Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. 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

Possible Issues with Authordom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Thanks, Goldsztajn. Here I have noticed his one more biased edit. Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi was Grand Mufti of India as I had referenced from (Mufti Azam Hind, Maulana Kifayatyullah Shahjahanpuri Thumma Dehlawi (2005 ed.). Khuda Bakhsh Oriental Library.) and this. Here Authordom is regarding this as unsourced.See this edit on Kifayatullah Dehlawi. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• Authordom is probably a paid editor. This user is one of the most biased editor on Wikipedia. Authordom is spamming all over these particular topics and nominating the topics he doesn't like for deletion. Me too had an experience that the user nominated me and an unrelated editor for sockpuppet investgation, just because I made a honest edit to one of his favourite topics. Please take relevant action.--SnehaRaphael1996 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@SnehaRaphael1996 While I cannot be sure Authordom is perfect; indeed since I have placed a comment their talk page I am somewhat inclined to think not (not that I can talk); allegations such as the above need to be substantiated and as looking at your contributions you have been removing at least one AfD template [1]; your talk page seems to indicate you were sent here by Aaqib Anjum Aafī to collude to try to ban Authordom ... [2] and incuring a possibly credible claim for vandalising Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar in the process. I note Authordom seems to have been subject to harassment by IPs and some others.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The talk page post [3]:

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

is clear inappropriate canvassing by AaqibAnjum. Don’t do that again, please. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: , already taken notice of that. The advice message of Goldsztajn is still there at my talk page. I had just tried to invite her to join this discussion only to discuss issues where Authordom has been accused of being biased. Anyways, this was my err. I shall take care in future. Continuing the analysis of Authordom's bias towards a particular Islamic sect. -- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Closure-PIwA

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

Support closing w/o action. Many of the AfD nominations were good and there are no actual conduct issues with  Authordom. Though the false allegations of "vandalism", "paid editing" levied on Authordom violate WP:NPA.  Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There is a pattern of bias at AfD along with a multitude of nominations carried out with disregard to expected practice (viz. BEFORE), a refusal to respond to reasonable requests, a history of edit warring. I don't actually support closure here given the admin who requested information has not had a chance to reply. I have deliberately not called for sanctions *so far* because the point of ANI is so an uninvolved admin can assess the material presented and make a judgement. Until that point is reached, perhaps we could be patient before jumping the gun. Thanks,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I do not support closure anyway as per Goldsztajn. I have not accused Authordom of paid editing or anything such;, this comment of the concerned user may be enquired further. My invitation to that user to join this discussion, possibly does not violate any specific Wikipedia rules; agreed that it was not okay to invite Sneha via talk page. Anyways, nominating articles of notable institutions, scholars, politicians of specific group by tagging them as non-notable is clear cut bias. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment 'Closing without Action' would be very unjust here. Just like we were, Authordom's supporters should also be asked for 'informatioin' or evidence for their 'simple assertions' above about Authordom, very similar to his typical style of nominating other religious sects' old established institutions, well-known all over the Muslim world, in his clever and sneaky way on AfD as 'non-notable'. So he would be free and clear to continue doing all that? Many of us, including me, have hundreds and hundreds of editing-time-hours invested in these articles. I am asking for justice here with due process of Wikipedia policy. Thanks ---Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Can't support closing without any action. AFDs nominations which resulted delete were aftermaths of our negligence regarding his biased behavior. Above there is a list of nominations which should be reviewed. Closing without action is clear injustice.--Irshadpp (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment While I have pragmatically proposed an action due to a stall which would in my view have likely ended up in a closure anyway; I am minded of the good faith effort Goldsztajn has put in. What I will do is place the Template:RfA toolbox here which might give a better quick analysis angle: (While it is usually used at WP:RFA's it might be convenient here; AfD votes it probably particularly useful but other tools might show something also. It admins feel this is inappropriate use of of the template then by all means I apologise and by all means remove and even revdel if necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I just randomly picked one of Goldsztajn's table, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi, nominated with the reasoning "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar", state at nomination: Old revision of Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi. The article at that point was not tagged with a notability issue but was tagged with a "needs additional citations for verification" despite it being fairly well inline cited throughout and perhaps the "mkislamicworld" perhaps not being acceptable for the books. The fact most cites were Hindi and poorly embellished with details do make it easy for scrutiny on the English Wiki ... Use of translated titles, authors, language indicator, dates, publishers are all really needed for determination for Notability and rather than assisting in this matter the editors to this point are forcing scrutineers to search for the notability rather than pointing them towards it. So I am minded if this had been pre-tagged for notability and a request for cite embellishment had been in place for a while and ignored I would count that as a justifiable AfD nomination. But a WP:VAGUEWAVE "Non notable Indian Islamic scholar" nomination is not acceptable especially as proven by events the subject was judged notable. So a complaint on this nomination would have been in view justified.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: When a user is making a lot of delete nominations one would hope the success ratio would be high. In a couple of occasions of high swamps (e.g. 60+ noms over a few days) at AfD when I've done an analysis I recall about 1/3 were keeps, 1/3 were salvagable with some rescuing, and 1/3 were genuine deletes; and while Authordom hasn't done a massive swamp rate at AfD; the delete(nom) keep ratio is probably not great. There's also enough of a problem that we possibly should WP:REFUND all the delete's to draft to give them some scrutiny to check an overall picture.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The apparent possible focus bias against Deobandi and other possibly ideally requires a response from Authordom ... a TBAN may be appropriate or a warning of a TBAN might be appropriate. I think an Ds/alert (IP) was only given on 16 March 2020 however if the AfD nominations past that point an admin would be entitled to take immediate action to my understanding ... in fact Authordom might consider offering something like a "no-fault" voluntary self-ban from raising AfDs though some might not think it sufficent.Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

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

• IslamOnline tagged for primary sources since January 2015 Version at the time of Nomination
• Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah tagged for notabilty since December 2017 Version at the time of nomination
• Madrasatul Islah tagged for notabilty since December 2017 Version at the time of nomination
• Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions tagged for original research ,primary sources and additional citations for verification since February 2014 Version at the time of nomination
• Union of Catholic Asian News tagged for primary sources since February 2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_Catholic_Asian_News&diff=944986951&oldid=944946910 Version at the time of nomination]
• Muhammad Rafi Usmani tagged since May 2014 for additional citations and notabilty since January 2019 Version at the time of nomination
• Muhammad Saad Kandhlawi tagged for additional sources since April 2019
• Jamia Darul Uloom, Karachi section tagged since February 2013
• Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah tagged for sources since August 2012
• Iftikhar-ul-Hasan Kandhlawi tagged for additional citations since June 2019
• Inamul Hasan Kandhlawi tagged for notablity since January 2018
• Note voted Keep in 2 articles and delete in 5 others
• Asad Madni did have a clear claim of significance as it was mentioned that he was a member of parliament though unsourced. Version at the time of Nomination

Note added the Rajya Sabha Website and voted Keep .Based on this Authordom withdraw the AFD.

• Union of Catholic Asian News Note voted Keep.
• On the Deletions the articles were duly deleted after the going through the sources in the articles which were clearly in a poor state and many cases the WP:AFD was extended. Feel the 10 admins who closed it rightly but one feels otherwise one can go for Deletion review.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This is missing the forest for the trees. Prior tagging, for however long, does not excuse an editor from reasonably undertaking BEFORE; AfD is not clean up. Moreover, this analysis might be appropriate if all of the editor's nominations at AfD were *not* almost singularly focused on a particular Islamic sect. Finally, I simply do not accept the idea that Urdu or Bangla is a limitation to finding sources; an editor claiming that it is hard to operate in a language should not then be making judgments where use of that language is important (cf. WP:COMPETENCE). --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BEFORE Point 3 D1 "a minimum search that is expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects" and one would assume gold faith after that whether one is tagging or nominating for WP:AFD .Deobandi pages require extensive search as it is more specialised topic and with Urdu language and Bengali language skills and the mainstream media eg like the leading Bengali newspapers Prothom Alo or Anandabazar Patrika or Ei Samay Sangbadpatra do not give much coverage and a minimum search in foreign languages in this case is not sufficient .Further these were not deleted through WP:SPEEDY OR WP:PROD but after community discussion.Further the articles were nominated only after giving contributors time to develop the article.I disagree this a textbook WP:BEFORE failure.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I am minded it would not be expected nor reasonable on the English Wikipedia on a WP:BEFORE to search for foreign language sources. I am also minded while foreign language sources can count towards notability I do not expect to sift through foreign language citations that are poorly embellished: there is little real excuse for such items such as date, trans-title, author, website, and even quote not to be given rather than expecting scrutineers having to click the link to find out. However this is where WP:VAGUEWAVE nominations are an issue: demonstration these things have been considered in the nomination gives confidence, omission of them means relying on good faith. While ensuring a article is tagged that is a good pre-req before going to AfD it is still incumbent to search for references on a WP:BEFORE. An indicator this is being done will be author improving an article rather than taking it to AfD, the recovery of rotted links and marking of dead links is another indicator. The three AfD's after the issueing of the Ds/Alert(ipa) are particularly open to scrutiny as diligence should have been taken to avoid any possibility of biasing beyond that point. While I had called for this to be closed due to an apparent stall I accept there have been reasonable calls for further analysis.... On a different angle is their evidence of improvement of articles in problem area of bias ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Article nom'd by for deletion requested to WP:REFUNDed to draft for analysis

Afd Draft Notes Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Draft:Ahsan-Ul-Uloom Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri Draft:Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia Draft:Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia Draft:Darul Uloom Ahmadiyya Salafia Darussalam Islamic Academy (2nd nomination) Draft:Darussalam Islamic Academy Girls Islamic Organisation of India (2nd nomination) Draft:Girls Islamic Organisation of India Ideal Relief Wing Kerala Draft:Ideal Relief Wing Kerala Jamaati Draft:Jamaati Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi Draft:Jamiah Farooqia, Karachi Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar Draft:Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Nadwiyya Edavanna Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka (2nd nomination) Draft:Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi Draft:Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy Draft:Kanniyath Usthad Islamic Academy K. A. Siddique Hassan (2nd nomination) Draft:K. A. Siddique Hassan K.P. Sasikala Draft:K.P. Sasikala Madrasah Islamiah Draft:Madrasah Islamiah Madrasa Kashiful Huda Draft:Madrasa Kashiful Huda Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom Draft:Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom Marunadan Malayali Draft:Marunadan Malayali MI Abdul Azeez Draft:MI Abdul Azeez Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (Afd-draftied, improved, and returned to mainspace) Mohammed Eeza Draft:Mohammed Eeza Muhammad Jafar Draft:Muhammad Jafar Mujtaba Farooq (2nd nomination) Draft:Mujtaba Farooq Outspoken Kerala Draft:Outspoken Kerala Poonthran Draft:Poonthran Prakash Babu Draft:Prakash Babu Shajan Skariah Draft:Shajan Skariah SQR Ilyas Draft:SQR Ilyas Sunni Council Draft:Sunni Council Syed Bande Ali Husaini Draft:Syed Bande Ali Husaini Syed Mohammad Husaini Draft:Syed Mohammad Husaini Yusuf Islahi Draft:Yusuf Islahi Draft:Mohammad Najeeb Qasmi (Was already at draft)

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

• Please note as I read this discussion there is no dispute with even a single close of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.Further I do not see Deletion Review overturning the close as over 10 Admins have closed correctly based on the state of the article and closed based on clear consensus. If someone wants to work with a particular article they can individually make a request. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• I did not spend more than about 10 minutes assessing each item in the table above, but there were three cases (marked) which stood out immediately where a review IMO would be appropriate. If consensus is reached on incorrect information, consensus can change; especially where strong tendencies that conflate clean up with AfD are on display.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
• If you feel the closure the wrong.Please go to Deletion Review after contacting the closing admin.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

@AaqibAnjum: Best wishes with your efforts. I'm more interested in the 34 I have requested refunds for. I have reFilled that article, try to fill out the foreign language ones more fully. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark Please note that WP:REFUND is only for "... Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion, under certain speedy deletion criteria (such as maintenance deletions (G6) or rejected Articles for creation drafts (G13)), or in deletion debates with little or no participation other than the nominator. Here there was participation in most of the debates have do not think Refund is applicable here in most cases.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pharaoh of the Wizards ... You seem to have missed the follow-on bit where it says: "This means that content deleted after discussion—at articles for deletion, categories for discussion, or miscellany for deletion among other deletion processes—may in some cases be provided to you, but such controversial page deletions will not be overturned through this process". Strictly I could be refused by requiring to goto closer's first: Some might refuse, some might email, some might end up at DRV (for refund purposes): and while the amount of time effort for me will be painful the failure to go a full refund the overall admin effort if the long way round will be far more considerable. But if that is the way it has to be then that is the way it will have to be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD forums being used as weapons

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

I see you are very concerned about "winning" on Wikipedia. This is generally indicative of a battleground mentality, and I suggest that you avoid casting aspersions about your fellow voters at AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, NinjaRobotPirate, in my 7 years of editing on Wikipedia, in retaliation I have never nominated for deletion not even a single article for deletion. My editing record on Wikipedia should show it. I was trying to point out a real existing problem on Wikipedia so we can all solve it together. I would like us to stop petty bickering back and forth during this real crisis of Corona-virus pandemic with the hope that it ends soon and we all can get back to 'normal'. None of us has seen this kind of deadly serious crisis in our lifetime. It's NOT really the time to battle with each other over small stuff, when we have a real health crisis lockdown all over the world. Hope Wikipedia administration soon can come to a decision on this discussion so we can move on. By the way, this is the first time I am seeing your name on Wikipedia. I don't remember ever communicating or dealing with you before on AfD or anywhere else. So let's leave it at that. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Honestly since I hadn't dealt with you before, I didn't even check to see that you were a Wikipedia administrator before writing my above reply to you . I just now looked at your User page. Nevertheless I meant no disrespect to you in my reply. I'll also be glad to cooperate with you or any other admin. to solve this general AfD problem that I mentioned above today. Like I said above in my earlier comments in this discussion that Authordom has been 'piling up' all these AfDs at both AfD India and AfD Pakistan which resulted in 10 'Keeps' and 11 'Deletes' after AfD discussions (taking a quick look at nominations table above). So he had me 'working my tail off' trying to save my own work within last few weeks. Why would I want to 'battle' with him or anybody else for that matter. That's not my previous history on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Similarity with some blocked users

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

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

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

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

Response from Authordon appreciated

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

A876

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

---

• A876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A few days ago, A876 made this change to the main MOS page. Afterwards, three separate editors (not even myself, despite being the one who reverted the initial edit) brought this up on his talk page at User talk:A876#Unnecessary changes (again). The edit in question introduced a ton of changes, almost all of which were cosmetic, making it difficult to find what the substantive changes were (if there were any). And this has been an ongoing problem for years and years. And since those 3 editors all echoing the same concern, A876 made 3 more changes over the past couple days (diffs: again to the main MOS page, [4], and [5]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- A876 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like NinjaRobotPirate will take action if the problem continues, and I would be happy to investigate and see if admin action would be appropriate if the problem continues. That is, I think this can be closed with an invitation to draw my attention to any ongoing concerns. @A876: Please note that irritating other editors is not compatible with a long-term future at Wikipedia. Perhaps they are wrong and your tweaks are great, but it would be still be better to find something else to do because a glance at your talk page shows that you are irritating other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Deacon Vorbis, and think that this is a bit more serious than "irritating" other editors. Just reading some of those talk page discussions in the past is more like infuriating other editors - making pointless changes, then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless? Really? Really? While "refuses to stop making pointless style changes that don't even render to users" is a really dumb reason to be disciplined, the message of "don't do this" clearly hasn't taken hold. A876, you are NOT improving Wikipedia with tons of pointless wikitext style format changes, you are wasting other editor's time and peeving editors who have a preferred style that you're overwriting. This message clearly has not broken through. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 2:

•NinjaRobotPirate imposed a 24-hour block on me "just as the above post threatened to do". (Objections: The original post "threatened" no such thing. The comment that followed "threatened" something else. The block does not say which edit triggered it. Deacon Vorbis and I had stopped "edit-warring" long before the block was imposed on (only) me. The block blocked me from commenting here.) The interesting word is "threatened". Maybe admins should simply order me what not to do, in order to save Wikipedia from me. I would be obliged to comply with an order. Maybe that's how Wikipedia needs to be "run", by a hierarchy using threats and orders.

•I think this has escalated from "I don't like it", "It annoys Me", and "Stop it stop it stop it!" (with the mighty added backing of "You're breaking the RUWELLS!") to "Mommy, make them stop!", and possibly "Daddy, hurt them now!" I sense an urgency to reign in my outrageous disrespect and bring me to heel, by adults who would "discipline" other adults.

•These cycles usually start after one of my edits, with a casual flick of the Undo button, and persistence. It has graduated this time to a flick of the Crucify button.

•Making tons of changes to wikicode which don't affect the rendering of pages... For the class of improper capitalization immediately after "[[" but before "|", it's hard to discover the ones which do "affect the rendering of" the page (true miscapitalizations) without addressing the ones "which don't affect the rendering of" the page. Capitalizing consistently with the context of the word is always right, whether there is a "|" or not. Unnecessary capitalization immediately after "[[" makes reading harder, and using "the pipe trick" cannot even create that condition in a piped link.

•... (and which many people don't even agree with) ... Well, there certainly are a highly outspoken few. Almost every editor doesn't know what I did; most who know don't care; most who care agree; most who don't agree don't disagree; most who disagree aren't annoyed; most who are annoyed get over it; those who can't get over it compound-revert and/or complain. I never complain about their misdeeds except in edit summaries (e.g. "Don't re-break it. Don't compound-revert. Don't edit to make a point. Don't erase other editors.") and in replies to their objections. There are lots of things I "don't even agree with" that I don't mess with.

•... is disruptive, ... Maybe it is disruptive. And maybe compound-reverting is more disruptive. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing only talks about "content". However, Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary says a lot about reverting, that fits quite closely: It says "Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, ... the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." "Do not revert a large edit because much of it is bad..." "...your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit". "Even if you find [that] an article was slightly better before an edit, [don't revert]." "Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality..." "Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes." It is quite clear to me that every revert done to my edits over "mostly unnecessary", etc. changes went against the spirit of Wikipedia in several ways, and deserves be dissuaded, loudly. Other editors who are annoyed by my "mostly unsubstantive", "mostly pointless", "mostly unnecessary" changes are entitled to [express their objections on my talk page] and [express their objections here on WP:ANI], and I am entitled to reply. I have replied, usually friendly, sometimes argumentative, and usually annoyed when they did reverts. Nothing mandates anyone to revert my changes; and several statements strongly urge editors never to do so. Does scanning a few dozen touch-ups hurt them that badly? Can't they "take one for the team" (as obliged) and allow "an editor [to] enjoy the fruits of his crimes", rather than grow indignant, ask me not to, tell me not to, belittle me, revert, persist in reverting, and complain? I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert. I make the markup as consistent as I can, at the expense of creating a one-time "annoying" diff.

•even if substantive changes are made during the same edit. However, WP:COSMETICBOT says "Cosmetic changes to the wikitext are sometimes the most controversial, either in themselves or because they clutter page histories, watchlists, and/or the recent changes feed with edits that are not worth the time spent reviewing them. Such changes should not usually be done on their own, but may be allowed in an edit that also includes a substantive change." Okay, they "should not usually be done on their own" (doesn't say "must not", not even here), and I never do them "on their own". Even one "substantive change" puts an edit into the "may be allowed" category. (Sadly it uses weasel-words "may be" instead of "is".)

•... trying to sift through the changes to see [whether] any of the substantive ones were problematic is more of auditing, not editing. How many people "sift" and audit every change? How many watchers does each page have? Maybe I really am collapsing Wikipedia under the burden of all my "fiddling" if, for example, 100 people review each of my edits.

•A876 is not the arbiter of how things like spaces around section headers should be formatted... First of all, it's a consistency thing. Most articles consistently use no-space; inconsistent articles mostly use no-space. I recently found something on Wikipedia urging no-space, to prevent line-breaks from awkwardly putting the closing "==" at the beginning of a line, when the line is made long by multiple {Anchor}s. (Do you actually prefer with-spaces, or are you lawyering for a silent majority that actually cares and "prefers" them?)

•I am irritating other editors. Oops, add infuriating other editors when I reply in defense my actions. I wish it wasn't that way. Let me try to rewrite that in E-Prime. Whenever someone edits a page, Wikipedia saves a new version. Anyone can examine a "difference" report between any two versions of any page. Some editors file standing orders that make Wikipedia tell them whenever someone edits specific pages. When I edit a page, I edit in markup-view. I make my changes. I like to fix as many details as possible in each edit. I also look at the markup. Because I have to edit through the markup. I find serious discomfort ignoring ugly markup and submitting ugly markup. I call "ugly" any markup that does not match other markup on the same page, markup on other pages, or my general concept of correct and current markup. I mostly reject unnecessary variations of some forms. I tolerate some variations of some forms. The final markup is freer of distracting, meaningless variations of form. I try to make the markup match, as close I (quickly) can, the markup that I would expect to find when I open the page for editing, free from randomness, accidents, and variations introduced by multiple editors. As a side-effect, the resulting "diff"s often include multiple changes that are not visible on the rendered page. Some editors carefully examine every edit of some pages. Some editors take annoyance at seeing multiple non-impactful edits. They correctly state that my edit makes [a little] more [one-time] work for them, when they examine the diff to make very sure that none of the non-rendering changes did any damage to the rendered contents. They dislike a lengthy "diff" despite it resulting from a better page.

•making pointless changes,... All are pointful, directly and indirectly. Calling them pointless does not make them pointless. I explained the points several times. Not agreeing with the points does not justify saying "pointless".

•[and] then calling out others for "hypocrisy" in reverting him if they're pointless[.] I only said "hypocrisy" in one context. I tell those who revert that they are wrong, because they are. I tell them they are wronger than they think I am, because they are. Reversion is not the way. (See above.) The entire edit is never pointless; it always includes "substantive" changes, so undoing them is a "compound revert". Undoing is not mandatory, is not recommended, and is strongly advised against.

•Really? Really? Really. Really. Even if the change actually was "pointless" (here taken to mean "did nothing substantive"), reverting it is just as pointless, plus it is more wrong, because it actually is wrong, for multiple reasons.

•Like everyone here, I don't set out to annoy people. But other people sometimes take annoyance with any of us. What I have been doing is sensible, at least to me and I don't know who else. I am surer now that it is allowable. I am surer now that one should revert such edits. I have tried to answer objections. I might go through and address the latest list of crimes. I refute arguments that apply the wrong rules, condescend, insult, attack, abuse, and repeat false arguments; are insincere (pretend not to see the obvious); claim that random variations of markup spacing somehow represent individuals' "preferences"; or claim that reducing randomness "has no benefit" (it improves readability to find real errors; it makes text-searches less likely to fail). The credible objections allege that my tidying is not worthy of their effort to review/verify/check/audit the one-time hairy edit – it annoys them so much they ask me to stop and/or argue me to stop; some deem it so worthless that they stop mid-review and revert the edit, and persist in that reversion, as if that helps and/or delivers deserved punishment. Perhaps I should not do things that "annoy" others – not make adjustments that some "don't like" and object to – especially not annoy outspoken and "important" editors by cleaning up "important" articles. I don't want to annoy anyone. I already pay significant attention to keep my diffs readable – they could be much worse. The prospect of never cleaning up the crap that so many pages "are comprised of" is quite painful. MediaWiki could (and arguably should) automatically apply a set of adjustments similar to mine. MediaWiki should fully understand its syntax, fully parse every page at edit-time, and replace most optional variations with the one preferred form, leaving minimal randomness and no undetected malformed pages. - A876 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, that was quite the wall of text. Let me try and be brief and hit the two major points.

"I am not wrong, and others are not wrong unless they revert."

A876, you're an editor just like everyone else. Your edits are not specially blessed. Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place) or take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). Claiming your edits are always fine but reverts are pointless is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. (That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) If you want to do this as a WikiGnome wander-by "helper", stop. WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless, invisible-to-readers, preferred Wikitext style imposition. And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. SnowFire (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Reply 3

•... Your edits are not specially blessed. No one's are. Edits are one thing. However, reversions are specially cursed, so to speak.

•Either take the position that other editors shouldn't randomly interfere (in which case you'd never have made your edits in the first place)... My edits are neither random nor interference. Reversion is random interference. Multiple editors revert with impunity (anyone not criticizing that is at fault) and/or criticize (some abrasively), and one even complained.

•or [else] take the position that it's a free-for-all (in which case don't complain about other editors reverting you). False dichotomy. I never argued for anarchy. I do a grain of policing; I value the work of those who dedicate time to it. At-whim reversion is a free-for-all. Wikipedia is not Tinder.

•Claiming your edits are always fine... I made no such claim. I've learned from post-edits and reverts when someone reasonably felt that I had damaged an article or could have done better.

•but reverts are pointless... Correct summary in specific cases. Reversion of "mostly pointless" changes is worse than pointless.

•is an argument normally associated with clueless newbies or WP:RGW warriors. Not a newbie. Not a warrior. And I never made that re-cast "argument".

•Second, if you want to adjust the internal styling of articles you edit a lot of that article's content, fine. So editing markup is okay, if I do "a lot of" "real" editing? What is the quota?

•(That is the point of the cosmetic style guideline you are citing.) Is it? I was just told "A876 is not the arbiter...". WP:COSMETICBOT still says "in an edit that also includes a substantive change." ("a" is a very short, simple word.)

•If you want to do this as a WikiGnome... (thank you)

•wander-by "helper",... (insult, and scare-quoted sarcastic insult)

•stop. (Advice, or the command I have awaited.)

•WikiGnoming is for actually useful changes... (prejudicial)

•like Wiki-wide spelling fixes, not pointless,... (prejudicial)

•invisible-to-readers,... (again, not all. the process catches many improper capitalizations. every change is visible to editors. and beneficial if you value the markup over the "diff".)

•preferred Wikitext style imposition. I mostly impose uniformity, and not absolutely. I apply a small grain of preference, usually in the direction of the examples given in the documentation (casing of templates, etc.). "Wikitext style" is almost funny. Oh I'd be so hurt; I added a section "== NewSection ==", which means it shall be "== NewSection ==" forever; that is my style and my section; nobody shall ever dare disrespect me by changing it to "==NewSection=="; and I'm so validated and grateful when someone puts it back (sarcasm).

•And no, mixing in one "real" change with 90% internal styling actually makes the problem worse. It's rarely one "real" change. What then is the quota? Two? Equal numbers?

•That wall of text is unreadable. I know, tl;dr. Of course. "That wall of text" refuted every point. (ps Should I add that expression under thought-terminating cliché?) Closing one's eyes preserves PoV.

•The situation is simple: if you continue to fiddle... (cheap insult)

•with wikilinks or spacing or anything at all that is inconsequential... (inaccurate and insult)

•while making drive-by edits,... (again insult - such condescension!) I always intend in principle to get back and possibly do more on any page I edit. I rarely get around to it, but that is another story. Sorry, I am not a full-time Wikipedia editor. I edit to make real changes, and I chip away at cruft that is uncomfortable to see and embarrassing to save. Should I be sorry for not valuing diffs over the markup?

•you will be blocked indefinitely... (the threat, at long last.) (passive voice. try "an administrator will block you indefinitely.")

•... Feel free to ask (in a brief question) why an editor is not free to edit articles to enforce their standards... Well, editors are "free"; they are pre-warned that "all of [their] contributions can and will be mercilessly edited..." (and criticized) and, as with any freedom (ps free moral agency), they should be prepared to face the consequences of any actual misdeeds and crimes (ps that it is possible for them to commit).

•when they have not significantly created the content,... This evokes a grain of sympathy. Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords, recasts, or reformats "their" work (even though these actions are virtually promised). (ps When 8 people have "significantly created" and 33 people have maintained an article using 11 to 25 different "styles" of markup, none of them should be lastingly irked if and when the 25 "styles" get constrained down to 4. But then someone looks at the diff, doesn't like it, reverts it or doesn't, and rationalizes why I am wrong and they are right.) I've never liked the notion that there are classes of editors, as if some have worth as a person and some do not. Some articles are built or elevated by minuscule edits, but most construction surely comes from people who are informed, skillful, concerned, and have the time. Like all who linger here, I have some of those four qualities, to some extent, some of the time. Even those who value "fun" above "substantial" contribution are tolerated.

•but attempts to justify that activity will not be successful. And I thank you for keeping an open mind. I've basically mentioned the rules. I'm waiting for someone impartial to advise those who revert like it's a right, do it when it is not needed, and then complain, all over something they "don't like", to tolerate and optionally criticize, but in most cases simply leave it alone. Or at least consider without deference to other admins or to the plaintiff(s), my outspoken "betters". Should I be in a race to say "get over it" before others tell me to "get over it"? To complain before others complain? Or just be faulted for persisting, by others who persist. – A876 (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure from the above whether A876 has yet digested the message but I would like to comment on the second-last point with Anyone might get irked when someone else rewords.... That response to my when they have not significantly created the content misses the point, namely, that creators of content are welcome to set a style which others should not change without good reason. If someone creates an article using dmy date formats, others are not free to change it to mdy without good reason such as, that an article on a US topic would normally use mdy. That principle applies to all styles—someone copy editing an article is not free to change its existing style without good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

A876, I've never interacted with you before this, and never reverted you. If you are "waiting for someone impartial", then congratulations, you have found one here. Unless by "impartial" you mean "agrees with you." Your interpretation of WP:COSMETICBOT is incorrect, and no amount of voluminous text is going to change that. 99.99% of editors don't need to be taken to this noticeboard on this issue, so hopefully you can understand that even if you think you're "right", in terms of actual community impact, you are stirring up trouble when others are not. You say above that you want to be told to stop, so... please stop. You are "fixing" a non-problem. Let the 25 clashing styles be. It doesn't matter. SnowFire (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Ythlev - repeated rapid major non-consensus edits

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

• First removal of a map (and replacement with an alternative map) without an edit comment and without seeking prior consensus;
• second removal;
• third removal; third removal;
• fourth removal;

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

Boud, that's only three edits. The second and third edits in your list are the same diff. Grandpallama (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

My error. Fixed. Now I see that the third "removal" was not actually a removal; it created hidden-by-default, viewable-with-a-click maps, but Ythlev didn't give an edit summary to explain. I'm not fully convinced that a block is necessary; it depends whether Ythlev intends to continue aggressive editing of a COVID-19 page without letting the active editors come to consensus. Edit summaries and using the talk page to concentrate on arguments for/against are what are needed. There's also a problem with others having to tidy up proper attribution for using ODbL data, but a block would not solve that. Boud (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

It would seem that if the issues are solely on COVID-19 pages then a topic ban would probably be more appropriate than a temporary block, I’m not sure thats necessary though from what I see here and in Ythlev’s edit history. Do you have any examples of disruptive behavior on pages other than 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

No; his/her edits (per capita maps) seem to have been accepted on several other COVID-19 pages with no obvious objections. I get the feeling that Ythlev has been involved in some edit conflicts on Taiwan/China issues, but that's a separate topic. Maybe if @Ythlev: joined in the discussion here the temperature might cool sufficiently... :) Boud (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: does not seem to be willing to apologise for making a personal attack "in front of" the other participants at the PL COVID-19 pandemic talk page - the point is not so much for me personally, it's rather to make others feel willing to participate without fearing aggression. Nor does s/he seem willing to come here and discuss with uninvolved admins present: @Grandpallama and Horse Eye Jack: (I didn't actually check, but I'm guessing you're admins since you're watching this page), but s/he does seem to have accepted that there's a structured decision-making procedure ongoing. See Talk:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Poland#New map?. I think that if things remain constructive for another few days, then this incident should probably be closed. (I do admit being puzzled how someone can be unwilling to apologise for having made a personal attack.) Boud (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I don't think any admin has yet commented in this thread. Grandpallama (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

We have a recidivism problem: Ythlev thinks that s/he can make a major edit that is contrary to a proposal presently under discussion, without waiting for consensus. So I think again that either a block, a topic ban, or a ban for Ythlev using this particular page is needed, so that s/he gets the message that Wikipedia is not about "the strongest and fastest wins". S/he still hasn't had the elementary politeness of apologising for saying that I had an "obsession" about orders of magnitude (the topic is pandemic-related, in which orders of magnitude are a key element of the whole crisis; otherwise it would have been just a minor local news story limited to Wuhan, not a pandemic.) Boud (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, 3RR has not been violated. There needs to be 4 reverts in 24 hours. Both Boud and Ythlev claim their changes represent consensus. I can't figure out which of them is right at this time. The best thing might be to go back to the status quo ante version while the content dispute is being resolved — if need be, through whatever dispute resolution request participants see fit. El_C 19:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C:. Since there are active community-authorised discretionary sanctions, this doesn't have to require 3RR for sanctions: admins have quite some leeway. The ongoing discussion on the page is actually close to consensus, it's just not quite there yet. As long as Ythlev can be a bit more patient, chances are we'll get to consensus soon. The problem is if s/he again tries to force the issue. Boud (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Boud, I am prepared to partially block both of you, if the edit war continues, so please stick to the status quo ante version in the meantime, whatever it is. El_C 19:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: I'm glad you're staying neutral and not biased in my favour. :) I think it is clear what the status quo ante version is. Boud (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Some context here...I thought Ythlev would remain wholly productive in all COVID-19 matters not related to Greater China, as he has indeed created multiple cases per capita maps sub-nationally. But, he has engaged in disruptive conduct (to include blatant WP:FORUMSHOPing) in MOS matters, as I have mentioned previously, also re-instating MOS changes less than 12 hours ago. This is well after his being notified of DS application to MOS matters. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Legality of bestiality by country or territory: Germany

There's a dispute about the legal status of bestiality in Germany that has already run for two months now (29 January to 28 March on talk page). I had contacted WP:DRN in the middle of it, which didn't help resolve the issue (quickly closed, re-opened following my request, discussion began, automatically archived away after moderator disappeared into nowhere, re-surrected following mine and other requests, no one new volunteered to moderate it, hence declared as failed by me, re-opened by someone else to at least prepare an RfC) [6]. The following WP:RfC brought hardly input from editors who had not been involved already anyway; it didn't resolve the dispute. [7] The article was reset to the pre-dispute state by so. else [8] but User:Delderd would not accept it and an edit war (which I had avoided whenever my edits had been reverted before) occurred between him and me.

The underlying issue is that the law in question is worded ambigously and there is conflicting news coverage about the legal situation in Germany, with superficial English news sources mostly suggesting that it would be illegal, whereas the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany explained in a rejection of an appeal against the law that the prohibition only applies when the animal is forced with physical violence or similarily. Both the German primary source and multiple German secondary sources are available, including a nation-wide news paper and multiple sources specializing in law. Additionally available is German news coverage of a verdict where someone was not convicted of bestiality although proven to have committed it, which clearly stated that there is no law against this (person was fined, but only for trespassing). Sources with quotations for convenience in this diff: [9]. There is no single source that would show that anyone has been convicted for bestiality without injuring or forcing an animal violently.

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

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

How to solve this quickly and finally?

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

Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany.

in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.

time

bbc•

Thelocal.de

meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal.

Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal.

furthermore, their old edits on the zoophilia article (“not all modern societies reject the concept of animal/human sexuality“), and their recent statement about it being "original research" that animals can't consent to sex with humans, has me questioning their objectivity on the subject. Delderd (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No original research. I provided numerous sources, including quotations [10]. There has never ever been a dispute that the Federal Constitutional Court rejected an appeal against the law! This is a total distraction. Why did it reject the appeal though? Because the law only bans forced bestiality and that is justified. The Federal Constitutional Court explains this in their press release for example [11] and it is also in the secondary sources I provided. Here is hoping that someone at this noticeboard can read German, because this is about German law and the German Federal Constitutional Court.

Side note concerning Delderd's links – The AP quotes the law as to be about forcing the animal and that protecting animals from sexual assaults is legitimate. No dispute there. The same in the BBC article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. The same in the TIME article – it says the fine is for forcing the animal. Nevertheless I do recognize that the overall impression of these superficial, short, English articles may be misleading. This is why it is important to look at the thorough German sources I provided.

Delderd getting personal instead of staying on topic is inappropriate. – Ocolon (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

how is it off topic when the subject is bestiality? you're trying to sound impartial here when your previous comments suggest a bias towards the issue. Delderd (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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

• The long-standing version of the table should be used if the outcome of the RfC was no consensus.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be based on the best available sources as per wikipedia's content policies. I think an outside editor(s) should decide which version best fits with Wikipedia's policies. Shiloh6555 (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What's an "outside editor"? There is no version that will be allowed after the RfC gets closed with the no consensus except the version that was before the dispute. The status quo ante version.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

aka the version you voted for even though it has less votes. Delderd (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the version that was before the RfC. Before the dispute see WP:STATUSQUO. Also, the amount of !votes don't count.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Just a note. I was not part of this editwar. Six days ago there was an editwar between two editors and I decided to revert to the stable version before the dispute happened but I was reverted and I didn't make any revert after I was reverted. I noticed a technical error in that article and went to WP:TVP and reported it (see here and here for more details). After that, in WP:TVP they suggested that I replace flag icons with emojis. I went to the article and replaced the image icons with emojis and I got reverted by Shiloh6555 without even an explanation here so I reverted back and asked for explanation for this revert. I am not part of this editwar. I just made my opinion in that RfC based on discussion of the RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Mein Liebchen

-EEng

I started the RFC at the request of some of the parties, after no one mediated the dispute at DRN. My main thought is that any claim that any particular German has been engaged in bestiality is probably a BLP violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I for one would welcome a Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. I believe this whole matter should be solved using existing Wikipedia policies regarding Verifiability and reliable sources. In every other case in this Wikipedia article. A single citation to a reliable news source is enough.Yet in Germany's case, reliable news sources are being openly disputed! So again I'd welcome having a neutral editor versed in Wikipedia's guidelines to perhaps close the rfc and issue a statement regarding what edit should prevail. I just don't want to see a constant edit edit war over this. As Ocolon has already threatened to do in his own talk page on this matter. Shiloh6555 (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections to my comment above, where I indicated an intent to close, I am now drafting a closing statement. - Ryk72 ^talk 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I have closed the RfC; including an extended rationale. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Even having read your rationale, which is a serious attempt, I do not understand how you could come to the conclusion that there would be a consensus in the RfC. The discussion is clearly split. Your rationale would be very fine as a founded opinion in the RfC, Ryk72, but it is failure for a closure in my humble opinion. I recognize and thank you for your effort though. I am glad this is finally over. Bye – Ocolon (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Noting that I have seen the comment above; and the comment at the article Talk page. If a clarification on the points raised there is requested, I am happy to provide one. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm going to try something different. I'll do a soft block that says the account has been blocked to having a username that gives the impression of not being here to contribute constructively. That allows the editor to instantly create a new account. If the new account becomes a constructive editor, that's good. If this person comes back with a new account named something like "CoE sucks and you'll never stop me from editing", we can do a hard block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Very well; I suppose that works, as I highly doubt they'll be coming back for anything other than soliciting for their lawsuit. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: You mean like this? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 01:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's probably an LTA vandal. Dunno who it is, though, because I haven't run a check. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And another one suggests that it is indeed an LTA vandal, and that we need to start blocking these accordingly as such. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 02:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

• 173.61.56.158 (talk · contribs)

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

I've deleted several of the hoax drafts per WP:CSD#G3 and left a warning. I feel like this might be sufficient to curtail this behavior, but if another admin feels a block is justified (e.g., if this is related to a long-term abuse case of which I am not directly aware), feel free to do so. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a one-month block. This user put a lot of effort into the hoax articles that have now been deleted. Which pretty much rules out any excuse based on carelessness or newbie mistakes. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

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

---

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

• Bish has blocked that /64 as well. Let us know if it continues - I've got a wider rangeblock that'll hit all the ones that have vandalised so far, with a very small amount of collateral. It depends how wide the range is that they've access to (the full range of that ISP is huge). Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks - I'll keep an eye out. Serial Number 54129, Amaury, Ad Orientem, Davey2010 - courtesy ping, since you seem to be the user's favorite targets. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: This is an LTA sockpuppet we've been dealing with since late September 2016, and it's possible it was going on long before that. That's just when I got involved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen and User:Amaury/List of accounts and IPs used by Orchomen. IJBall can probably give you some more details in that regard as he is the one who came to me for assistance after he noticed I ran into the sock around that time over on Legendary Dudas. See User talk:Amaury/2016#Need some assistance. And if you do a CTRL + F for "Orchomen," you'll notice plenty of other discussions on the matter, not only in my 2016 archive, but in my archives for 2017 through 2019 as well. Note also that these are only the discussions on my talk page about the matter, it's been discussed elsewhere, too. Amaury • 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Amaury, thanks, I saw some of that stuff. If they resurface and I'm around, feel free to ping me for a quick block - although, as noted above, someone with better rangeblock skills that me would probably be a better bet. Black Kite - don't suppose you could point me at a Rangeblock 101 primer so I can up my game? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I generally use this. Black Kite (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, obviously can't help with the rangeblocks themselves, but feel free to ping me/give me a shout if you need a hand interpreting IP ranges - I've got some network engineering experience and am pretty familiar with them. creffett (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, thanks - I appreciate the offer. Black Kite has given me some more reading, but I'll come to you if I get stuck. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Patapsco913

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

---

A possible case of WP:Canvassing and meatpuppetry, soliciting other editors with likely same views [12] [13] to jump into a couple of articles I A7ed to circumvent the editorial process and remove the tags since Patapsco913 was the creator of those articles. I have nominated all 3 articles for deletion. Maurice Kremer, Milton H. Biow, and Joy Silverman. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

IP, those were, in my view, very poor CSD nominations. I removed some of them. Kremer is known as one of the first seven Jews to settle in Los Angeles and held multiple political offices in that city – which is now one of the largest cities in the world. He is also one of the founders of the largest Jewish congregation in California (population: 40 million). He is mentioned in multiple books. The article is now at AFD, and it may or may not be kept, but it definitely made a claim of significance or importance and was not an A7 candidate.

Blow is commonly referred to as an advertising "legend". The New York Times wrote his obituary, in which they called him "an originator of the modern school of advertising". This is very, very far from an A7 candidate. It's at AFD and it may or may not be kept, but it's not A7.

Silverman's article had like 18 sources, including several that are entirely about her. Having a significant role in a significant event not only gets past WP:BLP1E, but certainly is disqualifying for A7. This one is also at AFD.

I admit that I became suspicious when I saw an IP improperly tagging articles about Jews as A7. I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for a second set of eyes at WP Judaism or another editor's talk page. I don't see that as canvassing.

I'm surprised that you have prodded, CSD'd, AFD'd the articles, and taken the author of those articles to ANI. That seems like quite the full-court press. It makes me wonder who you are and what your issue is with Patapsco and these articles. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

None of those are A7s, any admin would have reached the same conclusion and removed them. Finish setting up the AFDs and let them play out without launching into wild accusations of meatpuppettry which is a WP:PA BTW. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised an IP editor with so few edits until the most recent CSD tagging even knows what A7 is, and knows how to tag, how to AFD, how to bring to ANI, what meatpuppetry is, what canvassing is, etc. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: It's hard to say, IPs hop, sometimes within a matter of hours depending on DHCP settings. The familiarity with canvassing, AFD, etc indicates at least some experience, or at the bare minimum someone who has a ton of free time to browse project pages. I don't think the user is that experienced because if they were they would have known those were not A7s. Knowledge of ANI indicates very little as it is frequently the first noticeboard newcomers find because it's advertised in the warning templates. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Could be, but the IP used is most likely a static IP, not dynamic. But that could just be to the ISP, not to the user, so it's not 100%. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: It's very likely, that it is just static to the ISP, and not to the end-user. That doesn't necessarily mean it won't stick around for a while, see here for more details. I can speak from experience in stating that what the geolocate button tells me about my IP does not always accurately reflect my experience as an end-user. There are some IPs, and no not IPV6s, that I've edited from that despite being listed as static were changing far to fast for me to hold a conversation. The worst was actually a satellite connection, my IP was changing with every single edit! I nearly gave up and made an account. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: Not so quick follow-up, dealing with some IRL stuff. Even looking at the assigned /22 doesn't bring up anything additional. For that matter there is no recent activity on the entire /16. Doesn't necessarily mean anything, could've switched ISPs or be returning from a long wikibreak. I think it's almost certain they're not new however. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see I'm reporting a case of canvassing and possible meatpuppetry (don't have tangible evidence so won't judge) and you are moving the discussion in some other direction, discussing my expertise on the matter and how I'm here. Same club? And it's true I have a lot of time and read multiple discussions where each one of you were taking Patapsco913's side. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to explain your AFD of Maurice Kremer and how you think one of the first Jews of Los Angeles is the same person as a senator from Nebraska? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 217.150.87.242 By reporting here you open up the conduct of all parties to scrutiny including your own. Making baseless accusations of meatpuppetry is disruptive and a WP:PA so please desist. As for the discussion of expertise, it is at this point only informational, you are of course free to grant or withhold as much information about yourself as you would like to help speed things along. I try to tailor my replies to the knowledge level of people I interact with by feeling things out as the conversation goes, whether or not they have an account. Informing knowledgeable users of things they already know comes across as condescending. Burying newcomers in jargon drives them away from the project. Finally, I have yet to take Patapsco913's side in anything except to note, correctly, that those were not A7s, I have yet to examine any of the articles in depth and have no opinion on what the outcome of the AFDs should be. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

To make things clear, the analysis of the situation is straightforward. There is no evidence of WP:MEAT; WP:CANVASS really only applies to discussions and so alerting others to the CSDs does not fall within it's ambit, further any admin whose time would've been wasted examining those would've come to the same conclusion so there was no effect on the outcome. Finally, even if this had been done for a discussion it wouldn't have run afoul of Canvass, which states that notifications can be freely placed on The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. and later On the user talk pages of concerned editors, there isn't even a case for posting only on the user talk page of one specific editor as it's unclear if there was anyone else who should've been notified to keep things neutral under the criteria. In sum nothing to see here, articles are currently at WP:AFD let the discussions play out and don't WP:Bludgeon them. If there is no consensus wait at least two months before renoming, if they close as keep wait at least six. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will have a substantively different analysis but I doubt it, if you have further questions about appropriate procedure you can always ask at the help desk. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Promotional, copyright problems at a BLP, and meeting resistance from multiple editors

• Yungchen Lhamo

I opened a thread at BLP, but have now seen unacceptable content restored by two different users; forget about the templates I've tried to post. Would appreciate more eyes on this article. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Please see [14], for example. My edits have been characterized as disruptive, unconstructive, and I'm accused of harassment. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

This IP editor is habitually harassing multiple other editors with groundless warnings and repeatedly behaving in a highly disruptive manner. There may be some problems with this particular article which need attention but nothing which obviously requires such extremist behaviour by this IP. Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing. Afterwriting (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I welcome that. Perhaps Afterwriting could cite my apparently numerous disruptions, and administrators could proceed with the sanctions. In the meantime, this is the passage, a possible copyright violation, twice restored:

Lhamo established the One Drop of Kindness Foundation (formerly known as the Yungchen Lhamo Charitable Foundation) in 2004. The foundation's aim is helping all sentient beings through direct action, multicultural programs, community services and charitable giving. In particular, the foundation is dedicated to the preservation of Tibetan culture, whether in Tibet, Nepal, India, the US or elsewhere, through offering multicultural educational programs, projects, lectures and workshops that integrate music, mindfulness, and art to help facilitate in people a more positive outlook on life. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

It either is or isn't a copyright violation. Show us any evidence you have for your claim of it being a "possible" copyright violation. If you can't do this then you cannot remove information simply because you think it may be a "possible" violation. Afterwriting (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe I noted this in an edit summary, the foundation's website [15]. Much of the article also mirrors [16], which is why I'd requested more eyes--if the article is composed largely of copied content, it is a problem. Any content that's unsourced and promotional may, and ought to be removed. You must know that, but for some reason you've decided to take aim at me. Very well. Make sure you're right, given the certainty of 'Administrators are requested to take appropriate sanctions regarding the IP's editing.' 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The vague edit summary only said that this information "may have been copied verbatim from foundations' website". Lots of things "may" be factual, or otherwise, but you provided no evidence in support of your comment. Had you done so then you would have avoided being reverted. It seemed that you were just being disruptive for the sake of it with this article. I withdraw my accusations of harassment of other editors, but it is my observation that you need to be much more careful (as do we all) in how you interact with other editors in future if you don't want to be accused of such things. Afterwriting (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: the community takes copyvios very seriously, possibly you felt the edit summary was inadequate, but in that case the best thing to do would've been to open a talk page discussion rather than risk being responsible for edit-warring a copyvio back into the article. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In a word, no. Afterwriting is still attempting to frame this as me being disruptive. Let's remove the copyright issue altogether--the content was still unsourced and promotional, in a WP:BLP--how many times have I made that observation. The problem was never my editing. It was an abusive reaction by an editor who was very much in the wrong, hasn't come around on that yet, and is still lecturing me. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You are only demonstrating why other editors might accuse you of harassment. Your editing was not adequate and should have been reverted without any evidence to support it. So get over portraying yourself as some kind of "victim". Afterwriting (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Afterwriting: do you understand that you're not supposed to restore unsourced content in a biography of a living person? Because it seems to me that you think this is perfectly fine. I also don't understand where these random accusations of harassment are coming from. And you have also accused the IP of "extremist behaviour" without posting any diffs. I suggest you stop doing these things. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Afterwriting: I won't pretend to be entirely uninvolved here, but here goes anyway. There was no harrassment, earlier you withdrew that complaint, you would do well not to repeat it. Adding maintenance templates is not disruptive nor is removing unsourced content. It is neither required nor expected that full evidence for copyvios will be provided in an edit summary, e.g. removing copyvio material is perfectly adequate. If you disagree with either the addition of maintenance templates or the copyvio removal then discuss it on the talk page, follow WP:FOC, and try to WP:AGF. Had you just opened a thread asking why the changes were made I am confident you would've recieved a full explanation, but since you did not we are here. (Non-administrator comment) Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the long standing graph against consensus

User:Givingbacktosociety repeatedly replace the long standing graph with newly created one against the community consensus.

1. 08:24, 1 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 360,477 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams

03:00, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,267 bytes -30‎ →‎Diagrams: restored to a long standing chart. Please get consensus on the talk page

2. 04:07, 2 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 367,286 bytes +30‎ →‎Diagrams: Replacing graph with a simpler version

04:27, 2 April 2020‎ Phoenix7777 talk contribs‎ 367,396 bytes -30‎ Undid revision 948637281 by Givingbacktosociety (talk) please get consensus on the talk page

3. 03:57, 4 April 2020‎ Givingbacktosociety talk contribs‎ 361,475 bytes -4‎ Replacing graph with a simpler version - To use the previous graph update it to show less information. There are graphs in the same page which shows the count for the most affected countries.

―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Replaced graphs as comments are not addressed. Remove redundant information which are shown in other graphs and keep this graph simple making it more readable.Givingbacktosociety (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Givingbacktosociety: The graph you are inserting is inferior and less readable than the one you are replacing. You should stop doing that.--Jorm (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Givingbacktosociety, please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Naughty behaviour

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

---

• 2A00:23C5:930B:B000:1856:2F60:30A4:3B78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP made an offensive comment directed towards me in an edit summary [17]. This was after this person received a one week block for disruptive editing. There is also this this, after I left a final warning for their disruptive editing/vandalism. And these edit summaries, each repeated four times [18] [19]. I have seen action taken on people for far less egregious comments. – ².O.^Boxing 19:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Lol", eh... [20] ——SN54129 19:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Lol indeed. Any relevance here? No? Didn't think so. Thanks for your input. – ².O.^Boxing 19:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

You poor chap, being insulted like that on the internetz. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Those that troll, get trolled. One of life's constants. ——SN54129 19:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I know!!! It hurt my feewlings :-( I may cry, rage quit, and keep coming back lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. El_C 19:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

And now the individual is evading the block with this [21]. Oh so terribly naughty!! Lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the ins and outs are of your original complaint, but must say that you have just destroyed an argument that I have used against those who take professional wrestling too seriously, i.e. that we see loads of complaints brought here about that "sport" but never about boxing. I'll have to think of something else to say now. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Sincerest apologies me ode mucker, I think? Not sure lol it didn't actually have anything to do with boxing as such, it just originated from disruptive edits on a boxer's talk page lol – ².O.^Boxing 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Patapsco913 (2)

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

---

I'm not sure this is just finished as I expected to get an Administrator's opinion on this. This is a follow up of the original discussion named 'User:Patapsco913'. I'm pinging @Coffee:, @Awilley:, @L235:,@Oshwah:,@L235:, @JzG: and @TheSandDoctor: for their independent opinion on this and for their participation in recent OTRS complaints (the Joy Silverman piece is defamatory at best. Am I to expect there are normal people who are willing to read at such a perosnal level of details?) and an AE discussion. I also have reasons to believe that editors have been canvassed into the 3 AFDs I created in what appears to be an attempt to influence consensus. An article like Maurice Kremer, which shouldn't be kept imo and yet its afd has 3 keep votes from 3 people, who happen to have voted in at least one of the other 2 AFDs. Looking at their weak arguments in favor of the articles, mostly hand-waving instead of providing reliable sources to indicate the subject's notability, you get a sense of might be happening. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D:: This is just your interpretation of the diffs which, imo, holds no basis. This is not simply concerned editors or people who might have interest in the topic. It's much more than that. The "There isn't even a case for posting only on the user talk page of one specific editor" piece particurlary stood out to me tbh. Maybe you need to recheck the diffs. And ah that same editor is now in 2 of the 3 AFDs. You might also be interesed in reading about their participation in the recent OTRS and AE discussions. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

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

User:Belledoll

I am bringing this to WP:AN rather than to WP:ANI because it probably doesn't have the urgency of the trolls and vandals who are reported at WP:ANI. It concerns:

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

This user has competency and battleground problems. This editor has filed two completely malformed Arbitration requests, in that no attempt was made to format them in the way that is specified. The two malformed Arbitration requests were (properly) deleted by clerks. This editor made two malformed Dispute Resolution Noticeboard filings, in both of which the title of the subject article was misspelled (so that the history of the case could not be checked without correcting the spelling). Neither of the DRN requests had been preceded by talk page discussion. (It may not be easy to find a misspelled talk page.) In neither of the DRN filings was the other party notified. Both of the DRN cases were closed by volunteers. The complaint in the first case was that content was removed, which was a newspaper account of a wedding. The log shows that the content was redacted as RD1, copyright violation, which would be correct if the account of the wedding was copied verbatim.

First incorrect Arbitration request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&type=revision&diff=948604937&oldid=948580480&diffmode=source

Second incorrect Arbitration request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&type=revision&diff=949100024&oldid=949098423&diffmode=source

First incorrect DRN request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=948806994&oldid=948750636&diffmode=source

Second incorrect DRN request https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=948998793&oldid=948992366&diffmode=source

The contributions for the editor show that he has also been arguing with User:Seraphimblade and User:MrClog about their cleanup of malformed posts.

As an alternative to a competency block, it might be appropriate to ask the editor to play The Wikipedia Adventure and find a mentor.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

AN and ANI are not interchangeable based on the urgency of the report. Also, we don't indefinitely block new editors for making errors as they try to navigate our complicated bureaucracy. We're supposed to be helping them instead. Copyright infringement is a more serious problem, but the editor was already alerted to this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have moved this to ANI as I agree with NRP's comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls reported by Matthew T Rader

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

---

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this user keeps editing my photos after help desk said my photo credits are acceptable, here, this user is now going through wikipedia and removing my quality image contributions, this has been going on for several days now including reverting my edits. Matthew T Rader 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Report targed fixed from "graywall". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, for someone so insistent about this, commons:Special:Diff/409200145 does not cast a good light on your copyright knowledge. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, regardless of anything else, Matthew T Rader should stop edit warring to restore his images. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I have stopped, I haven't messed his past several deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Matthew T Rader, regarding the above message: Sooner or later, other editors who value the quality of your photos will restore them. If one of your contributions is reverted, you can click "Talk" above the article, then "New Section". Write a short explanation why you think the photo should be added to the article. Wait for others to join the discussion; there is no deadline. The edit warring policy explains why this is important. The essay WP:DISCFAIL provides advice for dealing with editors who ignore the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

So, initially I noticed changes made to some of the pages I am watching, then after looking some of the change, I noticed your user page was a resume like page for your numerous social networking pages, this was removed for inappropriate use as as a web hosting [22]. Although you were awared some time ago the page is not for promoting your business and another editor here also noticed that.User_talk:Matthew_T_Rader#Your_user_pageThat previous version of your user page is still around at [23] by another editor. The "author" attribute for many of your pictures link to your outside website, and the source links to your blog which contains the subject photo which appear to be derivative version of what is on Wikimedia. Something that came odd about the "source". I will use one of the examples [24] is 2999x1994 with EXIF. But your blog which you referenced as the source is a "copyright 2020" blog at https://matthewtrader.com/photos-the-taj-mahal which has a downsized derivative 1200x798. Since the source in image file points to a derivative work, so it couldn't have been the source of the higher resolution version. This is the pattern I have seen on many of the pictures you've added in a batch. Essentially all of your edits since about [[25]] have been adding your own authored photo into other articles in a batch. [[26]] he does point that questions may arise whether the photographer and Wiki editor is the same person here. So in a nutshell, I did undo things that appeared to being added for promotion. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You mentioned you weren't aware, but you were awared some time ago the page is not for promoting your business here. Another user also felt that some of your additions were COI which can be seen here. The "author" attribute for many of your pictures link to your outside website, and the source links to your blog which contains the subject photo which appear to be derivative version of what is on Wikimedia. Something that came odd about the "source". I will use one of the examples [27] is 2999x1994 with EXIF. But your blog which you referenced as the source is a "copyright 2020" blog at https://matthewtrader.com/photos-the-taj-mahal which has a downsized derivative 1200x798. Since the source in image file points to a derivative work, so it couldn't have been the source of the higher resolution version. You don't have authority control setup, so this creates copyright related ambiguities. This is the pattern I have seen on many of the pictures you've added in a batch. Essentially all of your edits since about [[28]] have been adding your own authored photo into other articles in a batch. [[29]] he does point that questions may arise whether the photographer and Wiki editor is the same person here. So in a nutshell, I did undo things that appeared to being added for promotion. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes I had links to my website on my user page because I thought that's what the user page is for, talking about yourself and showing how people can connect with you. Obviously that was a misunderstanding and has been corrected after I read more about the intention of user pages. The image at the source is a smaller version of the original image for user experience to allow the image to load quickly. The image on Wikimedia is the same image and the size is the same as the original so people on Wikimedia can enjoy a full resolution version of the image instead of the reduced one at the site. That image was first published on that website, I can't link to my hard rive as the source. Matthew T Rader 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew T Rader (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right someone did say that about my user page, I totally forgot about all of that, it has been 2-3 years. For your copyright point, under your logic then no website that uses Creative Commons, Unsplash, Public Domain, etc. images can copyright their website, which would be a massive portion of websites in the world. You are allowed to copyright your website while using images you don't own the copyright to. I'm confused about what you are expecting the outcome to be. Is it that I'm not allowed to copyright my website? Or that I'm not allowed to give away my images because I copyright my website which I use them on? Matthew T Rader (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Also in the edit where you overridden someone else's existing photo with your version was reverted by another editor here. Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A part of this conflict was taken to Wikimedia Commons, a community that does not even require paid contributions to be disclosed, let alone conflicts of interest (commons:COM:PAID). They care about high-quality freely licensed images, nothing more or less.

Matthew T Rader's contributions here on Wikipedia appear to have been undone for days, solely because of the (obvious, but seemingly acceptable) conflict of interest. I think this was an overreaction close to hounding, which is prohibited.

Graywalls, thank you very much for acting against promotion. Wikipedia is not for promotion, and removing promotional content helps the encyclopedia.

That said: I think the editor community – over time – is pretty able to remove images that do not fit into the article. Those who watch an article will complain soon enough about bad image additions. Systematic reverts such as Special:Diff/948917306 are unnecessary and hurt the project, as the goal is building a high-quality encyclopedia and the reverted edit did contribute to the goal. Your concerns about promotional editing are worth a discussion, and WP:COIN could have been a place to hold it. However, after all the stress and the impression of hounding, I believe that you should not be the person to start that discussion. Others can and will deal with Matthew T Rader's contributions. Now that the matter has gained wide attention, there is no need for a 1-vs-1 fight across articles anymore.

Matthew T Rader, editors with a conflict of interest are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. You will have to expect, and accept, that your proposed image additions are not always kept. If someone removes your images, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page instead of reverting the removal. In your edit summary, when adding one of your own images, please ideally point this out. "Adding a photo created by me" makes the situation obvious, and others can then decide whether to keep it or not.

Does this already resolve the matter? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe so. On copyright matters, he does suggest they were previously published well before his recent mass upload of photos on Wikimedia Commons. So, as they were originally published without creative commons release, it does appear that they do need to go through the OTRS procedures for Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials before they're used here and what other people said about needing to positively confirm that the person making the edit is indeed the copyright holder seems to be valid. per WP:DONATEIMAGE Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

ToBeFree I feel it is resolved. Thank you for your time in this matter. I will be more careful here on out on how I add images and be more selective in that process. I will also make sure from now on I appropriately dispute deletions. Matthew T Rader (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Biting the newcomer; low-key incivility

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

Hello. I'd like to report the above regular editor for his uncouth behavior toward me, a newcomer, over an unconstructive edit he made at Ang Probinsyano, of which he's a major contributor. On April 1, I performed a major cleanup of that article's infobox with an edit summary citing Template:Infobox television, but user reverted me without an edit summary (diff), causing me to template him (diff). The following day, user gratuitously deleted the warning template (diff) and continued edit warring (diff 1, diff 2) until it came to a point where he had to send me a message in my talk page (even though conflict resolution usually begins in the article's talk page), trying to convince me basically that I must stop deleting the edits as he had worked "painstakingly" for them (diff). When I told him that they cannot stay in the article per infobox consensus, he finally concurred with me (only in part) but went on to say he didn't enjoy collaborating with me, probably because he got frustrated that I had reverted an edit he worked hard on (diff). I admonished him for his attitude in his own talk page; needless to say, his responses composed of nothing but childish rants as well as more projections (User talk:Gardo Versace#Grow up). In a separate attempt for conflict resolution, at User talk:ISpitonYourGravy#Re: Ang Probinsyano writer, user ended up commenting on me and not the content, as displayed in his last post written today.

In a nutshell, user is guilty of biting the newcomer as well as the failure to assume good faith and subtle use of personal attacks, since he couldn't take that a noob like me would dare challenge an incorrect edit made by an experienced editor. I'm requesting some form of admin intervention that could make this user realize his own mistakes and be mature enough to accept them. The attitudes displayed by this user is not something I'm prepared to tolerate. ISpitonYourGravy (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be aware of a great many policies and practices (such as providing diffs) for a complete newcomer. I guess I'm not seeing the big problem here. The user initially told you "good day" and gave you "warmest regards". The user was then frank with their opinion, but it was not a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't template the regulars.

You're free to delete anything on your user talk page except declined unblock requests.

Both of y'all are being condescending to each other and commenting on each other. Assume that anything you write will be read in the most stupid and hostile tone possible. Read what others write in the most pleasant tone possible.

Both of you read WP:OWN, stop editing the article directly, and go to the talk page trying to salvage as much of the other party's edit as possible. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I've done what you advised and put the removed content on the talkpage. Did it a few days ago, was actually thinking of submitting the matter for arbitration if we couldn't arrive at a compromise. I would have loved to try and work out a compromise with him but I was met with condescension. If you'd examine closely the edit history of the page in question, an anonymous editor tried restoring the cut content which I reverted out of respect for the fact that ISpitonYourGravy and I have yet to arrive at a compromise over the matter. As I've told him before on his own talkpage, I don't want an edit war on our hands. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for understanding that it was never meant as a direct attack. When I went to ISpitonYourGravy's talkpage, I wrote the message as respectfully as I can. The last line even read I'm pleading my case with the user. In the user's reply, I was met with condescencion. I would have tried to compromise with the user earlier than I did had the user responded with a more polite tone in the reply that user gave. That's why I gave an honest and candid opinion that I wouldn't like working with the user again because I felt like the user would not be open to compromise nor would the user be polite in its dealings with me. The message the user left on my talkpage also reeks of arrogance as the user made it a point to say that I might only be angry because I got reverted by a new user despite being an experienced editor. I never had a problem dealing with new editors and never had a problem with anonymous editors either, in fact I welcome all the help that I can in maintaining the page in question. I don't fully have a problem with the edits that the user made but there is one item that I am trying to salvage by way of compromise. The user just wouldn't budge, as if to take ownership of the edits it made. I admit I've obssessively collated all the details there but I'm not taking ownership of the edits by willy nilly asking for all of it to be returned there; all that I ask is that one item, the writer's field, be restored. The user just wouldn't budge. As I've intimated above, I am very much open to compromising the situation. If that fails, I'm willing to have the same be submitted for arbitration. Warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: and @Ian.thomson: Good day! I've got to report that something occurred in the intervening period between this report and my replies. The user ISpitonYourGravy has been blocked indefinitely for being a suspected sockpuppet of user You've gone incognito, who himself had been banned a month ago for engaging in personal attacks or harrassment. Gardo Versace (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeated problems with Walter Görlitz

Hello. I've had repeated issues with the user Walter Görlitz over a three year period and Id like things to be dealt with. As it's getting extremely tiring and has seriously hindered my ability to edit Wikipedia in peace. The latest examples are WP:Articles for deletion/13th GMA Dove Awards where he called the BEFORE I did to ascertain notability disingenuous. Also, on Bethel Music's talk page I suggested the article be split and he said I shouldn't be able to do the split because I disdain Christian. Which clearly rises to the level of harassment as defined by WP:Harassment. There's plenty of other examples out there of similar things. Like arbitrarily removing banners I've added to articles, reverting even basic edits I've done to articles that he is fine other users making, repeated edit warring, disparaging me for asking questions on official message boards multiple times, etc etc. All of it is clearly a targeted attempt to dissuade me from editing through intimidation and other tactics. Especially his comment in Bethel Music I tried to talk to him about it and asked him multiple times to leave me and my edits alone, but he's been unwilling to be reasonable and stop with the behavior. So, I'd appreciate it if someone stepped in. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I can second this opinion by Adamant1. I only recently met Walter Görlitz when he began to edit war over a paragraph break. I found this to be evidence of a very combative editor; apparently, he wrote the lead of the article where I inserted the paragraph break, and he was very much against any deviation from "his" version. It baffled me to the point where I looked over his talk page, and saw a link to this discussion. I don't know anything about Adamant1's problems with Walter, but I thought I should speak up to say that he's not the only one to experience this from Walter. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

One editor is not capable of edit-warring alone, and based on your description, you would have initiated it. You made a bold edit to introduce a paragraph break, and it was reverted. BRD is the generally accepted process, which means at that point you discuss, not revert again. And if you are going to make accusations about misbehaviour (OWNing and EWing in this case), you are required provide evidence supporting them otherwise you are casting aspersions. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed (and had them removed on my part) notability templates after AfDs because it has been shown that the subject is notable. I have shown you that the subject is notable by the news with Kirk Franking (essentially WP:BEFORE) but you want me to add the content. I can do that, but I'm busy responding to frivolous ANI discussions and dealing with my family.

As for the paragraph breaks, I was simply comparing other band articles of similar size. We don't need a break there, but I have given up on trying to convince you of that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

as for splitting the Bethel Music article, a simple check of your AfDs and related discussions (at EL about references used) and other locations show that you want to minimize their presence on Wikipedia. Time and time again, other editors have told you that you're wrong and yet you continue to attack this and other charismatic Christian groups. Yes, you edit in other areas, but you come back to these groups. I think the solution is to continue to ask questions about them, but not edit the articles until you can do it in a neutral way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The article your mentioning isn't really one I have a problem with. Nor did I mention it here. Although, that it took me re-adding the template multiple times for you to agree to adding the sources instead of just removing the template does speak to the general problem this is about. Re, "I attack charismatic Christian groups." I asked for evidence of that and you haven't given any. I edit Christian articles in an extremely small amount relative to other topics and compared to how much you edit them. None of it rises to trying to minimize their presence and I don't know or care what articles are "charismatic." With the article your adding sources to, I repeatedly told you to improve the sourcing before removing the template and encouraged you to add in the part about Kirk Franking. I'm not sure how that's attempting to minimizing charismatic Christianity or a disdainful action. I'd love to see some evidence that is though.

Most other articles I've edited, christian or otherwise are along the same lines. Mostly I edit company articles. Including doing the same type of edits your claiming show I disdain and minimizing of Charismatic Christians. I guess I disdain companies and am trying to minimize their presence to. Either that or there's just a lot of low quality articles out there that need improving, Christian or otherwise. There's nothing nefarious about my edits or the intent behind them, all of my edits have been "basic house cleaning", and none of them excuse or justify how you've treated me. Also, it's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm trying to minimize the presence of a religious group over a few AfDs. Our problems predate the AfD's by a long time anyway and some of your actions have taken place outside of Christian topics.

A few more examples, on Bethel Church (Redding, California) I tried to re-add a removed (without discussion) criticism section. He repeatedly reverted me, but then was fine with someone else adding it back. It was clearly a personally motivated edit war and had nothing to do with just being a bad edit on my part. On this RFC about Michelin stars, he badgered me for asking the question and claimed I was lecturing/re-litigating things for having a personal opinion about it. Also, somewhere else I asked about using social media links. He went off about how I asked in the wrong board (even though didn't), accused me of waiting until he was on vacation to ask the question so he couldn't reply to it, and treated me like I was lying about there being an admin involved in the discussion (who called him out for having an attitude). Then after the admin and another person said it was better not to use social media links, he discounted them by claiming they just didn't understand my question. Plus, he said their opinions were not valid because I asked in the wrong place (which I didn't). Later, he repeatedly reverted me when I tried to improve links to social media accounts. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nor will I provide any proof of your hostility. It's evident is someone wants to dig and it's not something I want to use as evidence. I will simply make the claim and the request.

And for the RSN—and I made this clear to you yesterday and you show here that you have no faith in what I wrote—I formulated my opinion of the question before I knew who it was that wrote it and my response did not change because it was someone who has shown disdain toward me and my opinions in the past. The majority of editors were similarly incredulous that anyone would question whether Michelin stars were a source for notability. I see you hold long grudges and you'll dig into those. I just build general opinions about individuals and I won't throw specifics back at them. If you want to split that article, I will alert the project that I think someone hostile to the aims of the project is about to act and stand back to see how they approach the situation, but I simply advised you that I do not think you should touch that article because I so not think that you will approach it fairly. Prove me wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

And as for criticism sections, would you like to reiterate my reasons for excluding them or do you want to make it seem as though I wanted it removed? No, you want to make it appear as though it was nefarious. I fact I repeatedly reminded you of that Wikipedia:Criticism should be blended into existing sections of an article, and be in a stand-alone section. I have never objected to adding criticism alone, but it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the criticism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends vandal

I was going to post this at WP:LTA, but this might be too innocuous for that purpose—this pertains to subtle vandalism. Since at least 2015, there has been steady vandalism across episode list articles for Thomas & Friends. 99% of the edits are done by a 26xx IP, who introduces blatant errors such as airdates being changed and inaccurate episode titles. One look at the edit history of series 1 should say it all. See that 26xx IP? Same vandal every time. This has been going on for years and years and years, across all series. Seeing as it's pretty much the one IP, I would like to suggest a rangeblock for all Thomas & Friends-related articles.. or something along those lines. I know there's RBI, but not having to deal with the edits at all would be easier. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"26xx" is half of the internet. I'll take a look, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I range blocked 2607:fcc8:e813:83f0::/64 for a week and added a couple more Thomas articles to my watchlist (just what I need – more cartoons on my watchlist). Several of the other troublemaker IPs are already blocked or range blocked. In the future, there's a fair chance I'll see what's going on, but you should probably post to my talk page if you want action taken. I can't remember why I added half the entries on my watchlist, and now I have to guess at what seemed so important to me back a year ago. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice, and appreciated. Should make a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims

Requesting action or advice regarding persistent insertion of poorly sourced or unsourced controversial claims at Velike Lašče and other articles. The user (User talk:Starangel19) has been repeatedly advised to read WP:WPINARS, and multiple editors have requested that the user stop inserting controversial claims without reliable sources. Thank you. Doremo (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, that is this one editor's side of the story anyway. In the past I have admitedly made some editorial mistakes. But one important thing has to be mentioned here; the editors of the articles involved are repeatedly and persistently disregarding significant information with regards to the political affiliation of the WW2 "victims" in Slovenia that they are so fond of writing about on an English version of wikipedia of numerous Slovenian towns. They purposefully don't mention that many of these victims were in fact collaborationists of either Italian Fascists or German Nazis, which have both occupied the territory of Slovenia during WW2.These editors do this even when this type of information is known to them in the sources they themselves are quoting (example Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina wiki-page) or when another author of a wikipedia page (example Prostovoljna protikomunistična milica) has emphasized their political affiliation to the occupiers. These editors are trying to cover up collaboration of the "victims" with the occupiers of Slovenia-the Nazis and the Fascists- and are in fact trying to practice historical revisionism by purposefully keeping reader in the dark. In these articles on Mass Graves in Slovenia they repeatedly mention victims as being Croatian and Serbian. What they purposefully fail to mention is the fact that these were disarmed military units of Croatian collaborationists Ustashe and Serbian collaborationists Četniki, which were retreating through the territory of Slovenia on their journey towards the West, where they hoped that they would escape their punishment. I am extremely bothered by the fact that a group of Nazi/Fascist apologists are trying to re-write the history by keeping crucial details away from the reader. Wikipedia should not become a forum for Neo-Nazism and Neo- Fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WP is driven by verifyability of material in reliable sources, not by claims made at random, as you are stating in your diffs and here. If there are such connections, simply provide a reliable source to show that, but understand that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. As these are extremely controversial claims and in an area covered by various discretionary sanctions, you could find yourself blocked if you fail to follow such advice. --Masem (t) 17:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would add to what Masem said by saying that it is the very importance of this topic, which you acknowledge, that means that we have to be careful only to say anything that can be verified in reliable sources. We are not in the business of making general claims about such collaboration without specific reliable historical sources to support them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

These are really not claims made at random but basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia. There is nothing extremely controversial about what I am saying except perhaps for someone, who is completely in the dark about Slovenian history. For one such source you can read MA thesis by Daniel Siter on Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* during WW2 (pdf link among the listed sources on WP page of Rogaška Slatina under Mass graves). You can read and verify yourself what the author Siter wrote in his thesis in the quoted/listed pages and what the WP editor is writing and what he purposefully fails to acknowledge. Siter specifically states that the number/nationality of the victims is presumed/supposed as none of the graves have so far been exhumed. He also states that the military units of Ustashe have been terrorizing the local population well after the end of WW2. In fact he mentions Ustashe (slov. Ustaši) 41 times. He writes that Ustashe commander Ante Pavelić and his entire cabinet if ministers spent some time in Rogaška Slatina *a famous spa town* on their way to the West. I may be an inexperienced WP editor, but at least I am not using my experience for falsification of history and promoting a very dubious agenda of historical revisionism, which is giving rise to Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism. I am sure you can find something to read about historical revisionism in Croatia, where it is becoming extremely problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If these facts are so well-known then it will be easy to find independent reliable sources for them, which is all that people are asking. But something better than a masters thesis (from which Wikipedia editing is a displacement activity for me) is needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(ec)If this is "basic primary school-level of history in Slovenia" information, then it should be easy to provide books and other well published reliable sources (not college/masters-level theses) to document these. Random masters' theses are not usable as sources --Masem (t) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The editor of Rogaška Slatina is himself quoting MA thesis by Daniel Siter, I only took the time to read and verify the parts that the author is MIS-quoting to further his own apologist agenda. He is only using the MA thesis by Siter to give credibility to his own claims, which cannot be actually found in the mentioned thesis. In Europe an in-depth analysis of a town during a certain time period can provide for a reliable academic source as the author's research is guided by the professors at the university, in this case University of Ljubljana. Perhaps it is different in the Anglo-saxon world and the quality is much lower. It seems very controversial to bash MA thesis as a reliable source, but approve it being quoted anyway. I am not sure we can have a constructive debate in regards to this; it seems to me you are not familiar with Slovenian history and you don't speak Slovenian, so you are limited to giving me a sweeping general advice, without actually contributing anything specific or constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

If MA thesis are so insignificant then why are people doing them? Rogaška Slatina is a town of 5000 inhabitants, it is not the focal point of academic research in Slovenia. In eventual absence of PhDs done on the subject of R.S. during the war, what should one do? I see the academic bar of WP has (suddenly) become impossibly high when people start to hide their lack of knowledge on a subject behind their academic "superiority".

People are doing them for the simple reason of qualifying for an M.A. degree. M.A. theses are not considered reliable sources because they do no undergo the fact-checking and peer review that PhD theses or papers published in academic journals do. This goes for any topic, not just your pet topic. And it applies whether you or your opponents are citing such a thesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, my opponent is quoting an MA thesis as if the latter is proving the editor's claims, which it does not. Nobody objected or stopped him from doing so and nobody (but me) went and verified the quoted information. Instead of being listened to and perhaps wisely advised, I am being questioned, taunted, patronized and threatened to be blocked from WP. I guess this is what happens when you start to rattle people's cages and they get their knickers in a twist. I wonder what would have happened if the editor mentioned used and MIS-quoted a doctoral dissertation on the subject of war-time Rogaška Slatina? Similarly, you would probably rally around him to cover up your own ignorance on the subject and do nothing of a substance to improve the quality of WP. Oh yes, you would attack ME for alerting you to it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starangel19 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor doing multiple account moves

See the contributions of Dr-Taher (talk · contribs), an Admin at our Arabic Wikipedia[30] but with only 375 edits here. Here[31] they moved a user talk page of a user who hasn't edited for almost 10 years. As this is an area I have virtually no experience in, it might all be quite normal, but I find it confusing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Dr-Taher is a global renamer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: thanks, I should have thought of checking that. I still don't understand renaming an account that hasn't edited for such a long time, but this is all a bit of a mystery to me. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I got a block in Arabic Wikipedia by this editor. Also, I want to take this opportunity to say that Arabic Wikipedia is definitely not a free encyclopaedia. Any edit in Arabic even if it's productive and made in good-faith gets reverted without any reason. I was planning to report this in meta Wikimedia but I just felt it's too much work and I don't need to waste my time in a failed project like Arabic Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm not sure who you are referring to as your link doesn't seem to lead to anyone who stopped editing almost 10 years ago and was renamed. (It leads to a 1 + year old discussion about a block of an editor on the Arabic wikipedia for a violation of their username policy. I don't think this is really the place to discuss the Arabic wikipedia's username and blocking policy.) I had a quick look at the recent renames by Dr-Taher and none of them seem to be of an editor who hasn't edited in 10 years ago, the most I found was 1.5+ years go.

But in general, I could imagine 2 reasons why an editor who hasn't edited in such a long time may want a rename. One is if the editor used their real name or something else which may identify them, or otherwise no longer wants their edits easily associated with their current account name. In such a case, it doesn't seem to matter much how long it's been since they've last edited.

The other reason is if the editor needs a rename to be unblocked somewhere and is considering restarting editing under that account. (It's possible this is the case with the 1.5+ year account.) I guess it may also be possible an editor is not blocked but wants a rename before their restart editing because they no longer like the account name.

BTW, I'm assuming that the editor really hasn't edited in a long time. Remember that because of SUL, accounts are global. So if someone is active on some other Wikimedia project and wants a rename, it will affect their account here regardless of when they last edited or even if they never edited. And it makes sense that if an account is renamed, their user pages need to be renamed no matter when they lasted edited.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: thanks, my bad. It's [32]. They haven't edited anywhere else. They might have emailed a request I guess. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The user joined meta Wikimedia 23 days ago.[33]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The request can be found at m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/61155. The user wanted to delete their account, but since that is not an option, they requested to vanish. Nihlus 18:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Well I've learned a lot, although I thought I'd checked that editor's contributions. Apologies to everyone for wasting their time. Doug Weller talk 18:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement of RfC result at Republican Party (United States)

A recent RfC at Republican Party (United States) was closed by S Marshall with a decision not to make any immediate changes to the status quo version in the article. Following the close, I reached out to S Marshall seeking permission to make two minor tweaks to improve clarity and remedy a MOS issue, and they affirmed that my changes would be consistent with their close. I implemented the changes, but two editors who regularly patrol the article (and argued for the removal or modification of the sentence in question during the RfC), Springee and Toa Nidhiki05, have, without notifying or receiving approval from the closer, been further modifying the sentence and reverting to their preferred version. Your attention to this matter and assistance enforcing the RfC result would be appreciated. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Close as malformed. Sdkb made good faith, BOLD changes in support of what they felt was the correct edits based on a RfC closing. Other editors, myself included, disagreed. The next, correct course of action, one Sdkb has not taken, is to turn to start a discussion on the article talk page. Coming here instead suggests that anyone who didn't agree with your BOLD change was either acting in bad faith or in opposition to a hypothetical closing that provided a simple and obvious action. In this case the actual closing was well done, offered a direction but also said people need to continue to discuss possible changes first. Springee (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A change that has been affirmed as consistent with the close of an RfC by the admin closer is hardly a bold one. "Take it to talk" is a fine response when an issue has not yet been discussed, but it is not appropriate when there has already been an RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

You’ve reverted two editors to try and force your change in. What’s your objection to discussing on the talk, per WP:BRD? Toa Nidhiki05 18:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb made an edit to try to implement the consensus of an RfC. Neither Springee nor Toa Nidhiki05 reverted that edit. One of the things Sdkb did was to change the piped text in the existing link to Southern strategy. Then Springee removed that link (the link itself, not the language used to describe the link), replacing it with a link to southern states. In other words, and entirely separate edit that removes the very subject of the RfC. It was that that was the subject of the edit war. The rest of this is plain misrepresentation, and why I reverted to the article as it existed this morning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say the link in question was always problematic WP:EASTEREGG. I suspect if the link location had been known vs what it appeared to be it would have been reverted a long time ago. We have a primary article Southern United States. The stabled linked text is "Southern states". If you put that into the search bar you get [[34]]. None of those links goes to Southern Strategy. Additionally such a link is neither supported by the body of the article nor the RfC closing. I'm OK saying we will rewind to the last consensus version and work from there. Springee (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The point -- for this venue anyway -- is that you and Toa Nidhiki05 have made it sound like Sdkb made a bold edit and was trying to force it. To the contrary, it was your removal of a link that Sdkb did not add which was the subject of the edit war. Trying to then characterize it as someone else trying to force their own preferred version isn't great. All of that said, my comments here shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of bringing this to ANI. Only commenting because I was involved. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I made one change. I didn't edit war anything since it was a single change and corrected something per WP:EASTEREGG. Still, the correct place for all of this is to restore to previous consensus and talk. Sdkb's opening an ANI before even opening a talk page discussion does nothing other than poison the well. Springee (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Legal threats by A.Savin

There has been unseemly discussion on Gin Ganga which has descended into an off-topic legal threat against me by A.Savin with this edit:

"And regarding this edit, it's much more serious than you maybe think. If you are misusing your Rollback flag to call "rebel" a group considered terrorist by several countries, including U.S.-- the country hosting Wikimedia servers, this is a reason to report you to WMF Legal, so that they ban you infinitely from all WMF projects. Because supportters of terrorist groups -- no matter if "Islamic State", PKK, LTTE or others -- are not to be tolerated here, for very good reasons. So, if there is no explanation from you in the next few days, I'm going to complain at WMF Legal -- enough is enough."

When I pointed out, in a tongue-in-cheek reply, that this was legal threat, I myself was blocked by admin Ymblanter. The block only lasted two minutes. Ymblanter also does not consider Savin's comment to be a legal threat as it wasn't an external process. I however consider that Savin intended it to be a real life threat, irrespective of whether it was serious or not, in order to to intimidate me. Savin is an admin on Commons and so is well aware of how Wikimedia projects works with respect to user conduct. The deliberate use of the [fictitious] WMF Legal rather than, for example, WP:ANI in his threat also indicates his intention.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, this is a correct outline of my position. There is more background on that talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Also pinging @Rehman:--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Just reading the talk page at Gin Ganga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I feel a WP:BOOMERANG coming... —Locke Cole • t • c 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat to use Wikipedia's bureaucracy (or Wikimedia's, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

WMF legal does exist: m:Legal, but I don't think they will do what this user thinks they will do. I don't view this as a legal threat, but more of an attempt at escalation of internal procedures. It does however contain a personal attack wrapped in nonsense. A.Savin should reel it in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I definitely am going to go for a complaint against Obi2canobe at WMF Legal. May the WMF staff decide as they deem necessary. That's all I am willing to state about it. --A.Savin (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over template protection

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is pure vandalism to make a point and abuse of WP:TEMPLATEEDITOR rights. It's a juvenile stunt at the expense of others who have accessibility issues and not at all funny. See Wikipedia:Template_editor#Abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would normally have converted this to a WP:ANEW report, but this is extremely delicate and requires community input. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties:

• Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jweiss11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jonesey95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sorted in descending order per my personal perception of disruptiveness. Correction: The rollback seems justified. Sorted by number of edits in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged, so I'm responding here. I'm happy to discuss the issue on Template talk:CBB yearly record start but this edit is a completely unacceptable stunt. If other users ask me to revert on the talk page or here rather than change it to some joke, I will oblige. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Policy sections to consider: WP:TPEREVOKE, #1 (pattern?) and #4 (vandalism?); "Dispute with a fellow template editor". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11 has now denied "vandalism" but confirmed their intent to "make a point", in Special:Diff/949330876. I think we can safely say that Jweiss11 has misused their privilege to make a point. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  I guess we have a different definition of vandalism. I was hoping my edit would drive thru the problem with Koavf's approach to this matter so that we can could advance to discussion as a community. My caption was exactly in line with what the caption is supposed to do, alert text readers for the blind that there is a table there. It has no utility for conventional displays in this instance. It's just redundant clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Jweiss11, your response seems to contain either a genuine misunderstanding of what Koavf was insisting on, or inacceptable sarcasm that continues the "making a point, disruptively" behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Can you explain what Koavf was insisting on? Perhaps I have misunderstood. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Any HTML parser is well capable of saying "Heads up! This is a table!" or any other text when encountering the opening tag of a table. Just like any other heading, table captions summarize the content in a few words. Replacing a table caption by "Heads up! This is a table!" is equivalent to replacing a section heading by "Heads up! This is a section!". Your argumentation is similar to "Only blind people need section headings". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, Koavf has argued that these captions are needed specifically for accessibility for screen readers for the blind. Take a look at how this renders with Koavf's caption at Mike Krzyzewski#Head coaching record. There are already section headings there preceding the table. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is the second edit war without explicitly violating 3RR I've seen from Jweiss11 ([35] [36]). I have, in agreement with ToBeFree's analysis pulled Template editor user perm. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, so this is the second time you have observed me to not violate 3RR (or 1RR where sanctions apply) when reverting another editor who made changes to long-standing content without consensus, correct? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  This is the second time I have observed you edit warring without explicitly violating 3RR. The framing of your question suggests that 3RR is the only way an editor can edit war. This is not correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that concludes the discussion about Jweiss11's participation in this conflict, thanks. Now I'd like to address the reporter. Koavf, you're probably one of the most experienced editors around. Was it really necessary to keep reverting – against two other editors and over template protection – without having gained proper consensus on the talk page? Couldn't an RFC or other methods of dispute resolution have brought the desired clarity? I feel it would not be entirely fair to close this discussion without having at least mentioned concerns about your over-insistence in the conflict. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, The second revert you found to be justified, so I'll just assume that the consensus is that it was. The first one was because, as "Dispute with a fellow editor" above mentions, he reverted me and template editors should revert one another with "good cause [and] careful thought" which, "this is clutter" does not display. He and I discussed table captions at length on the talk page and the problem was with the accuracy of the wording, I added new wording and posted to the talk page immediately after to solicit feedback on that new wording. I have had many, many discussions over basic accessibility over and over again (alt text, MOS:COLOR, table captions, internal scrolling, collapsed-by-default content, etc.) and the attempts to get local consensus is exhausting. We already have these guidelines from W3C/ARIA in the first place and localized here in documentation such as Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Data_tables_tutorial#Proper_table_captions_and_summaries or MOS:SCROLL. I'm happy to discuss which captions or what type of alt text is appropriate in a given situation but I don't feel like I should have to make the case that basic accessibility should be a feature of the world's largest reference work thousands and thousands of times. If I sound put out, I am. If I seem rude, please excuse me: it's an infinite amount of work just to add this stuff in the first place, let alone bicker about it over and over and over again at every single page and template repeatedly. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• I was pinged here as someone who has edited this template during this dispute, so I feel an obligation to respond. First, to state the obvious, the edit in question placed an obnoxious, unhelpful, pointy header on 3,000+ pages. Jweiss11 explicitly stated I was making a point (link), which is not what the template editor right is for. The edit was not representative of the sort of behavior I would expect of someone with the template editor right. As for the substance of the discussion and how the table should be formatted, my involvement has been limited, as far as I can tell, to reverting the addition of a header with non-factual text and posting a message on the template's talk page explaining why I had done so and encouraging all involved editors to discuss an appropriate resolution before changing this widely used template. If the editors continue to war over this template, I recommend a higher level of protection for it and a search for a more appropriate venue for discussing a mutually agreeable outcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Eyeballs on Kuchesar Fort

There seems to be a pattern of advertising-like edits done by red-linked editors with low numbers of edits. Does this look worth reporting? Qwirkle (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• That's all very odd. The various new editor's edits are a mixture of advertising, vandalism and actually productive edits, on an obscure article. I wonder if it's something to do with a school or college class project? Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Although, this has been going on for over two years, with dozens of accounts. It still could be school-related - teacher introduces Wikipedia to class, suggests a backwater article to test their editing on, repeats this with next class - but apart from that ... Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It happens. See Jenny's Journeys, which had so much sustained disruption from random accounts that it was discussed on the CU mailing list. I keep these articles on my watchlist sometimes once I figure out they've been listed somewhere on a syllabus or popular website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)