectual property.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

    Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

    No. No, he hasn't.

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

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

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

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

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

    All I see here is, "Hello, I have a massive battleground mentality and need to be topic banned since I can't interact with people who have opposing viewpoints." (just to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about Herostratus) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    From what I have seen, the majority of TTN's deletion requests have been successful and a recent related ANI request by Eagles247 seemed to demonstrate this prove this. I've had a quick look at his more recent deletion requests and, with a few exceptions, also seem to have been mostly supported by the community. So, I'm struggling to see what the specific complaint is here. Do you consider the error rate to be too high? Even if you consider in the case of Timber Wolf the behaviour was egregious, it doesn't follow that they need to be removed from the entire area, unless it's shown to be a recurring trend. Is the frequency overwhelming the community? There were some mentions of this in the project discussion you listed, but this didn't appear to be the universal perception. Is TTN being uncivil? It's worth being clear, because my impression at the moment is that he's starting deletion discussions that after community review mostly result in non-encyclopedic articles being removed from Wikipedia, which is a good thing. You need to make a case that they're being being disruptive, because articles being appropriately deleted isn't in itself destructive. Scribolt (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, because AfD is not a good venue for discussing long-term patterns of destructive behavior. This page is. And also, I mean this page is supposed to bring alleged behavior problems to the attention of the admin corps. It's not the "get insulted by random editors" page. So, I mean you're not being helpful. (Nobody who's responded yet has been an administrator, so let's wait and see what some admins have to say.)
    So let me point out that this editor was prohibited by ArbCom from doing exactly this. It is true that the prohibition was for only six months. I assume it was six months rather than permanent because the ArbCom doesn't want to be excessively harsh, and figures that someone can learn and move on without having a lifetime cloud over their head. I don't think that ArbCom's reasoning was "Well, this is unacceptable behavior, but after six months he's welcome to start doing it again." Do you?
    Right, I get that the editor is successful in suborning deletion of objectively good articles. This makes the matter more serious, not less, though. Why he is successful I don't know, and part of it is aboveboard (I get that a lot of people don't like comics and television), but on the other hand there are some odd elements here. It's highly unusual for good articles that meet the WP:GNG and are otherwise above-average articles to be deleted, and for my part I'm not convinced that simple snobbery is all that is play here, considering that editor was specifically admonished to avoid underhanded methods such as recruiting other editors to be catspaws.
    It's really a simple question: the editor was prohibited by ArbCom -- but only for six months -- from nominating articles like this for AfD, or converting them to redirects, and similar behavior. After the six months was up he continued to do it, and in fact put it into overdrive at times. Is it the considered opinion of the admin corps that this is how its supposed to work, that following temporary bans a person is permitted to go back to the disruptive behavior? If it is, we can close this and move on, but... if that's to be the general policy going forward, that's... kind of a big deal. Herostratus (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    There are two issues are, first that per the original FAIT principle, TTN is not supposed to be making these Afds at too fast a rate to overwhelm the wikiproject, and compared to the rate from the random case years ago this rate is tame. Second is it has been well known that many of the comic pages violate notability and NOT:PLOT principles. They were made before these concepts were in place and have needed to be dealt with for years. The project wasn't doing it themselves. TTN is helping in that regard. --Masem (t) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Herostratus, That's a nice example of begging the question. When someone nominates cruft for deletion and there's consensus to delete, they are not degrading the project, they are improving it. Consider working with TTN and coming up with a framework to cover these subjects without falling foul of WP:NOTDIR. In many cases a list article for minor characters can work. Guy (help!) 09:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

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

    179.50.174.57 and persistent BLPCRIME violations

    Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    WP:BLPCRIME reads A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. 179.50.174.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was specifically informed of this by me here and requested not to change figures on articles based on speculation or other things that are not actual convictions.

    Since that warning they have violated this numerous times.

    • [101] Changes Robert Pickton from 6 to 49 confirmed victims. The second paragraph of the lede says During the trial's first day of jury evidence, the Crown stated that Pickton had confessed to 49 murders to an undercover agent from the Office of Inspector General, who was posing as a cellmate, but it says in the first paragraph was convicted in 2007 of the second-degree murders of six women. So it's completely irrelevant how many people the Crown claim he killed during the trial, he was convicted of 6 murders not 49.
    • [102] Changes Joseph E. Duncan III from 5 to 7 confirmed victims. The article says he's only been convicted of 5 murders.
    • [103] Changes Joel Rifkin from 9 to 17 convictions. This is completely incorrect, he's been convicted of 9 and is suspected of a further 8 to make a total of 17.
    • [104] Changes Lowell Amos from 1 to 4 confirmed victims, when he's only been convicted of 1 murder. They have made this change before, see 03:16, 8 March 2020 which prompted my warning and message. Based on the Costa Rican IP it's safe to assume they are also this editor from 20:45, 8 January 2020
    • [105] Changes Niels Högel from 85 to 106 confirmed victims. While an investigation may have said he was responsible for 106, he was only convicted of 85.


    Other problematic edits.

    • [106] Changes John Floyd Thomas Jr. to claim "suspect to be 100 or 200", there's nothing in the article about this, so it's a completely unsourced claim that someone is suspected of 100-200 murders
    • At David Parker Ray various Costa Rican IPs who are obviously the same editor have been involved in a lengthy edit war over the infobox. As he isn't living or recently deceased BLPCRIME doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean they get to constantly introduce factual errors into the article. He was never convicted of murder, yet despite this we have the following.
    • They have received multiple talk page messages about this article here by a very frustrated @YatesTucker00090:. They refuse to communicate with anyone about their edits.

    Although they have used various IPs the current one has been used since late January, so perhaps a lengthy block, if deemed appropriate, could be applied please? Rising5554 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Multiple IBAN violations by U1Quattro

    Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

    U1Quattro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    User U1Quattro violated IBAN multipe times in the past and is still violating the community imposed restrictions. Here are some diffs to prove my point:
    Special:Diff/914766061 (my contribution) 07:55, 9 September 2019
    Special:Diff/914981744 14:28, 10 September 2019
    This one may be seen as a genuine improvement
    Special:Diff/921006053 (my contribution) 08:03, 13 October 2019
    Special:Diff/927267954 10:38, 21 November 2019
    But this is no improvement at all. It was the most recent contribution and clearly summarised as "100,00th" and I see no excuse for it.
    Special:Diff/925947216 (my contribution) 09:00, 13 November 2019
    Special:Diff/927766491 17:21, 24 November 2019
    And persistently after I restored my contribution to it’s original form.
    Special:Diff/927931242 18:28, 25 November 2019

    Special:Diff/605363095 (my contribution)
    Special:Diff/928008006
    Special:Diff/605617467 (my contribution)
    Special:Diff/928003674
    Special:Diff/676656268 (my contribution)
    Special:Diff/928039858 (user removed my content as unsourced, then added a source that actually verified my content. Quote from the source: "Maserati called the second upgrade and redesign their nuovolook." Either it was done on purpose or He didn't read the source at all.)

    The Maserati MC20 article up to this point was 100% written by me, so You'd think the banned-from-interaction-user would not mess about with it? The additions to the article are allowed and welcomed of course but not removal of text by other means. No diffs from my part are needed as up to 10:30, 7 March 2020 all contibutions were from the same user. If needed I'll provide them.
    Special:Diff/946019506
    Special:Diff/946020054
    Special:Diff/946020917

    And this is an outright and very clear IBAN violation by revertion of my contribution of adding a picture to the article. For no apparent reason other than misundestanding of the rules the user thinks that adding content is an IBAN violation!?
    Special:Diff/945036496 (my contribution of adding a picture)
    Special:Diff/946138335
    Some of the issues I tried to discuss with an administrator: User talk:GoldenRing/Archive 8#IBAN query, but there was no reply. I have provided 11 (eleven) instances of IBAN violation by U!Quattro since the last time. YBSOne (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    From Wikipedia: Banning policy:
    Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:
    -edit each other's user and user talk pages;
    -reply to each other in discussions;
    -make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;
    -undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;
    -use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits.
    Seeing that, I did not violate the IBAN. Nothing, absolutely nothing is written in the interaction ban section about modifying content added by another user. However, this user violated the IBAN today in which he undid the edits I made on the Maserati MC20 page. GoldenRing didn't respond to him because he basically made a fool out of himself by misinterpreting the IBAN policy. A quick glance at WP:OWN indicates that this user is in violation of this policy and is basically saying "I own this content, don't touch it." U1 quattro TALK 10:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means read this again, slowly. You cannot reword my contributions because it is equal to deleting some of the text added, and by comunity rules and restrictions You are not allowed to do so, neither am I. Calling me a fool is a personal attack. This diff is a proof that I do not own any article: Special:Diff/946021106, this contribution was not reverted beause I cannot revert is under IBAN and I do not want to revert it as I do not own this article and any user is free to add to it and any user exept You is free to change my contributions. YBSOne (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "Modfying" is not in the same nature as "reverting" or even "undoing". No reverts were carried out by me. This user is interpreting the policy in the wrong way. Statements like You are not allowed to interact with my contributions in any way are a proof of violation of WP:OWN. No restriction is imposed in case of an IBAN by the community that a user is not allowed to modify the content added by a user wuth which an IBAn restriction is imposed.U1 quattro TALK 10:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Administration told You muliple times in the past, do not act surprised. Special:Diff/905956531 You said You would stick to the community restrictions and here we are again. YBSOne (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    "You are not allowed to interact with my contributions in any way" Let me reword it as it was intended: "You are not allowed by community restrictions to interact with my contributions in any way and so am I". I do not own any article on Wikipedia. YBSOne (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    In that case, I was involved in an edit revert. I'm pretty confident that in this case, this user is violated the IBAN first on the Maserati MC20 page. It was decided last time that the first one to break the IBAN would be blocked indefinitely by GoldenRing.U1 quattro TALK 10:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Fine, here You go: Special:Diff/928008006 and Special:Diff/928003674, clear enough? Time stamps preceding? Do not have to use the revert function to violate IBAN. Any text added by me and removed by any means by a banned user is an interaction and a violation of an interaction ban. No more comments from my part. YBSOne (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    No Wikipedia policy or rule states anything about removal. A revert would have counted if I restored the revision to this, which I did not. I have copied the exact rules from the banning policy.U1 quattro TALK 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    The iban policy should be read in whole not just in part. It says

    A one-way interaction ban forbids one user from interacting with another user. A two-way interaction ban forbids both users from interacting with each other. Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other.

    Editors editing the same page is always a tricky area. I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to work out who wrote something 4 years ago. (Of course, if the editor does know for some reason who wrote it, that's more tricky.)

    However editing the same article about a day later to specifically reword something someone wrote is clearly not "avoiding each other" and editors should are expected to take care and pay attention so it doesn't happen. Doing so creates problems because it effectively means that the editor making the changes to the earlier editor's edits run the risk of violating their iban my explaining their changes. It is likely in part any explanation is addressed at the editor's who's edits they changed.

    In addition, it means that the editor who made the second edits has a sort of veto because the first editor cannot actually revert to their version and can't even discuss why they feel it was unhelpful. Even if you argue technically they can change them in some way, ultimately you're going to get into unnecessary semantic arguments about what an "undo" is. (I'm sure these happen especially when 1RR or 0RR is in play.) And all this has to happen without the editor's talking to each other, which is not desirable in general.

    I'm not aware of the history of the iban policy. But I suspect it was worded the way it is to avoid silliness from arguments that one editor technically originated the changes 4 years ago and now maybe after many re-writes, the second editor has modified them; while giving some recognition of the problems of editors editing the same articles.

    Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Also, and this is directed equally at you both: If you believe an editor has violated their 2 way iban, do not undo their edit as an iban violation. Instead, bring it to the attention of an admin. An iban violation by someone else does not allow you to violate your iban. I think WP:BANEX is clear enough on this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Special:Contributions/GoldenRing has not edited since October. Subscribing any reason other than GoldenRing having gone inactive for them not replying to a question (in November) makes no sense. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    I just improved the Maserati MC20 page. The banning policy doesn't state anything about modifying content added by a user under IBAN. It just states not to undo any edits, which I did not. I don't know who added that content I removed on the Maserati Ghibli and Maserati Quattroporte pages respectively and neither the banning policy expects me to do that. About latest content, I have an idea about which user added it. But for some content years ago, I don't have a clue. I don't have access at all times to some tools so I can review which user added what content of an article. This user has however, highlighted diff history by using words my contribution which is a violation of WP:OWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by U1Quattro (talk • contribs) 12:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    I did not exert any ownership over Ferrari Roma page when this user began editing it ans modifying content added by me. Yet this user gets offended when I modify content on the Maserati MC20 page.U1 quattro TALK 12:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Show diff of me modifying content added by You to Ferrari Roma. Modifying means removing and replacing, not just adding, or elso this is an empty accusation and fabrication. I'm not offended I'm stating that You violated the rules. Yes I did the same. I tried to restore my original contribution so we don't end up here. Your contributions to Maserati MC20 article apart for one are marked in red under bytes added because You removed more than You added. If You removed the content from an article written in 100% by me, You removed content added by me. And this falls under undoing an edit by other means, as rules state. YBSOne (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You are gaming the system WP:GAMING by quoting random policies not related to the topic. Using the term "my contribution" to differentiate the diffs between contributing users is not owning an article on Wikipedia. YBSOne (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Nil Einne July 2019. "Not bothering to check because it is too much work is not an excuse, any more then not being aware of the speed limit justifies speeding.", "An accidental violation is still a violation (and that is assuming your claim is true)." Interactions reffered to content removal AND modifications. YBSOne (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    And earlier June 2019, "Note an IBAN means no interaction of any kind". YBSOne (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You are bending the Banning policy in your favour. Please read the policies then comment. The policies I mentioned are relevant to this topic. Ferrari Roma was created by me. Content was moved to a redirect and this user then modified the content. I didn't bicker about IBAN violation at that time. Yet when I modify content, this user labels it as IBAN violation.U1 quattro TALK 14:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    Gurbaksh Chahal and Shyam

    Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Here we go again. Shyam (talk · contribs) has interpreted this vague comment from Jimbo as it they have been given a mandate to begin blanking content that is unfavorable to the subject. After asking if they could "take this", Shyam began removing content without waiting for an answer [107], [108], [109], [110]. After I reverted these blankings and advised the editor to take it to the talk page, Shyam demanded an explanation and then reverted me while suggesting that I would be blocked if I reverted them again. This article has an extensive history of whitewashing of Chahal's domestic violence (see here for the ANI thread on the most recent incident) and I request that an admin block Shyam from editing the article until such time as they are willing to discuss their changes rather than enforcing them via edit-warring. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

    It seems, the article was not balanced about the subject based on BLP policies and overemphasised on the domestic violence incident. It's not that the domestic violence is completely removed from the page, rather has been balance based on the length of the article. The user has been biased and might have some personal grudges. Please don't consider it as personal attacks. I am expressing here my neutral point of view. Any neutral expert user can have a look over the page and I balanced the article based on Wikipedia standards. I hope this helps. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 14:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=946163988"