IvoryTower123 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment I caught wind of this dispute when I closed a previous RfC, was asked to clarify the close, and asked about the appropriateness of a subsequent RfC that seems to have led to this current thread. I feel that additional comments from uninvolved administrators would be helpful in resolving this dispute. I don't know the full history among these editors, but Hijiri has raised concerns about wikihounding which should be taken seriously. The diffs that Martin provides should at least be read in that context. As for the original post, I don't really understand the hang-up on OR. Editors are routinely asked to evaluate the reliability of sources and determine due weight, so I don't see how OR plays much of a role in these discussions. Personally, I've struggled to resolve this issue, and would welcome help from others who are better at handling conduct disputes like this. Something should be done here, and wider input would be helpful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify two minor issues in case anyone thinks I was being deliberately misleading:

(i) I don't think Martin is technically "hounding" me. In November, he showed up on a page I had edited almost two years earlier, and reverted most of my work on it. His edits don't appear to show a good-faith interest in the topic (since any honest reading of the sources would lead to the opposite conclusion he has reached), and he appears to be more interested in haranguing me than in improving the article. It is not clear whether or not he would continue to follow me to other pages and try the same thing if he were page-banned. I can provide evidence of all of this in the form of diffs, but since I am not actively seeking any sanctions against him, I don't want to waste time doing so. (I have already wasted dozens if not hundreds of hours on what should have been a cut-and-dry issue.)

(ii) This ANI report, which has nothing directly to do with Martin, was not prompted by the recent RFC, but by one of the participants therein repeatedly accusing me of "original research". This problem (including my saying that I would seek administrative assistance in resolving it) also goes back to November, as the diffs I presented show.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I mean I oppose any sort of "page ban" on Hijiri. The page mottainai is a terrible mess, WP at its worst; most is a section nominally called "etymology etc", but actually a ragbag of argument-from-etymology claims of a distinctly nihonjinron flavour, and the latest spat relates to the inclusion of a scraping from a Jungian psychologist, who (not surprisingly, since it's an axiom of the Jungian quasi-religion) thinks that "mottainai" is "connected" (meaning unclear) to anima mundi, which looks like the Shinto animism idea. I think most Japan specialist editors will have given up on this page; apart from Hijiri's contributions, almost all input is formulaic, legalistic recitations of rules about "sources". While I think that a less confrontational approach from Hijiri himself would doubtless help, it is hard to see his critics as disinterested contributors to the content of WP. For example, the user IvoryTower123 mentined at the beginning seems to have made many edits, for which I see no reason not to assume good faith, but apart from a comment on Talk:Constitution of Japan (mostly procedural), has made just one other Japan-related edit, creating a user page containing a Japanese language level 3 claim, and no other content. This does seem bizarre. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unarchived this thread. It clearly needs a proper (admin) closure this time, especially given the comments that were made my Martinthewriter and Ahiroy therein, essentially promising that the disruption will continue indefinitely until something is done. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now the second oldest thread on the page -- is no one going to look at it? I know it's not necessarily fair to suggest that problems like this one are not "sexy" enough to attract attention from uninvolved admins, but what other explanation is there? Back in December the problem was apparently that the first admin who came across the thread didn't want to weigh in on my "side" for "personal" reasons, but now...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn Still waiting for someone to deal with this... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support temporary ban. The insults and threats by Hijiri88 (at the top of this section) are unacceptable. Something should be done to uphold WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, because they are vital pillars of Wikipedia. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: "insults"? "threats"? Do you have evidence of these things? The diffs above clearly show me reacting in a fairly civil, reserved fashion to harassment and disruptive editing, if even that, unless you read only MTW's misquotations without clicking on the diffs to see the original context. If you do not present evidence, I would ask you to retract these unprovoked personal attacks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs above show your bullying methods to intimidate other editors, similar to what you are trying on right now. 1292simon (talk) 11:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they show other editors making bogus accusations and the like, and me responding by telling them they are making bogus accusations (as is happeningI am "trying" now), and me notifying them of possible consequences (as is not happening now, since every time you edit ANI you see a big orange banner telling you to provide diffs). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes, people are their own worst enemy, Hijiri 88. This has been pointed out to you before, at least once by me. (not recently). If you'd have left it alone, it would have died. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Date	Article at AfD	Authordom's claim in full for deletion	Deobandi - related	Comment	Result	Review?
1	22.03	IslamOnline	"Non notable Muslim Brotherhood linked website."	No	Redirect to Yusuf al-Qaradawi would possibly be more appropriate action.	Not closed yet	—
2	18.03	Jamiatul Qasim Darul Uloom Al-Islamiah	"Non notable Islamist seminary in India."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	Not closed yet	—
3	18.03	Madrasatul Islah	"Non notable Islamic seminary."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE carried out. I !voted Keep, founded by notable scholars, produced notable scholars	Not closed yet	—
4	11.03	Asad Madni	"Non notable Islamist scholar and politician from India."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE carried out. Elected politician, easily verifiable.	KEEP*	No 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[1] Founder of school was Deobadi	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
16	23.02	Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi	"Non Notable seminary."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
17	23.02	Ahsan-Ul-Uloom	"Non notable Islamist seminary"	Yes[2]	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
18	19.02	Ideal Relief Wing Kerala	"Non notable charitable NGO managed by the Jamaat-e-Islami Kerala chapter."	Yes (if editor assertion is true).	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
19	18.02	Madrasah as-Sawlatiyah	"No scope to keep, because unable to pass even the WP:GNG."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	KEEP*	No action
20	18.02	Jamia Khair-ul-Madaris	"Non notable."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; academic study on history of the school.[3]	DELETE	Yes
21	18.02	Madrasa Mifthahul Uloom	"I think no scope to keep the non notable article."	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE.	DELETE	Possibly
22	18.02	Al-Jamiatul Islamiah Qasemul Uloom Charia	Non notable Qawmi Madrasah	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
23	18.02	Jamia Luthfia Anwarul Uloom Hamidnagar	"Non notable Qawmi Madrasah located in Bangladesh"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE	DELETE	Possibly
24	18.02	Jamia Rahmania Arabia Dhaka	"Non notable Deobandi madrasa"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; one of the largest madrassas in Bangladesh.[4]	DELETE	Yes
25	18.02	Al-Jamiatul Arabiatul Islamia, Ziri	"Not notable Islamic religious institution"	Yes	No evidence of BEFORE; 100+ years old, third largest madrassa in Bangladesh	DELETE	Yes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not true. There is these edits, here[19] and here[20], where you tried to rewrite MOS to suit yourself. Those edits were reverted by another editor here[21] and here[22] the second of which with the edit summary- 'you need to get consensus at MOS's talk page before changing it and using your change to justify changing articles'. All because I removed See also redlinks from an article he created. He then unsuccessfully tried to change MOS at this talk page discussion[23] but I didn't participate....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have a majority who support specific wording here.

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

They continue to change the wording despite the above consensus.[24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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, [25], and [26]). Some of the changes made are okay, but they are filled with pointless ones, like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afterward, only two "separate" editors commented. (Their surgical separation was successful?) Maybe I'll reply there. They raise 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 out 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 every word or sentence or 5 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. Reviewing 50 same-day near-edits by the same editor surely is more tedious and more error-prone than one big edit.
• "almost all of which were cosmetic, ..." (Well, over half were "cosmetic".) I made "real" changes. "Cosmetic" edits do not disqualify an edit and do not justify compound-reverting reasonable work, unless the edit actually "hurts" the page by bloating it with irrational markup.
• "... making it difficult to find ..." It's not that hard. Once and it's over. No one will "fix" those things again.
• "... what the substantive changes were (if there were any)" That is devastatingly insincere. The "substantive changes" were described and obvious.
• "Some of the changes made are okay," Okay. "but they are filled with pointless ones" Each one had a point. Some are substantial, some are cosmetic. Some are subtle. I expect clear markup, so I put clear markup. Moving the anchors up to where they are recommended to be helps people arriving from shortcuts. It is small but not trivial.
• Cosmetic-only edits are discouraged, but there is no mandate to revert even one of those (unless it does real damage). I've warned other editors who did a lot of these, but I have never reverted one, even when I didn't like what they did.
• "there were a couple [of] changes within that great clump that I did think were necessary" (Geekdiva) Correct! But some would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
• "Not broke", but "if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." (essay) It helped a little.
• I expect legible and consistent markup when I do any editing. When markup is inconsistent, I change it. The important result of editing is good markup (secondary to good content). Diffs? Someone doesn't like my diffs? Diffs are tertiary. Still, I pay some attention to what the "diffs" look like. They are legible and comprehensible.
• The main MOS page recommends 1RR if not 0RR. You reverted two harmless beneficial edits.

- A876 (talk)

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

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohnoitsjamie - thanks for acting on this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They made 7 such proposals in a row yesterday:

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

They also voted with the identical reason "Merge per WP:INFOCOL" at 14 discussions over the last 2 days, no matter if there had been significant opposition against the proposal or not, as if that essay was a convincing reason and not some "argument to avoid" in such discussions: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] and [43], where they also added one of those long comparison tables[44]

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

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

They didn't answer, but continued with the identical voting[45], and created 5 more of these "discussions" or "proposals" or whatever they are supposed to be:

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

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

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

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

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

Normally I try to let incivility go, but being directly accused of being a white supremacist [64] and [65] is beyond the pale. It doesn't (or shouldn't) matter why they made this claim, but it is completely baffling to me that they stated it was because I (1): removed a factually inaccurate tag, and (2): argued that we should continue to describe Hitler's ideologies and actions as universally regarded as evil. I don't know how arguing, and providing sources that state, that Hitler is universally viewed as evil in in any way indicative of white supremacist views. I try to keep my personal life separate from my editing, but as someone who has lost family to the actions of white supremacists, I find this accusation incredibly offensive. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• As response to the block, the user called Black Kite and AmbivalentUnequivocality white supremacists again ([66]). Please block indef and remove talk page access, this is going nowhere. MrClog (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

I raised this with them "this is not the place for casting aspersions and making vague accusations of sockpuppeting." and also on their talk: "your slimy indirect harassment" Their reaction was a simple "stay off my talk page.", and to revert their talk and the most actionable of their insults at AfD. [67]

They've also been repeatedly blanking a sourced section from this list [68] [69] (Like many list articles at AfD, there's a question of whether individual items needs to be either bluelinked, WP:N or individually sourced, or if transitive sourcing via another linked article is adequate. Deleting one of the few with on-page sources obviously skews the overall sourcing level of the article, and is also against the spirit of the no-blanking warning on AfD itself.) They've pursued this article for a long time; a year ago they went to 3RR to simply blank it altogether: [70][71][72] and a little later, again [73].

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

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

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

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

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

• Andy is apparently just

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Christopher E. Rudd
• Dobrich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For background, see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#INDENTMIX.

1. Rexxs remving my post from a the CFD discussion, in each case replacing with is own reply: [74] and [75].
2. Rexxs renoving all identation and para bvreaks from my post:[76], [77], [78], [79], [80]
3. Rexxs making a personal attack: You are behaving like a spoilt brat[81]
4. RexxS making clear threat to silence me: I'll take any and all steps necessary to ensure that your posts no longer pollute discussions. [82]

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

I see that RexxS has now removed a para break and indentation from my post for the the 5th or 6 time within a few hours: [83].

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

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

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

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

@Black Kite: see also User talk:RexxS#Stop_it, where RexxS posted[84] a quote from TPO which explicitly says preserve the content as much as possible ... whereas RexxS twice removed my whole post, and 5 or 6 times removed my para breaks.

And if you look at the markup for WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical_compositions, you'll see that the indenting style which I use is widely used my other editors (e.g. Oculi[85] and Gerda Arendt[86]). The selectivity makes it very clear that RexxS has not chosen to uphold INDENTMIX; he has chosen to deploy it a weapon solely against me, and in doing so he appears not to have even read the guidance which he quotes.

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

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

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

Reply to RexxS:

1. RexxS's 22:11 statement[87] that none of BHG's malformed posts contained paragraph breaks and I did not remove any of them is untrue. As shown in WP:THREAD, the indentation markup causes para breaks, and the complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e.g. this edit[88] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph.
   If RexxS is unaware of the effects of indentation then he has no busness appointing himself as a one-man indntation hitsquad.. And in this case, he amost certainly was aware, because I had posted about this at 22:08[89], which is before Rexx's comment. So he is probably not just wrong, but intentionally lying.
2. My posts were not chronically malformed. They were formatted as I usually post them, and as nearly everyone else posting on the same page (and other CFD pages) formats their posts.
3. RexxS has both a complete loss of perspective and a deeply unhealthy fixation on seeing me as some of miscreant woman who he must chastise. (If this was in meatspace, I'd seriously concerned for my safety).
4. How dare RexxS call me a liar for not spotting his comments to two other editors. I posted in good faith about what I had seen, and I am happy to clarify that I missed something.
5. However, now that RexxS has noted how he challenged the formatting or Oculi and Marcocapaelle, I note that he challenged only the formatting of editors who disagree with him. So I stand my point about how RexxS weaponising this issue as a partisan tool.
6. WP:INDENTMIX is not policy. It is a guideline. RexxS is an admin, and has a responsibility to know the difference.
7. Neither WP:INDENTMIX nor WP:TPO permit the removal of posts because of a formatting issue.
8. RexxS is WP:INVOLVED, so his claims to be upholding our accessibility polic simply reinforce that he is acting inappropriately.
9. RexxS's is the third editor from the classical music project who has behaved aggressively towards me over this CFD nomination (see the other two at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Sorry_...). What on earth is up with them all? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to BHG's reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have indeed been upholding MOS:INDENTMIX

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

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

Let me quote from WP:TPO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the specific complaints:

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

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

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

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

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

RexxS's claim that None of her posts contained paragraph breaks for me to remove is false. The indentation markup causes para breaks, and the complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e,g. this edit[90] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@RexxS, how dare you say that BHG's claim that her posts contained paragraph breaks is false. There is more than one way of making aparagraph break. As I noted above: The indentation markup causes para breaks, and your complete removal of the indentation removed those para breaks. See e.g. this edit[91] by RexxS, which caused 4 separate paragraphs of mine to run into one over-long paragraph. You repeated this 5 or 6 times.

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

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

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

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

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

Your edit[[92]] made all those lines run together. And you repeated that 5 or 6 times.

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

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

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

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

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

RexxS,

You call my posts "pollution".

You call me a "spoilt brat".

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

You repeatedly mislabel a guideline as policy.

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

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

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

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

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

BHG

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

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

The guideline does support my actions.

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

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

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

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

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

@RexxS, this more rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Here's [93] RexxS doing precisely the awful horrible terrible mean thoughtless unforgivable thing he excoriates BHG for, and used as an excuse for removing her posts. Huh. EEng 01:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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