Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Padgriffin Are you referring to Wikipedia:Communication is required? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Bit tardy to the party on this comment, but as noted below, there was confusion in editor names. No concerns from me regarding JCrespo's editing. DonIago (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think a block would be appropriate at this point. Maybe around 48h – they seem to be editing almost daily, so that should be enough to get them to notice –, with a block message that tries to direct them to use their talk page. I only just noticed someone said earlier those aren't displayed. Still, not like there are any other options. 22:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC) – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relying on WP:IAR, I temporarily replaced Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1940–1949) with a message to CejeroC. They edited that page recently and frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your efforts to get their attention! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User has either not noticed or just doesn’t care- they’re still adding color_process. I’m afraid that the only viable option here might just be blocking them in the hope that they’ll check their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They've figured out how to use the revert option now. Padgriffin (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correction- they did a manual revert. Point still stands. Padgriffin (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 48 hours as suggested above, given the evidence of continued disruptive editing. If the behavior continues right after the block expires, an indef will be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like they're right back at it :/. Support re-block for longer duration or indef. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've indeffed and left a note that the block can be lifted as soon as they demonstrate that they can engage with other editors. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help everyone. Unfortunate that it came to this, but it seems that without a better way to compel editors to review their Talk pages, blocks may be the best (though not great) tool available. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is an extremely sad situation, and to be frank, I blame the WMF for it. I started a thread at User talk: Jimbo Wales and I encourage other editors to comment there. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that the general situation was finally acknowledged by the WMF on 7 April, and some action seems to be happening[5]. I would suggest waiting a short while to see if something good comes from this (with a clear timeline), and if this turns out to be unsatisfactory, to start an RfC to disable editing from these apps from our side out (through the edit filter probably). Fram (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a note to lead message: for anyone using TemplateData the sentence ‘the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only."’ was never actually true. This includes visual editor users, TemplateWizard users, and I assume Wikimedia app users. I’ve fixed that. I think this is what caused the whole issue in the first place, even before the apps’ clear communication issues that are mentioned here and elsewhere. stjn^[ru] 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Me, I have been trying to test on my mobile account whether adding User:MER-C/payattention.js to the common.js page can alert editors. It does, but only if I am editing in desktop mode. Is there a way to tweak that script so that it shows an alert on the mobile interface too? Yes, I know we'd need an WP:INTADMIN every time we wanted to use this but it might help until the WMF can resolve the notification issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've made a modified version that works on mobile as well. Keep in mind this is only for mobile web, though. I don't think the apps execute user scripts, so this won't help reach editors like CejeroC. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 21:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There may be another instance of this involving a different editor here. As it's a different user and not necessarily the same issue (though the situation appears similar to me), and I haven't been involved with it, I didn't want to necessarily make a case for it here, but it seemed worth a mention. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Huasteca

Huasteca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been editing since the first of this year, and in that time has found their way over to COVID related articles with which they have a problem accepting WP:MEDRS and WP:DUE, as well as their continued attempts to either overstate what sources say, or make new information from combinations altogether. Their first talkpage post (here) was filled with accusations of propaganda, and they flat out lied about the sourcing in the article. They later venture into personal attacks territory, and continues even now to refuse to understand that consensus is against them.

To this user's credit, they did attempt to discuss this on a noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war... but after that discussion resulted in no support for their views/goals, they went right back to making large changes to attempt to push the negative information to the forefront. The user then today again provided two sources not compliant with MEDRS and attempted to synthesize information from them that wasn't really present in the original EMA announcement - which they conveniently ignored because if anyone here would like to read that announcement, it does not say that it is confirmed, it says it's still a "possible link" and being listed as a side effect - which is not the same as saying "we have confirmed a causal relationship with the vaccine" - yet Huasteca wants us to say that, and the user wants the information about the blood clots to be plastered front and center for people, when at most one or two sentences would be merited, just as for any other side effect.

All in all, I am unsure whether this user has some motive for this other than building an encyclopedia, but it is clear to me now that allowing this user to continue to edit in the COVID-19 vaccine topic area would be a time sink for other editors, and it is producing virtually no good discussion. As such, I'd like to start this discussion on perhaps applying the COVID-19 general sanctions to apply a topic ban on COVID-19 vaccinations. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update, this response to an uninvolved editor trying to explain things has personal attacks, aspersions, and is overall unhelpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to respond. It seems User is deeply disturbed by the EMA's announcement today finding a link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis and continued suspensions of Astrazeneca vaccinations. He has been aggressively pushing the view, not only that there is no link between Astrazeneca and cerebral thrombosis but that no one has even hypothesized this link. Hard to believe but true. This is his position - he literally refuses to acknowledge the content of reliable sources. [6]. He even refuses to accept that numerous countries have suspended AZ vaccinations - with arguments on the line of "they were just temporary pauses". Funny thing is that I haven't even really engaged in an edit war with this editor - I just took this entire scenario to the relevant noticeboard where he promptly requested I was topic-banned. Perhaps this is the second of the Five stages of grief now that his position is even more untenable than before? God knows. He knows I have disengaged from the topic so I assume it is the product of a mixture of vindictiveness and frustration. Should not be wasting people's time here, though, including mine! Huasteca (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The EMA did not find a link, they found a "possible link", and you would know that if you clicked the link in my original post. I have not pushed any view one way or another - I have fought against presenting a viewpoint as "certain" based on non MEDRS and sources that don't say what you're trying to say, as we are not a crystal ball and it's better to wait than get it wrong in the meantime. This editor has not disengaged from the topic, or if they have done so, it has only come after this noticeboard filing. I'll note that this user has continued making aspersions and personal attacks even here - showing that they cannot edit in this topic area without personalizing things, and I remain convinced that a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines would be beneficial to the project. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned here, involved with the edits of the page in question, and asked for my opinion by an editor on my talk page, I will give my 2 cents. The issues raised by Huasteca are not entirely without merit, however, the objectionable material here is in how he chose to go about attempting to edit. While editing, he used primarily sources that did not meet the WP:MEDRS standard, and as such his edits were generally reverted. I attempted to explain that this was common, and that even I had had recent edits reverted on similar grounds recently, though I thought them to be passable for several reasons, and that trough discussion with the community we had come to a consensus. Moreover, there were some considerable WP:DUE issues with his writing, with unconfirmed reports being presented front and center, without clarification, in the lede. Some of these edits also left out important information from within his own sources, that was important for a reader to understand the entire situation. The primary issue, however, comes with his reaction to criticism. He has frequently accused other editors of colluding or conspiring to "push POV", and yet takes even very mild criticism levelled strictly against his work (as opposed to him as a person) as a personal attack, lauding phrases such as "a very serious personal attack" and "a torrent of abuse", when not a single insult or threat had been thrown his way, merely constructive criticism over his edits. His assumption that the AstraZeneca vaccine casual link to the few dozen blood clot cases would eventually be confirmed appears to now be proven correct by the EMA, but the issue is not really about that. We don't attempt to predict the future, and accusations of conspiracy, abuse and "British Propaganda" (his words, not mine) quickly derail the discussion instead of moving it forward. In addition, he appears to dismiss the MEDRS standard as some kind of excuse that other editors are using against him, rather than a standard that we should all hold each other by, especially on a topic as important as this. He repeatedly accused other editors of POV pushing, when he quite clearly held and promoted a POV himself. Ultimately, the inclusion of a lot of his content would not even have been a problem, especially now with the EMA's new statement, but the violation of WP:MEDRS, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:DUE were the primary reasons for the conflict. His decision to immediately take offence, rather than to attempt to discuss the mater impartially prevented the establishment of a stable consensus. Still, it is worth noting that he has expressed support for other vaccines, most notably Pfizer's, and does not appear to maintain a more broad anti-vaccination attitude and has, at least at times, appeared responsive to complaints (even if not in the most constructive way possible). Why this user is such a staunch opponent of this vaccine I do not know, but it wouldn't have been an issue if the discussion he had with us was more focused on facts and edits, and not on taking offense and accusations. I wish him all the best, but find this type of behaviour quite unhelpful. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pure WP:BATTLEGROUND from Huasteca. They seem to be living out a fantasy in which they are a lone hero fighting against evil pharma shills. Unfortunately this means mischaracterizing what sources say (so: "There is no longer any doubt on the causal link between Astrazeneca and the clots"[7]) and concocting a bizarre story about what other editors are saying (so: "You guys can write AZ is magic and cures Aids and it won't have an impact on public perception"[8]). Probably some WP:ROPE is left to play out, but in a fraught medical topic subject to GS, these kinds of antics are the last thing the Project needs. Alexbrn (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alexbrn Guys, could you please just leave me alone? You have been proven wrong, yes I know its annoying but its what happens when you take WP:FRINGE views. Other editors are dealing with the article and I'm not involved anymore. Harassing me here is not going to change anything. Stop wasting people's times with your personal attacks, I'm not going to react in kind. Huasteca (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca. There are no personal attacks by Alexbrn. Given your message here I would ask if English isn't your first language as that would explain some of the problems you are having. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather There have indeed been a number of pretty nasty and uncalled for personal attacks by this user against me, as well as by other members of this odd cabal. If you want the diffs here, I will provide. And yes, you are correct, English is not my first language. It's my third language. But I'm still pretty certain I speak and write it better than you do. Thanks for your valuable input to this conversation. Huasteca (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would like some diffs and I so far all I see is you making personal attacks. Calling others an "odd cabal" is an attack. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This is a personal attack, for example.[9] Saying that me raising concerns about the neutrality of an article is due to "malice or incompetence" is a completely uncalled for personal attack. I also consider you completely randomly questioning my ability to communicate effectively in English because I happen to speak other languages a personal attack. The Trump era is over. I'm not wasting more time on this, I'm sorry. Have a nice day. Huasteca (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Huasteca Yes that was a unnecessary attack by Alexbrn. However, that does not make it OK for you to make them as well. By the way asking if English is your first language is not a personal attack. Just a question. Not sure why you would bring up some foreign former president. Trump never had a "era" up here. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather It's fine. Sorry for taking it the wrong way then. These guys make me moody and defensive. Regards. Huasteca (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This user seems to have avoided this discussion by claiming they would be leaving this topic area alone, but they've yet again removed referenced text in this edit with an edit summary that's a borderline personal attack, and misleading. I stand by requesting that this user be topic banned from COVID-19 vaccines as they are unable to contribute in this area without becoming overly dramatic, making personal attacks, and slow edit warring to get their preferred outcomes in articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's sad that he now appears to have been completely insincere in his reasoning up to this point. This to me disproves the presumed good faith hypothesis and is reason enough for me to concur with you request. This is malicious behaviour and actively detrimental to the goals of building an open and neutral encyclopaedia. Goodposts (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that the behavior has continued, I would propose a partial block from COVID-19 articles. They can propose changes on the Talk pages, or go edit somewhere else for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I would be okay with this except for the fact that just as much, if not more, disruption has been caused by their derailing of discussions on talkpages for vaccines at least. I also think that they may just need a break from the vaccines and they may be able to contribute meaningfully on general COVID articles (ex: about the virus, pandemic, etc). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines

• Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines Huasteca is a massive timewaster who is attempting to push contentious and unverified medical information against Wikipedia guidelines, with persistent IDHT problem. The sooner they get the boot the better. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs as evidence of me "pushing contentious and unverified medical information"? Also could you substantiate your allegation of me being a "massive timewaster"? It would allow me to not interpret it as a gratuitous personal attack. Thank you Hemiauchenia Best regards.--Huasteca (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per Hemiauchenia. h 13:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines: Given the following scummering of Gs/alerts:topic=covid as "sillyness" [10] and then obviously continuing to engage in battles per comments above. In mitigation per someone above has had a couple of points worthy of inclusion; and may have reduced problematic edits since soming to ANI.and may have been riled from some stuff albeit AGF initially unintentionally. In some ways I'd like to conside allowing talk page edit requests for Huasteca but on risk/benefit considerations and the difficultly of making acceptable edit requests its likely better all round that it also include talk pages. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC) I've struck my support for 2 reasons. The first inaction of admins seem to appear that the regard "general sanctions" to be meaningless. The second is that @Berchanhimez's "And this user" immediately after this post can be taken as a dig at myself .... unless one actually goes into the links to see that "This user" probably refers to Huasteca. An admin should probably therefore close this an no action. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

And this user Huasteca has continued to cast aspersions and make personal attacks all while continuing to edit the article and its talk page after multiple times claiming they "weren't involved" or they "haven't looked" in days. This disruption is preventing article work because those of us who are actually trying to improve the article are, from all sides, having to waste time on what now appears to be intentional "fudging" of sources and trying to make the most POV text possible that can be supported by a source. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Djm-leighpark - I was attempting to reply to my own comment above - but the replylink tool when I clicked it after my name put it down here for some reason. You can verify that in the fact that the edit summary says "replying to Berchanhimez (using reply-link)" and not your name. For complete clarity, "This user" in the above statement refers only to Huasteca. I'll note that Huasteca (I won't use "this user" again for clarity) has now admitted to refusing to assume good faith and has attempted to justify their continued actions because they took it to NPOV/N - where they were pretty clearly in a minority viewpoint on their desired edits at the time, so I'm not sure how that could justify their continuing this at all. I agree that administrators are too scared to touch this area - unfortunately, some people decided to witch-hunt the only administrator who was actually keeping a lid on COVID disruption off of the project, and obviously nobody else has stepped in and become willing to touch it. I don't think that lack of action yet, when only one administrator has even commented and that was early on to try and get Huasteca to step back/improve, means that it should not be actioned - especially as, I've been showing here, disruption has been continuing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Topic Ban from COVID-19 vaccines per my arguments above. Goodposts (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I still believe this needs at a minimum an uninvolved administrator to review and consider the arguments here and close this before it is automatically archived. This is the second time I've had to comment to prevent archiving of this thread without more than one administrator commenting (and even that administrator has not returned since attempting to defuse the situation above, which I appreciate but did not work as evidenced by continued (slow) disruption). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. The provided evidence is weak. The supposed offence of using MEDRS-incompatible sources was in a talk page post that discussed EMA and MHRA announcements, via two mainstream news stories - other users agreed EMA and MHRA are usable and the EMA announcement is now used. The "borderline personal attack" was "shenanigans". The "removal of referenced text" added wording to give a full quote rather than a truncation. That version is still live. However, Huasteca's discussion style is hyperbolic and they need to stop describing articles as "propaganda" and making references to North Korea, etc. Fences&Windows 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  They were already told to stop doing such, but they just repeatedly say they're "stepping back" or otherwise "done" with the article, then they come back and continue the same behavior after this discussion dies down enough that they think they're safe. Note that a week ago an administrator here told them to stop doing such, but they are still being hyperbolic since being told that sort of thing is inappropriate - why do they deserve another warning when the first one did not work? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Pragmatically possible problematic contributions in the topic area seem to me to have reduced in the 10 days since this ANI was raised, certainly compared to the period immediately before that. Under those circumstances the discussion is likely to peter out until closed or taken to archive by bot. If I am not mistaken Huasteca has not "owned" the disrespect shown in the comment used when removing the "General sanctions" notification from their talk page, and perhaps that is a bad precedent for the admins to ignore without at least a warning. I have a faint hope article maturation and WP:MEDSECTIONS of the affected articles might help lead to less issues ongoing ... however I am afraid there is a real risk of escalation and being back here or whatever after this ANI closes. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Berchanhimez, they're not obliged to stop editing the articles or talk pages - they've not been topic banned (yet). If we sanctioned Wikipedians for returning to an article they said they'd stopped editing we'd lose a lot of our frequent content creators. Topic bans need to be better supported than framing every comment or edit you disagree with as disruption. Djm-leighpark, the bad-tempered removal of a GS notice was unwise, but editors are allowed to remove such notices from their own talk page and display annoyance - we're not robots and it is still proof Huasteca is aware of the general sanctions on COVID-19 articles. Huasteca, if you continue characterising other editors as propagandists you will be sanctioned. They are not your opponents; they are your collaborators. Focus on content, not other contributors. There seems to be agreement on what kinds of sources can be used in the articles and wordsmithing hardly seems worthy of getting topic banned over. Fences&Windows 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't logged into wikipedia for a couple of days and have just come across this. I'm literally a loss for words. That you, User:Berchanhimez are trying to get me topic banned because I publicly called you out manipulating an EMA statement to fit your narrative is borderline surreal. (See [11]). Berchanhimez, a more mature reaction would be to apologize for getting carried away in your zeal and promise to refrain from violating Wikipedia policies in the future. Trying to get me topic banned out of petty vindictiveness because things are not going your way on the article is also in itself a violation of Wikipedia which in merits some form of sanction in my view. Especially considering I'm not even that active on Wikipedia. Regardless, I have done nothing wrong and I will appeal the ban in the unlikely case that, due to canvassing or concerted action, this meritless accusation somehow leads to any sanctions being imposed on me. I trust wikipedia to be functional enough for this ridiculous case to go nowhere. Huasteca (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This response itself which attempts to project this user's actions onto me, as well as continuing to cast aspersions and accuse people of "canvassing or concerted action" when nobody has done such and no proof has been given... this should show to anyone reading this that (including User:Fences and windows) that this disruption has continued past all warnings from other people. I'm not sure what this user thinks was "manipulated" by myself, but they are the one who has continually attempted to violate WP:V by cherry-picking words/phrases from sources in their edits in this topic area - and in fact that was agreed upon by people both on the talk page and at WP:NPOVN where they tried to take this when they didn't like what they were told on the talk page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I would have thought the clever moved would have been to have left ANI with Fences and windows's summary at 12:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC). But Huasteca has determined to continue it. I probably wouldn't have checked here but for this edit at [12] at 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC) (somewhat after 23:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC) ). I read it as a minor wordsmithing badger and would likely have ignored it apart from the fact I didn't sign properly in my earlier response there which is really a mandatory correction I sort of had to make. This leaves me with a concern issues are likely to continue. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not determined anything Djm-leighpark. I just respond to this barrage of notifications in my inbox. But could you please tell me what the problem is with that specific edit? I look at the diff and its not even my edit. What issues are likely to continue? So far the only issue I see is a serious bout of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:GAME. Huasteca (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I frankly don't know if I've made a good faith mistake here or not, I have certainly made one and maybe others, and if I did I apologise, but I'm not actually going to waste any further effort checking this ... Bigdelboy (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez, the edit they are referring to as "manipulation" was here where you removed "they exceeded what would be expected in the general population" (referring to combination of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia), which was supported by the source and could be seen as downplaying what AstraZeneca and the EMA said in the statement. You also put "plausible" in scare quotes and turned "the occurrence of thrombosis in combination with thrombocytopenia" into "the occurrence of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia", which alters the meaning - it is the co-occurrence which is the focus of attention, not the individual occurrence of either. Fences&Windows 12:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re using the same cherry picking here to justify calling that manipulation, whereas I made those edits by taking the sources available as a whole, not just picking the scariest parts of them. Further, putting an exact quoted word in quotation marks is not “scare quotes”. Furthermore, it is not just the coincidence of the two that they are concerned about, it’s also when either happens on its own. Again, this is all supported if you look at the entirety of sources available, instead of just finding one part of one source that you can pick out. This was also the general agreement on the talk page and NPOV noticeboard. I am unsure why you are attempting to rehash this here and justify personal attacks by an editor when the discussion about that was already had and came to a clear consensus. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 12:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Fences and windows: Thank you. I agree my language was a bit hyperbolic when I first engaged in this article (which is some time back now, I think) and the North Korea reference was uncalled for. For that I apologize. But the odd thing is that despite toning down I am facing hostility I don't think I have ever encountered on wikipedia. The irony is that its precisely these attacks which are drawing me back to these articles.--Huasteca (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janitor102 may be relevant to this thread. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that this has concluded without evidence of sockpuppetry, I think that this needs a conclusion to prevent further disruption in the COVID-19 area when Huasteca inevitably returns to those articles which they themselves admit they cannot stay away from. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block

This editor has also apparently been editing while logged out to edit war - as evidenced by this page history. At this point, they know well the rules against edit warring and sockpuppetry (including logged-out socking), and they are still choosing to engage in disruption which apparently consists of more than just COVID-19 related topics. This editor, even while being discussed at ANI for their failure to comply with community standards, has continued to disrupt articles - they've simply ignored the COVID-19 space for as long as necessary that they feel they're "okay", then they went right back to it, and now they're disrupting another topic area by edit warring with logged out edits. For this reason, I feel an indefinite block is warranted until this editor expresses their realization of their disruption being... well disruptive and promises to comply with rules and guidelines in the future. If this isn't actioned, now almost 2 weeks since the first post, we will be right back here in another few weeks when this is archived and thus Huasteca realizes they can go back to their disruption without being actively scrutinized. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Citation bot "fixing" non-deprecated parameters

Edits such as this fly in the face of stuff like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC: Citation Style 1 parameter naming convention and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Closure_review_request_for_"Citation_Style_1_parameter_naming_convention"_RfC. Considering a similar task by Monkbot was suspended pending the outcome of that RfC, I strongly suggest someone do something about the bot until this non-consensus task can be deactivated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smith609: Your bot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

He's abrogated responsibility for CB—he's edited once this year and his last 50 edits go back 13 months—someone else may have taken over the operation. Echoing @Kaldari and AManWithNoPlan:. ——Serial 17:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question is not cosmetic. It removed |ref=harv, thereby removing a redundant parameter and a tracking category. The RFC close linked above specifically says any editor should feel free to manually or semi-automatically change unhyphenated parameters into their hyphenated forms while they're doing something else on a page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The close is clearly challenged so please don't do any action based on that until it is resolved. Removing ref=harv doesn't change anything display wise, and anyway that does not justify changing the hyphenated parameters. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as BAG here, it has long been held that if there is a non-cosmetic edit made to a page, there is zero issue with other cosmetic edits being made at the same time. The RFC does not overturn this precedent. It has also been held that tracking parameters (and thus the removal/fixing of them) is not considered cosmetic. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As a way to test the bot, I ran it on this version of Geotextile, which has the empty unknown parameter |coauthors= and instances of |accessdate=. The bot conservatively refused to make any changes to the article. RandomCanadian, if you find an actual bug in this bot's behavior, there is a place to report it at the bot's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

Output from the bot on Geotextile. Note that it recommended a list of changes and then decided not to take action. [19:07:50] Processing page 'Geotextile' — edit—history >Remedial work to prepare citations ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Renamed "last" -> "last1" ~Renamed "first" -> "first1" ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) ~Unrecognised parameter accessdate ~replaced with access-date (common mistakes list) >Consult APIs to expand templates >Checking that DOI 10.1088/1468-6996/16/3/034605 is operational... DOI ok. >Using pubmed API to retrieve publication details: >Found match for pubmed identifier 27877792 >Using Zotero translation server to retrieve details from URLs. >Expand individual templates by API calls >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... no results. nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Checking CrossRef database for doi. >Searching PubMed... nothing found. >Checking AdsAbs database no record retrieved. >Remedial work to clean up templates >No changes required.

@Primefac: I may be mistaken here, but "accessdate" at the moment doesn't generate tracking parameters (you mean tracking categories?) and doesn't need fixing. "Cosmetic edits" are only allowed if they are considered genfixes, not whatever cosmetic edit one likes (e.g. changing whitespace in headers or in lists to your liking is not allowed in bot edits, even if you make other substantial edits at the same time). I wouldn't be allowed to change "access-date" to "accessdate" if I did an AWB run with something substantial in it (and rightly so), and there is no reason why the reverse would be acceptable either. So I don't see why you defend this edit, it doesn't seem to match the "allowed" parameters. Fram (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot continues doing this[13], even though it shouldn't according to its own documentation: both "accessdate" and "access-date" are in the CS1 whitelist[14]; which should guide the bot. The Github list they use[15] also doesn't seem to make this change. So why does it do this? No idea. If the bot owner isn't available, shutting down the bot until this is corrected may be wanted. Something like this is a purely cosmetic edit (removing one empty parameter plus converting lots of accessdates), which no bot should make. Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

(non admin comment) I've had pointless changes of |accessdate= to |access-date= and similar turn up in my watchlist. It's a WP:TIMESINK to check them, even without spending time wondering "Why?" This is a WP:NOTBROKEN-like "fix". Narky Blert (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The edits reported by Fram appear to have been caused in error by a recent code change that has been debugged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation bot is still making the replacement even though it isn't in the accepted list of replacements: [16]. Fram (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Neko-chan owns those edits, Fram. ——Serial 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're implying I have some sort of control over what changes the bot does beyond my pointing it at a page or category, I don't. I also was unaware of the dispute over the hyphen until this ping just now --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 14:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is CitationBot, not any individual editor using it[17]. Citationbot needs to be changed or blocked. Fram (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point it's just time to make a clear declaration that unilaterally removing these parameters is disruptive editing. We wouldn't allow someone to mass-change all instances of color to colour without consensus, and as a comparison WP:CITESTYLE says Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. Just like there are expectation not to change English variations or citation style just because you like it better, that should also apply to template parameters when both are optional. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a beautiful code contest. Widespread changes of non-deprecated parameters with no clear consensus to do that is disruptive editing and accomplishes nothing productive. Hog Farm _Talk 18:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is Citationbot still allowed to continue?[18] Fram (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To play devils advocate, there is a CS1 error about the hyphen, so someone somewhere agrees that this could be considered a "problem to be fixed": Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 15:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Gee I don't know which to be more surprised by: CS1 templates being coded to throw an error without consensus, bots running unauthorized tasks, or BAG defending it all. This happens every month or two, it seems. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess if you're referring to Primefac, in fairness when he made that comment the RfC was either closed by MJL for option B, or unclosed (as the close was reverted). The comment about cosmetic changes being allowed when bundled with other changes is true. However, Joe has now closed the RfC, and the closing statement states Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus. My reading of the close is that this includes bots bundling the change (non-hyphenated parameter -> hyphenated parameter), and that this is now disallowed? If that's a correct interpretation of Joe's close, then this functionality should probably be removed from Citation bot. WP:BOTISSUE is the relevant policy here, so in the first instance the maintainers should be contacted to adjust the functionality, seeking clarification from the closer if necessary to decide how the RfC's close applies to what the bot is doing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot continues to make these edits [19] even after an RFC closed with consensus that these edits should not be made by bots. Not the first time this particular bot has been coded to do things without or even against consensus (removing url parameter fiasco was less than a year ago), and when people complain, BAG takes no action. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have seen little evidence in the discussions that would imply that Citation Bot would be covered by this. CB's ability to process pages quickly is substantially less than that of MB, so the watchlist spamming is not even comparable. CB has internal checks that block most cosmetic edits, while MB was mostly (all?) cosmetic edits. The close specifically calls out only MB as the "Bot" under discussion. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The close: "Bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions, i.e. Monkbot task 18, does not have community consensus." But CB is still changing "accessdate" to "access-date" because AMWNP doesn't think that RFC applies to CB. I and some other editors disagree. Isn't it BAG's role to avoid and resolve these disputes? Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All of that (AManWithNoPlan's edit) is beside the point. This is not about the close of any particular discussion, but about the fact that these parameters have never been deprecated, so nobody, human or bot, should ever have been going around changing them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So, it seems that |accessdate= is the one that causing the trouble? Am I reading this correctly? That seems to be the one that was deprecated years ago, then called into question, then re-deprecated, then called into question, and now is not deprecated but non-preferred. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please point to the discussion where this was deprecated even once, let alone re-deprecated. It appears that we have template and bot editors who live in a parallel universe where things happened that didn't happen where the rest of us live. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

No, not just accessdate; as per the close, it's all "non-hyphenated parameters." That means not adding or removing hyphens from parameters. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I asked Joe on his talk page for clarification about his closure. It appears to me the RfC and closure was specific to Monkbot task 18, citation bot is not mentioned, nor is XLinkBot which does the same thing (and who knows how many other bots). Hopefully, a clarification from Joe can move this discussion forward towards a resolution. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, it totally makes sense that editors might have voted to stop one bot from making a change but they still wanted all other bots to continue to make that same change. Yes, let's get some clarification from the closer before we change any bots because that's a completely realistic possibility. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Do as you see fit then. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I am, specifically I'm doing two things, the only two things I can do: 1. complaining loudly, which I'm pretty good at; 2. I'm going to stop using citation templates altogether. Given that certain bot and template editors continuously change how they function without consensus, even actively against consensus (like here), they are far more trouble than they're worth. Plaintext citations for me from now on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This also happens frequently to featured articles, which having already undergone a degree of peer review, flies somewhat in the face of policy. ——Serial 16:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fine, I won't strip the citation templates out of all the FAs, just the ones written by Serial Numbers 53955–54131. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I sympathise with Levivich's stance. Ever since I have been editing Wikipedia I have used citation templates, not least because they remind me to include information that I might otherwise forget, but this change for change's sake makes them a lot less usable. I know what someone means if they type in a parameter with or without a hyphen, and it is a very trivial task to include synonyms for parameters (as evidenced by what already exists and has never been deprecated), so why on Earth don't we just let editors get on with editing without having to worry about whether to include a hyphen or not? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in the close, bot removal of non-hyphenated parameters from transclusions [...] does not have community consensus. Monkbot 18 was given as a specific example because that was the one discussed in the RfC, but I agree with Levivich that it would be tortuously legalistic to argue that it does not apply to other bots doing the exact same thing just because they weren't mentioned by name. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. So moving forward, the next step would be getting bot approval for this task revoked. There are at least two bots, citation bot and XLinkBot, mentioned here. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

XLinkBot doesn't make this change, XLinkbot reverts to older versions: in the case linked above, the intermediate version changed "access-date" to "accessdate", but also added some unacceptable youtube links. The revert changed accessdate, but this change is not programmed into the bot, and it would just as happily have done the reverse. The only bot I know of that actively changes accessdate to access-date is CitationBot. Fram (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation Bot does not operate under BAG supervision. See here. I believe the next step would be going to User talk:Citation bot, with a diff link of Joe's comment above, and requesting a change to the code. If the maintainers disagree with that interpretation, they/you/someone could challenge it at WP:AN. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

If Citation bot doesn't operate under BAG approval, then it needs to be blocked ASAP and converted to a user-operated tool like AWB, Twinkle, Huggle, ... where the responsability lies with the individual editors and the edits show up in their history. This hybrid form leads to problems again and again. Fram (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It would probably be better for the bot to be converted into an actual tool (see WP:BOTMULTIOP), using OAuth to make the edits on user accounts, as that's effectively what it is now. However, I'm surprised you're in favour of that, as that would I think make it pretty much impossible to 'block' Citation bot, thus drastically reducing its accountability. At least off the top of my head I can't think of a way one could effectively block a tool. And you can't go around willy nilly blocking dozens (maybe hundreds?) of editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Language note: "i.e." means "that is", while "e.g." means "for example", and the closer used the wrong one, thus the confusion. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Please block Citation bot

Bot is making these changes without any consensus for them, and bug reports (at User talk:Citation bot) get no useful answer or input of bot maintainers. Bots which operate beyond what they are approved for should be blocked. @AManWithNoPlan: ping because you are active but haven't responded to this issue, it seems (your reply here doesn't address the accessdate and similar one). Fram (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The fixing of |accessdate=, |archivedate=, and |archive-url= will no longer be done. Existing runs will not see the change. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

What about chapter-url and other hyphenated/non-hyphenated parameters? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Note that this still continues, see User talk:Citation bot/Archive 25#Still removing hyphenated parameternames, where this is still being wikilawyered by people whose preferred option didn't got consensus at the RfC. Fram (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User Tom.Reding misusing AWB to do the same

User: Tom.Reding is changing AWB to change "accessdate" to "access-date" as well (with the "genfixes" summary), even though this is not a fix built into AWB and sholdn't be done. I contacted them when I noticed this[20], but got a very curt reply[21], after which they immediately resumed this[22][23].

A second request got an actual reply[24], again resuming the behaviour immediately[25].

They are well aware of the whole dramah surrounding this, but doesn't even bother to stop to discuss this for a few minutes. So please make them stop instead. Fram (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems pretty petulant to me.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you at least pretend to be nice to your fellow collaborators? jps (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

[26] Sigh. It seems like you have decided to start following me to other pages and casting aspersions there too? The lack of reliable sources has been my entire argument for removing this WP:FRINGE concept from WP articles on exoplanets, so it seems rather problematic for you to write what you did. A little kindness, please? jps (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• [27]. Sigh. I guess there is no discussion to be had here? This is pretty much what I recall from my last interactions with him. He followed me around, reverted my attempts at clean-up with rude edit summaries. jps (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Now claiming on an article talkpage that I have an "irrational bias". jps (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• We already have a bot doing this, don't we? I mean, this seems like a really petty thing to think needs admin attention. The change from accessdate to access-date is apparently desired (the CS1 templates throw an error in preview now if you omit the hyphen) so what does it matter how the change is accomplished? Is it misuse of AWB by letter of the policy? Probably. Do we ignore rules that prevent improvement of the encyclopedia? Mostly yes. Can someone throw up an image of a nothingburger here? I don't have one handy. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, we don't have a bot doing this, and the CS templates should not throw any error for this. That's the whole bloody point. Fram (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I mean, this is a subsection of a discussion directtly dealing with this, outlining at the start what happened, and what the current situation is. This followed a lot of other discussions about the same recently. Have you bothered looking at this thread before you answered here? Have you bothered testing whether the error in preview actuallly happens? Or did you just write down some things without actually bothering to check any of this? Fram (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  cs1|2 does not emit preview-only error messages. The only time that cs1|2 distinguishes preview mode from normal mode is when rendering a citation with an invalid |archive-url= timestamp value. It is not true that the CS1 templates throw an error in preview now if you omit the hyphen. Edit this section and preview to see these in preview mode:

  • {{cite web |title=Example |url=//example.com |accessdate=2021-04-22}} → "Example". Retrieved 2021-04-22.
  • {{cite web |title=Example |url=//example.com |access-date=2021-04-22}} → "Example". Retrieved 2021-04-22.

  Please do not misrepresent cs1|2 as doing something that it clearly does not do.

  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, Fram, I didn't check the thread above because this does not read to me as an issue worth this level of drama, nor really an issue at all, and certainly not worth admin time in the least. @Trappist the monk: you are right, I was seeing an error on accessdate. I'm sure it was saying that the parameter without the hyphen was deprecated and clocked it because of how remarkably stupid that error would be, but I could be misremembering. You're the resident expert in these templates, I defer to your experience. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 21:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional conflict with Tom.Reding

This may need a separate section, but I think the behavior patterns are related. I'm separating it out, however, so that the problems Fram outlines above don't get us confused with the problems I'm having. jps (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have a history with this user and I note that he seems to not take criticism well and also seems to have something of a problem with being kind in discussions. Right now, I am having an unrelated dispute with him at Talk:Earth Similarity Index#Intentional orphaning where he seems to be casting WP:ASPERSIONS my way. I've seen this kind of thing play out before where powerusers have a problem with WP:OWN and WP:CON. jps (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons by Johnpacklambert

A user, @Coin945, made 72 (!) AfD nominations in the space of approximately three hours with no delete rationale apparently as an attempt to clear out the "unsourced since 2007" category, including a number of blatantly notable topics like City attorney and Anal sphincterotomy. Multiple people (a solid cross-section of AfD regulars with complex and varied opinions on deletionism/inclusionism and implementation of deletion policy) strongly suggested on his talk page that he withdraw these nominations, due to their disruption to the AfD process, and they received multiple procedural speedy keep !votes. Coin945 appears to be mostly inactive aside from this, and so reasonably may not have seen the encouragement to withdraw, but such nominations could have been speedily kept under WP:SKCRIT#1 regardless.

After strong consensus developed amongst other AfD regulars that these nominations were inappropriate, @Johnpacklambert made delete !votes on all or virtually all of the nominations (cross-section: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City attorney, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls (video game), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal sphincterotomy) while casting aspersions on the motives of editors who desired the nominations procedurally kept on Coin945's talk page by describing them as "showing utter contempt for Wikipedia and what it is meant to be". These !votes make SKCRIT invalid, requiring that the disruptive nominations above and beyond what AfD's contributor pool can handle either be IAR closed or run for a full week. In addition to accusing editors who want the noms withdrawn of contempt and essentially NOTHERE, he then went on to repeatedly accuse editors desiring withdrawal of a Jim Crow-style grandfather clause (2, 3) including telling other editors to "go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong", which received some righteously angry criticism from @Hyperion35.

This is not acceptable behaviour, and an editor with JPL's tenure and experience at AfD should be decidedly aware of that by now. There is a limit to what the process can handle, and there is a rather low limit to how many times it's acceptable to compare people who want to avoid said process-bludgeoning to Jim Crow racists. Vaticidalprophet 05:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• Putting aside the nomination discussion, I agree with the comments made above. While I appreciate @Johnpacklambert: for supporting my deletion rationale, I think it highly inappropriate to make the ad hominem attacks on our fine AFD volunteers for doing their job. I would like to apologise for any harm that was caused by comments made below my deletion nominations. Let's keep these AFD discussions rooted in evidence and facts. :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Seems like a good number of these could have been boldly redirected instead of having so many AFD nominations at once, at least IMO. The spam-ish mass-delete votes are as unhelpful as the spam-ish mass-keep votes. Truly, both sides should stop treating AFDs like a procedural battleground. This is an encyclopedia not a weird parliamentary procedure MMORPG. And finally idk what JPL was thinking with those ad hominems; way out of line. Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, I don't think it matters if they're closed today or next week. Just let them run. I support striking uncivil !votes tho (as a general matter), and the nom should either confirm they've done the before for all of these, do the before now and then make said confirmation, or withdraw (SK1) those noms for which no before has/will be done and where no one else has voted delete. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'll second what the others have said, JPL's comments were over the top and a major breach of WP:CIVIL. The mass nomination of articles to AFD by Coin is a problem as well - Even if many of them would end up being deleted regardless, the fact that Coin nominated one further article to AFD after the barrage of messages on their talk page, coupled with the refusal to withdraw them, is irritating and shows a lack of regard for the opinions of those other editors. That being said, unless people have evidence that this has been a recurring problem, I don't think much more than a warning is in order. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think Coin needs to be sanctioned -- I didn't make him the topic of this thread, after all. Anything stronger than "the ones no one or only JPL wanted to delete are speedy kept, please don't do that again" is IMO punitive. It's understandable that an editor with apparently low activity in recent years might make a trout-y mistake in good faith (certainly we've had some high-profile cases of it lately), and I cut people some slack for not being immediately responsive to a bunch of strangers descending on their talk page with unflattering comments. Vaticidalprophet 06:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Some of these articles should be deleted, others I'm not sure. Regardless, both sides did a poor job with the AfDs. The nominator failed to explain why the topic wasn't notable. You can't just say its been unsourced for 15 years (although that's usually a good indication of lack of notability), you got to go a step further and say that you don't believe the sources exist (if that is in fact true). And the "procedural keep" argument is just as obnoxious, at least evaluate the article, either it has potential to meet the notability guidelines or it doesn't, you can't just say too many articles were nominated (as if there's an actual limit. I would say that JPL's comments were inappropriate, though not racist. He actually was accusing others of acting like a racist. The comparison doesn't really make sense.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Johnpacklambert's high-volume, bot-like participation in the deletion process, combined with a refusal to discuss concerns civilly, has already resulted in a topic ban from nominating more than one AfD per day; his !voting, however, is similarly disruptive (and for largely the same reasons).

  Here is one example: on February 3, in a 7 min 53 sec interval between 08:59:55 and 09:07:48 he edited 12 AfDs. All of these edits were to !vote delete, except for one Redirect. He spent the following amount of time between each edit: 40, 55, 32, 70, 28, 32, 22, 73, 29, 36, 56 seconds. Similarly, on January 19th, 1065 seconds elapsed between Mystic songs of Sylhet and Willard Keith: 28 AfDs, with an average of 38 seconds spent on each.

  While it's possible that these edits were all composed separately in separate browser windows, queued up over the course of a longer period, and then submitted at the same time (with 20-70 second long breaks between each one for some reason), I think the more parsimonious explanation is that this is simply how long he took to write each !vote out.

  To explain why these numbers are so concerning to me, let's look at an example from today: his !vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top (technical analysis) "This is a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is an encyclopdia, not a dictionary." This edit was made at 12:54:30: his previous edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tonti diagram) was at 12:53:53, and his next edit (to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower array) was at 12:55:08. That's thirty-seven seconds for a !vote. Let's break it down: this !vote is 11 words long, let's say the associated ~~~~ is one word, that leaves us with 12 words. Some quick research suggests that the average typing speed is 32.5 wpm for transcription, and 19.0 wpm for composition, giving us between 22 and 37 seconds just to type out the !vote. Assuming two to three seconds for both page loads (clicking on the AfD's edit link to open up the posting box, and then clicking/alt-shift-S'ing to save the edit), we get an estimate of 26 to 43 seconds just to edit the page and type out the !vote. This leaves between eleven and zero seconds which could have been used for the entire process of evaluating the article; as a point of comparison, the "Find sources" toolbar at the top of the AfD page has eleven links in it.

  It may be pointed out that his AfD ratio is high, and most of his Delete !votes are on articles that get deleted. I don't think this matters here: since a large majority of AfDs close as Delete, !voting D on totally random articles would gives "correct" results in a large majority of discussions, so a "good ratio" does not in itself indicate attention and care is being used in reviewing articles (indeed, 98% of his last 200 !votes were to Delete and 2% were to Merge). More importantly, however, even if he was only !voting on articles certain to be deleted, it's hard for me to understand how an 11-second skim of an article constitutes productive contribution to a discussion. AfD is intended for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies; this involves putting at least some effort into determining whether the individual article meets criteria or not. However, despite being warned and sanctioned for similar behavior in the past, Johnpacklambert has continued to burden the process with extremely large volumes of !votes that prevent such discussion from occurring. It's not that the arguments he makes are solid, or even that they're persuasive: it's just that, in the several minutes of research required to assess an article, find sources and type out a counterargument to one spurious !vote, another twenty will have been made in other AfDs. At that point, why bother?

  It would be obviously disruptive for someone to counter this by !voting in thousands of AfDs with "Keep per WP:BEFORE" at a rate of two per minute: JPL doing this to delete articles is, arguably, more disruptive (articles kept due to spurious !votes can be easily re-nominated for deletion, whereas articles deleted due to spurious !votes are quite difficult to access and re-assess, and there is often little evidence that they even existed outside of redlinks). I'd recommend that his AfD topic ban either be extended to the entire process, or expanded to prevent rapid-fire !voting. jp×g 07:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I think this might be the point where serious discussion of a broader tban becomes viable, but it'd require a much more confident definition than we have there. I don't know if a full AfD tban would fly, but moreso for precedent than anything. (People have, of course, been tbanned from all of AfD, and even from every deletion process.) But the behaviour here has flown past what has previously been ascribed to ideological disagreements into full-on battleground-y personal attacks. Vaticidalprophet 07:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm really not a fan of the backhanded insinuations of racism. JPL could have picked another example of a grandfather clause that wasn't bound up in ugly race politics. I've protested when other AfD participants have used the venue to imply other people are racists for voting the "wrong" way (and gotten nowhere because prefacing such an attack with the word "keep" is an exemption from the civility rules that apply to the rest of us), and I think it is just as unacceptable for someone voting delete. Reyk _YO! 07:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• While I understand the general history of Jim Crow laws, I'm not getting the exact reference to 1925 Alabama. Did something special happen there in that year? All I can find is "the game that changed the south" which doesn't seem relevant.

  Regarding the issue of the 72 nominations, I observed that Uncle G was on the scene early, providing good guidance. They have been absent for some time so it's good to see them back in action. Uncle G is a veteran of the early days and iirc once explained that the AfD process was deliberately designed to be laborious to discourage frivolous abuse. The tool Twinkle has subverted this design by automating the process and so it is now easy to punch out 72 nominations with a cookie-cutter nomination, as in this case. I also see editors using scripts to make !votes at AfD too so the likely result of such trends is that warring factions will destroy AfD with great salvoes of identical nominations and responses. The logs can't accommodate much more than about 100 nominations/day as a template overload tends to occur. Perhaps Twinkle should limit everyone to one nomination per day?

  Andrew🐉(talk) 08:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Andrew, did you genuinely just type "warring factions will destroy AfD with great salvoes of identical nominations and responses." with a straight face? Black Kite (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, let's not completely derail this discussion with that, as we all know it can be. ☺ I'd much rather stick to the behaviour evident at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map-based controller, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imum coeli, the particular behaviour at the head of this section, and of course Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living Water Christian School. Uncle G (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Firstly, simply AfDing articles that are unsourced is a bad idea if that's the only reason you're doing it. BEFORE hasn't been done here, that's clear. FWIW - Pani is an obvious keep , there are always sources for surnames. We actually have a number of articles for people with this surname (i.e. Bhavna Pani) and also the Italian/Spanish version, (i.e. Mario Pani), so there's that as well. The second is more interesting, there's a few references in a BEFORE search but I think the article is also slightly confused as the usage in cars is I believe using "map" in terms of re-mapping. Imum coeli is a concept that looks like it might be better dealt with as part of a more overarching article, but it's OK as it is - it's not a dicdef. The school is ... well, it's a school. It has lots of local coverage. It doesn't have any other coverage. I don't think we need to rehash NSCHOOLS all over again here. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • The big issue is that there's such a combination, at such high rates, of potentially-has-merit and unlikely-to-have-merit nominations all at once. The onus for BEFORE is on the nominator, and that hasn't been done at all. In turn it'd be one thing if that had just...happened but they could all be procedurally kept (without needing to invoke IAR), but JPL bludgeoned that process too, while being nasty to people who wanted a procedural close to later evaluate some of the nominations on their own merits. Vaticidalprophet 11:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Again, though, that's the subjects, and Vaticidalprophet is bringing up the behaviour. The behaviour is rapidly going through most of the discussions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 13 and claiming that most articles "belong in a dictionary" even if they are nothing like what dictionary articles are, discounting sources cited (even immediately prior in the discussion) based upon what the article looks like, as well as what is brought up in the head of this discussion. I didn't know about Special:Permalink/769474340#User:Johnpacklambert until today, but some of the observations there about not giving due consideration or effort seem very much on point, as well as what BrownHairedGirl said. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
          • Well, yes, but my point was that their behaviour is AfDing articles with no sources and claiming "notability". Like blasting a shotgun randomly into the air, by doing that you're occasionally going to hit a worthwhile target (i.e. Manufacturing test requirement design specification, Natalie Snyder), but most of the time you're going to miss. Coin945 needs to be politely informed how to actually AfD an article properly, by saying why they believe it is non-notable. However I will say to some that have commented on those AfDs - doing a Google search, finding some trivial or vague references to the subject, and then shouting "you didn't do WP:BEFORE!!1!" is equally useless to everyone. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
            • You are conflating the behaviour of Coin945, which isn't what this is about with the behaviour of Johnpacklambert, which is. That behaviour is the multiple "Jim Crow" comments, and the rapid-fire, as analysed above, discussion contributions. Uncle G (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
              • @Uncle G: Ah, yeah, fair point, that'll teach me to not read things properly (I read it as POINTy AfDs). The behaviour of Coin945 clearly belongs in a separate "WTF are you doing?" thread. 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
                • @Black Kite: I think you did the five-tilde thing again. jp×g 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/1017617649 directly says "Jim Crow", by the way. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• The burden is on people to show that these articles are notable. The fact that we had this many articles that had been unsourced since 2007 is a very big problem. I have yet to be convinced that city attorney is a notable topic, and even if it is as I said there it is deserving CfD. The city attorney is just a lawyer who works for the city. At least in the US prosecuting criminals is done at a higher or at least different level, but the county prosecturor or district attorney. Some districts may coincide with cities, but these people are not the same as city attorney. The burden is on people who want to keep these articles to show that they are notable, and that is not being done in most of these cases. I will however go back and review my statements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnpacklambert, I was waiting for you to comment here, hoping that you would make a more convincing statement than this. It's not about the AfDs or the articles, - it's about your comments in them. "go back to 1925 Alabama where they belong" - in a discussion about whether to retain an article on a surgical procedure? That's disgusting. You don't need to 'go back and review your statements', you need to recognise that they were outrageously offensive, and apologise for them unreservedly. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I was a little out of line with that statement. However my point is that Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause. Articles having existed for 14 years does not show that they are notable. In fact it is a major, major, major problem that articles are allowed to exist even a year without sources. This is a huge problem and noithing is getting done about it, and when people try to do something about it they are constantly stymied at every turn. This is very, very, very frustrating. So is the fact that when people explain why articles do not meet existing standards they are so often met by people who want to increase special pleading. Wikipedia does not have a grandfather clause, and that is my point. We should not respond to deletions with speedy keep proposals that have no merits. This whole thing frustrated me. I was out of line. What we really need to do, as I say over and over and over again, is to make all new articles go through the AfD process. In the last month we have considered porposals to delete literally thousands of articles on non-notalbe wells and farms in Iran. I am not exagerating. The fact that someone who takes the time and effort to nominate articles for deletion is met by such obstructionism when the articles have languished for 14 years with no sources at all is very, very frustrating and shows that many editors of Wikipedia have no desire to see Wikipedia mature into a site where we use reliable sources to create well sourced and accurate articles. That is what I want, and we will not get there if we move forward under any illusion that just because an article has existed for a while it has any merit. Early Wikipedia was a horrid place, where biographical articles existed for years with no sources at all. It is not what we want to return to at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I appreciate the apology and explanation here, but I do have to wonder about the feasibility of making new articles go through AFD. We often don't have enough editors participating in AFD as is (just like we don't have enough people participating in AFC, NPP, or any other process), and it seems inevitable that we'll have non-notable articles existing on the site for a long time before somebody notices. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 14:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
        • JPL's position that I've seen him outline before is approx. "force every new article to go through AfC", which in my opinion would be the initiative that turns Wikipedia into "the perfect size, just like Citizendium". (But then I am not someone with a glowing view of AfC generally; "better to ask forgiveness than permission" has been baked into the project since day one, for better or worse.) Unsourced or terribly sourced articles are in fact deleted quite often (as JPL knows, because of how many of those discussions he's participated in); the reception to Coin's actions here is not a reception to the fact he nominated unsourced articles, let alone to the fact he nominated long-term unsourced articles, but the fact he nominated three-quarters of the total count of an average day in the space of three hours, with no indication of WP:BEFORE, and then that JPL bludgeoned attempts to handle it how any other WP:TRAINWRECK would be handled while making some atrocious claims and comparisons. Vaticidalprophet 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The problem is that you are still ignoring the actual arguments of other editors, and you are treating AfDs as if this was a battle for Wikipedia's soul. It is a horrible abuse of AGF. Some people believe that some articles should be kept, and go to the trouble of explaining reasons why, and showing either that sources exist or where to find them. You need to stop treating other editors as obstructionists. I can list many reasons why some AfDs actively undermine Wikipedia's reputation (multiple female CEOs having their pages deleted in March, Womens History Month? Want to hazard a guess how that makes the site look to half the world's population?), but I try to avoid letting them affect how I respind to editors in AfD because it is irrelevant to the process itself, and it is better to acknowledge and consider that other editors might have good reasons for their opinions.

        I don't know whether this might help, but some time ago an editor added a Keep vote in an AfD where I thought Delete was the best option. This was a complicated medical issue, and the editor's comment seemed to me to be overly simplistic and unworkable, and other editors had already considered and discarded the suggestion. But I checked the editor's userpage, and it was clear that he wasn't an expert on the topic, he was a musician. And I thought about how the response I wanted to tell him would look, all "listen to me, the expert, you ignorant peon!" and cringed. Instead I gave a non-technical explanation of the problems his suggestion would create, and asked him politely if he had a suggestion for how to make it work, and whether he had any other sources he'd like to contribute that might be helpful for us. He responded with a reconsideration that showed that he had taken my advice and had really thought about the issues and was persuaded. My point is, you have to see other editors as people, they may be wrong, they may have missed some important fact, they may not see things your way. But try to work with them to build a better encyclopedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Personally, what I'd like is if you actually put the research effort in, because I like to think that you can if you try. I went and found sources contradicting several of those zero-effort AFD nominations, and as I observed at one point I was the only one doing so out of you, me, and the nominator. That's not right. We need more people doing the research. We don't need zero-effort piled upon zero-effort piled upon zero-effort.

    You asked me whether I was serious at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clear Lake Keys, California. Yes, very much so. See User talk:Hog Farm#Virginian corners. But the way that we are approaching the GNIS mess is by doing lots of research, looking in history books and suchlike to at least triage things. We need lots more of that, people who think that something is not notable, or perhaps even wholly unverifiable, going and checking.

    If someone could find a Virginia/West Virginia directory of marker trees, then at least we could know which of Reywas32's list of "corners" is just a tree that Wikipedia is falsely claiming to be populated by people and which is likely a settlement genuinely named "Something Corner" and in need of more detailed attention, as Hog Farm and I did with "Something Springs" in California with a book of California springs.

    We are putting the effort in. Go and look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepperwood Grove, California. That's people all double-checking one another, and doing the research independently, so that we know at the end that we have got the right result, that we can be confident in. That's some of the best of AFD.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Navigational break

• I feel obligated to weigh-in here on two counts: (1) the large number of AfDs at once, regardless of reason, and (2) the Jim Crow references. Quite frankly, the latter concerns me most because some editors have been experiencing unwarranted allegations or innuendos of racism based on misconceptions or worse, not to mention oblique comparisons of innocuous or unrelated circumstances to racism in an effort to win an argument. Doing so only serves to lessen the seriousness of the real issues - liken it to the kid who cried wolf. It is a growing issue on WP, and it needs to be nipped in the bud. I don't know if an apology is enough - that is for our admins to decide. As for the AfD issue, I think some possible solutions are:
  1. set a limit on the number of AfD noms by a single editor per day;
  2. establish a holding area for bulk noms with a discussion page;
  3. establish a guideline enforceable policy that makes it mandatory the nominator must first attempt to find RS, or resolve the issue that makes it a delete candidate per the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE, which is what I teach my NPP students to do before nominating; it's an important process. It also applies to AfC, so I'm not sure how all those articles made it to mainspace. Perhaps that should be investigated as well - cut it off at the root. Atsme 💬 📧 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC) ^{corrected & clarified 16:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)}
  • establish a guideline that the nominator must first attempt to find RS, or resolve the issue that makes it a delete candidate, which is what I teach my NPP students to do before nominating -- WP:BEFORE exists, and yet... Vaticidalprophet 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (ec) The articles made it to mainspace because standards were less strictly enforced then - the procedures we have in place now for article creation should at least theoretically reduce the potential for large numbers of completely unsourced articles to slip through, although some of the discussions on this page about mass creation of stubs suggests we still have problems. It does suggest that Wikipedia needs to something about these sorts of completely unreferenced that have been untouched for a long time, (like we have done for unreferenced BLPs) even if unregulated mass nomination isn't the solution. ANI isn't the place to work out a solution however.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Can we close these discussions? WP:CSK clearly states that we can close these kinds of nominations early. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Part of the issue is those criteria require no one other than the nominator !vote delete, and JPL bludgeoned that process. They could be closed on the basis that holding to the letter of that rule does not improve the encyclopedia. Vaticidalprophet 16:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad for the first one that I closed. My finger slipped, and I was not aware of that part of the rule. I will not close the remaining ones citing WP:IAR because I am not a big fan of it. I'll just let the remaining ones stay open. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite a fan of IAR myself. What I'm not a fan of is my chances with making IAR NACs without rousing the fury of the "ban all AfD NACs" contingent. Vaticidalprophet 16:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be a fan of putting the acronyms "IAR" and "NAC" next to each other at any point. If there's an IAR closure to do, let an admin take the heat, they're used to it. Black Kite (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are two problems here, of very different natures. Coin945 was wrong to do as he did, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD are not minor suggestions, they are actual requirements. Editors have been wrong before, and ideally this sort of mistake should be trivial to reverse, and hopefully the lesson will be learned. The editor appears to have acted in good faith, however, and I would consider it the equivalent of accidentally hitting "Reply All" on an office email, annoying and mortifying, but not a serious offense.

  Mr. Lambert is a more serious matter. His comment was incredibly offensive, irrelevant, and unnecessary. My father used to require security escorts when he went out to register Black voters in the 1960s. I live in a major Southern city, I have seen the literal blood and sweat that has been spent reversing the legacy of the Confederacy and Jim Crow. While it is true that "grandfather clause" is often used in non-discriminatory issues, Mr. Lambert was pretty explicit in making it a Jim Crow comparison (because in 1925 in Mississppi, that was the only context for a Grandfather Clause). There is no way to compare keeping a rather mundane article on Wikipedia to systematic violent racist disenfranchisement, it is beyond absurd.

  It is also a symptom of a broader problem with Mr. Lambert's comments. Right above his "1925 Alabama" remark, my comment was essentially the same thing I would have said if my boss sent me an email right now telling me that we needed to gather information on this procedure as part of a review of reimbursement rates or regulations or medically unlikely edits, if perhaps a bit more terse and frustrated. I was actually looking through our chart of CPT codes to see if I could find the correct ones to add to the article when I checked and saw Mr. Lambert's response. I don't like to have to pull this card, but if you're wondering why Wikipedia has trouble retaining experts, this is one admittedly minor reason.

  Mr. Lambert did not contribute anything to the discussion, and even aside from the bizarre comparisons to Jim Crow, he seems overtly hostile towards anyone who votes to keep an article, refuses to engage on the merits of the article, and his own words show a distinct view of AfD as a battle between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", rather than a place where people consider the merits of a given subject and offer reasons why we might keep or delete it, where editors often spot things that might have been missed by others. This attitude appears in almost all of his comments on yesterdays mass AfDs, as well as his response to Coin945's talk page. I think that he is not productively contributing, and cannot productively contribute if he sees AfD discussions in such conspiratorial and factional terms. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • One day, someone will rise to the challenge of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surgical Incisions. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I clicked on that, expecting it to be an April Fools prank. I'm genuinely speechless and more than a little impressed. Usually those sorts of "helpful" changes require a whole committee. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Some of the AfDs have other Delete !votes as well now (as I said above, a scattershot shooting will hit some correct targets). Those should not be closed. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • (Passing note: you accidentally put an additional tilde in your signature above.) The ones with delete !votes from people other than JPL should be left to run a week, yeah. Not sure how many that is -- quite few. Vaticidalprophet 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • At this point, more of these are attracting delete or merge !votes. A significant number were good candidates for deletion, the problem was a lack of understanding of the process. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Lambert's response of "I was a little out of line with that statement" speaks volumes. Please do not brush this matter under the carpet. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, and I appreciate that it's noway near the offensiveness of the comment Mr. Lambert made as discussed above, he made this comment about redirects on a cricket AfD, when nothing of the like has happened within the past year as I can work out. It just seems that at times he wishes to cause gripes with other editors with his comments. Many articles he has voted on may well be suitable deletion candidates, but these comments, and certainly those of racial nature are completely unnecessary/unacceptable at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  A very bad !vote. Not just the conspiracy theory aspect, but because Nauman Sadiq clearly passes WP:CRIN (a WP:SNG, complementary to WP:GNG). Narky Blert (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Narky Blert, yes and no. On one hand I have seen people sneak back after an AfD is closed as redirect to restore the article without addressing the reasons raised at the discussion, though this has usually been related to articles about fiction; the D&D enthusiasts in particular used to do this all the time. On the other hand I haven't seen any such shenanigans from the cricket people though, so I think that particular accusation from JPL is off the mark. And on the gripping hand, WP:CRIN is so awful at predicting which subjects will actually pass GNG given enough time and research that it actually carries no weight anymore and hasn't for months. Reyk _YO! 09:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is related, but it seems worth bring up that just last week User: Liz warned him that he needs to use an edit summary when he PRODs an article; she had previously warned him of the same thing on March 11. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Note that those warnings came AFTER this ANI thread for the same thing, were it was closed with the remarks "...JPL has agreed to take the feedback on board and act differently..." But he continues to show the same pattern of behaviour. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comments on his talk page also point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Lebeau where users were noting problematic comments from him there last month as well. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Specifically in this case, I will leave it to others to judge whether his comment "I have a right to favor a definition of marriage that is in the best interest of children and editor above will not silence me" is "the shocking homophobic remark left by John Pack Lambert that in my view should not even be allowed on Wikipedia" as posted by User:Eiko237 in their apparent final edit on Wikipedia. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who happens to be gay, this is disheartening to read...--Coin945 (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• See selection below. This is by no means exhaustive, but serves merely as a small sample of the issues over the years.

In which JPL is banned from more than one AFD nomination

In which JPL is topic banned for amongst other things, making racist accusations

In which JPL's obsession with categories and sexist editing resulted in contributing to significant negative press

Block for edit-warring BLP violations

Is it now time to revisit the ban idea from all deletion discussions I previously suggested due to JPL's complete inability to understand the problems he causes. Despite promising (again) to take feedback on board, once again we are here.

So far JPL's history of editing is one of warring with other editors, engaging in systematic sexism, accusations of racism, obsession with categorisation, abuse of living people, disregard for other editors by deliberate abuse of the deletion processess, and rampant incivility. So what point do we get to show him the door? Is it that time yet? Do we need someone to write up some more news pieces naming him publically? Because as with the Tenebrae saga, that is the current bar it takes to get action here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am very, very, very, very sorry about making the complex comparison to grandfather clauses and wish to most profusely apologize for it. I have struck all such comments, and wish again to most profusely apologize for it. I wish to do so in the most apologetic manner possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• The above accusation of "systemic sexism" is a clear sign of people thinking it is fair to accuse me in the most nasty ways, and I am sick and tired of it. Especially when people accuse me of such 8 years after the fact. This dregging up the past is getting very annoying. It is an unfair accusation, much of it is based on total and complete lies about the matter at hand, and it ignores the goals and motivations of those involved in the process. To understand what I mean, the category Category:American women novelists was created by a user who wanted to highlight a different set of articles on women than they felt were then highlighted in Wikipedia. Their intentions were noble. The issue came because of the complex conflict because of diffusing and non-diffusing categories. It came about because Wikipedia has a complex categorizsation system that takes a lot of effort to naviage clearly. Non-difusung categories are an odd exception to general category rules, and they do not apply in all cases. Sports and acting we fully diffuse, and category rules have lots of other exceptions. To call attempts to apply such rules "sexism" is to imply bad intentions to legitimate attempts to make Wikipedia a better place. To refuse to recognize that such was done in good faith, and to attack someone over it literally 8 years later is just beyond reasonable. As I said before I am very sorry about my taking the linguistic origins of the term "grandfather clause" and applying it in ways that were unkind and uncharitable. However I am really, really, really tired of this "attack John for a misunderstanding of our complex categorization system 8 years ago that he had tried his hardest to not repeat in the ensuing 8 years". This is just too much. I think we should go to forcing every editor to use their real name, so they can be exposed to the same character assasinations as above.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many times has there been a case brought up against JPL at ANI? This honestly feels like the same issues resurfacing again and again. It doesn't feel that long ago with the last issue. This clearly is a long standing problem. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no use for the vast majority of what I see from JPL. However, is it possible to consider that he's not necessarily the problem? The last time I commented on this page, it concerned the tendency of Wikipedians to throw around the Jimbo quote about "the sum of all human knowledge", how that has been quantified and how in terms of article count, this community has only accomplished slightly more than five percent of that goal in a span of over twenty years. What I didn't discuss is how I've slowly weaned myself away from Wikipedia after years of observing tons and tons of wasteful activity come across my watchlist (God's perfect timing: today's sermon in church was on Titus 3:9) and how high-quality sources have done their best impersonation of Rome burning while regular editors have done their best impersonation of Nero fiddling. It appears that project space provides a vast array of venues for regular editors to hide away in walled gardens, oblivious or even hostile to what "the sum of all human knowledge" actually entails. XFD is perhaps the worst example of this. If you believe there's community consensus occurring in deletion discussions, you're part of the problem and perhaps you should step aside to make room for those who really wish to move this project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

JPL and communication

• [28]

Ok, so I've interacted with JPL over many years. My experience is a.) he seems to get frustrated when people don't seem to understand the point he is making, as well as (a situation not uncommon in XFD) people attack him and/or his words in ad hominum attacks rather than the topic under discussion, and b.) possibly because of this, he often takes comments about his nominations as just more of the personal attacks, when he seems to just want to discuss the topic in question. and all too often leads to c.) him saying things that to the outside viewer that appear to be really inappropriate. (I'm not adding diffs out of fairness to him, and because there are plenty above which help illustrate this) And I should note that I've seen editors clearly intentionally bait him in a discussion as well.

I'm not a doctor by any means, but just a thought - I linked at the top of this thread that JPL has self identified having a diagnosis of Asperger's.

And while I don't think we should ignore/excuse offensive communication, I wonder if the communication issues that are being seen may have some source in that.

And I think it would be unfair to exclude JPL from XFD, and he has shown at times to not be disruptive in discussing there.

So here's my suggestion for moving forward -

1.) JPL can't use the PROD system anymore. He doesn't seem to be following the process and opposed prods seem to lead more to the type of frustrated communication we seem to see. I'm not seeing much in the way of anything productive here. In my opinion, for JPL, the structure of XFD, seems to be at least somewhat better to help focus the duscussion.

2.) Limit JPL to only a few (4 or less, maybe?) nominations at XFD per week for similar reasons. (I'm writing it this way because if we limit it to one a day, we'll start seeing disparate group noms.) The goal here is to reduce the amount of "nominator attacks" he receives per week that he will need to deal with at the same time. (Since around a week is the minimum duration of most XfD discussions), and since, in my opinion anyway, I think such scenarios is a fair part of the issue here

3.) Suggest to JPL that when ever he is faced with a situation where he feels he is being attacked, to disengage - stop responding to that editor in the discussion. There is no requirement that we respond to something someone says in an xfd discussion, just because they ping us. (My suggestion to him might be to not comment in that discussion for at least 24 hours or longer. This should give him a chance for reflection on how to better communicate.)

I sincerely hope this helps. - jc37 14:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The above nominations shows clear intention to use my being open about being on the autism spectrum to discriminate against my ability to participate in AfD. This is clear discimination against me as a person. I am sick and tired of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  My intent is foster understanding, not discrimination. Because, to be honest, I think the discussion above is leading to to you being topic banned from XFD entirely, which I don't think is fair to you for the reasons I noted. I apologize that you saw anything different in my above comments. - jc37 15:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you really wanted to foster nderstanding you would go after someone who made false accusations of sexism based on false and malicous attacks on what I did 8 years ago. That was a horrible case of hating on me. It was unfair, it was based on falsely representing things, and one of the articles engaged in mean spirited and hurtful attacks on me for all sorts of things. If you wanted civility you would go after that most uncivil of comments above, not find a way to put new puntitives restrictions on me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not going to dig into an 8 year old event (that I honestly do not recall, off the top of my head). - As I said above and will repeat - Yes, you have been attacked in the past. and baited too. So have I, so have others. I'm not saying that that's right. But each person can only control what they say, not the other person. And right now, the discussion appears to be about concerns about your editing. I believe that your apology below was well meant. Let's accept that in the past mistakes were made and try to move forward. We'll see what the community decides in the end, but as for me, I was and am merely trying to give you the benefit of the doubt after (as I think you would agree) many years of interacting with you at cfd and elsewhere. I think you can be a productive contributor. But the way things are moviong above, I'm concerned that we will lose you as a contributor at all of XFD. Anyway, I'll let others comment from here. As I said, for whatever it's worth, my goal was merely to help. - jc37 18:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment My view is that AfD is an open process. There is no reason to treat the nominator's effort as the final say on the matter. So speedy closing just because you thought there were too many nominations is a horrible plan. If we have a huge group nomination it might work, but an individual nominition should be treated on its merits. A speedy keep that ignores the fact each AfD nomination is considered on its own needs to be treated as invalid. As I said I am apoogizing profusely for my over reaction to such things. However it is beyond frustrating that refusing to treat nominations on their own merits is allowed at all. We need to change the whole process on this matter. I keep apologizing for going too far, but people here seem to want to punish me for trying to contribute to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: ASDs and subclinical traits of them are, ahem, prevalent enough on this site that I honestly don't think treating those editors who happen to both know about and openly disclose one radically differently to the rest is good practice (indeed it often comes off patronizing). I have some thoughts generally on the tendency of many editors to react to declined PRODs and to claim "PROD is broken" or the like -- my observation is people who make a big deal out of PROD being 'useless' are people who get a lot of those deprodded articles kept at AfD, i.e. the system is working as intended. (I say this as someone with some blue in my PROD log.) It's clear a lot of people in this conversation are getting to a breaking point with JPL and that the actions here (even with his apology that I have no reason to doubt or downplay the sincerity of) have gotten the conversation to a point where they're seriously reassessing "can we really just go through the ANI cycle with him every couple months with nothing changing?", and I am confident Jc37 is intending his proposal with sympathy, even if -- as we can see -- it didn't exactly come through. Vaticidalprophet 15:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, for what it's worth, I'm not at all confident that repeating someone else's mention of their neurotype in a much higher-profile place than the discussion it first occurred in is good practice. Vaticidalprophet 15:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am very, very, very, very sincerly sorry for my comments. I recognize that I was totally out of line. I value participating in AfD a lot and very much want to continue to do so. I am trying to make positive and helpful contributions. I am very, very, very, very sorry for my out of line comments. I have apologized profusely and am really trying to move beyond this incident. Engging is Wikipedia is one of the most important and enjoyable things I do in my life. Banning me from participating at all would be cruel and wrong. I have apologized. I have gone back and struck every one of my comments. I have said I am sorry. I am sincerly trying to make this right. I am really, really trying. I want to fix this. I am sorry very profusely. I am not blaming other people. I was out of line. I admit that. I am pleading for forgiveness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I (as mentioned) genuinely believe you're sincere and recognize your comments were out of line, and I accept that apology/offer forgiveness. I have no ill will or desire to cause you harm. I do recognize a lot of people are obviously frustrated with a pattern of behaviour, and that you have a history of being brought to ANI over AfD-related issues. I don't want to take something enjoyable away from you, and I certainly wouldn't support any initiative to curtail your participation on the entire website, but a lot of people are seriously concerned that you haven't taken on board things that you were strongly advised in previous threads. Vaticidalprophet 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • A thought: would you be willing to submit to a formal mentorship process if anyone were to volunteer one and the community agreed it was valuable, to help you take those comments and suggestions on board and collaborate productively in AfD? Vaticidalprophet 16:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment With regards to the proposed measures, it was my understanding that Mr. Lambert was already under an order not to nominate more than one XfD per day (the issue of multiple articles at once was addressed in that ruling as well). I am not sure that further limiting him to 4 per week is useful, given the existing limitation. Further, the problem seems to be his communication and relations with other editors.

  There are editors who post things I disagree with in AfD. If I comment, it is along the lines of "you say there are no sources, but you have not addressed Source X and Source Y mentioned above" or "WP:THREE is a personal essay, not a guideline". The important part is that we must all keep our comments focused on the content in those discussions, and work together towards the goal of building an encyclopedia based on sets of guidelines.

  The problem is that Mr. Lambert does not seem to do this. It is not just his ridiculous comparison to Jim Crow grandfather clauses, but the broader mentality of AfD as a battle for the soul of Wikipedia, with himself as the defender of all that is holy against those wicked "inclusionists" who would destroy the encyclopedia if not stopped. Go and read his various comments referenced above and you'll see that this is not much of an exaggeration. This is the root of the problem. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Additional concerns (making this a separate comment for clarity). In addition to the above suggestions, I believe that Mr. Lambert should not participate in discussions (including but not limited to XfDs) involving LGBT individuals, broadly construed. The self-declared bias is simply too obvious to ignore, and honestly this is for his own good to avoid making comments that will absolutely get him sitebanned if made in the wrong context. The fact that his views are based on his religion is the only reason I'm not suggesting a siteban right now.

  Finally, as to the issue of any neurodevelopmental disorders, that is not an excuse for conduct. I have ADHD, I know not to edit during the hour before I take my afternoon dose of Adderall (or the 40 minutes or so until it takes effect). I am epileptic, I don't even have to be told not to edit after a seizure (nor would I want to). If Mr. Lambert's condition prevents him from being able to edit, he should not edit. If it requires some sort of accomdation, he should seek out accomodation, for example if he believes that it prevents him from understanding an editor's comments, he should ask for clarification first. Hyperion35 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - WTF? The 72 AFDs that prompted this thread were not nominated by JPL. So why would we restrict the number of nominations by JPL? PROD has nothing to do with anything in this report. Why would the proposed sanction include PROD? JPL was uncivil, but those comments have now been struck. I don't care what JPL (or anyone else) did 8 years ago. It's very clear that some people don't actually give a hoot about the incivility, they care more that JPL votes delete, and they're trying to use the former as a way to restrict the latter. JPL should be warned/reminded about the incivility; and if there are a lot of recent examples of incivility (not 8 years ago), then maybe JPL should be restricted from AFD, but if so, that should be for incivility, not because he votes delete too often. When you start wanting to restrict noms and prods and those have nothing to do with anything in this report, it's very transparent what you're all doing; now stop it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  Not speaking for anyone else, but my post above has zero to do with keep/delete. I've seen many places where he has expessed Keep in a descussion. And Liz (among others) has pointed out some PROD issues. Prod merely exists to help with AFD clutter. a Prod restriction doesn't prevent someone from still nominating the page at afd for discussion. Additionally, I'm trying to not flood with diffs, because I think it will not be helpful to JPL. Though yes I have seen very recent examples of what I am talking about. this has been ongoing for years, not just occuring years ago. And finally, I don't think your assumption of bad faith is being helpful here, but YMMV. of course - jc37 16:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • This is why I hate these discussions. People just broaden them into throwing on any and all attacks they can, instead of focusing on the issue at hand. I have corrected that issue and do not think it is fair to bring it up at all. The fact that an issue from April of 2013 was brought up shows that there is truly vindictiveness on some people's part. The fact that it was brought up in false way that involves lieing about my actions and intentions is even more galling. Evidently you will no give forgiveness or accept apologizes. I corrected the issue. I went through and struck the comments. I struck a huge number of other votes that did not directly realte to the comments and reanalized them considering new information, or reconsidering the information at hand. I have tried to clearly improve everything involved. i will admit I was wrong in my attempts to delve into the history of the Grandfather clause. I most profusely apologize for that. However I am not wrong in saying that it is a problem in Wikipedia. You have to look no further than the nomination for Category:Wells–Bennett–Grant family. Initially people were arguing to keep the category because we had an article, even though the article had no sources of any kind. I am sorry for letting the slowness of the process get to me. I have profusely apologized for that over and over and over and over and over and over again. What I want to see is more articles to reach the level of being well sourced we have in Dallin H. Oaks, although that article gives undue weight to some things and I think has no really considered how he is truly impactful on a broad scale. i think it may also underestimate his contribution to the formation of the federal public defenders program. The article on Dallin H. Oaks was an unsourced stub for about the first two years that it existed. I have apologized for my actions. I think that turning a discussion of one event into a kitchen sink attack fest is exactly what we do not want to do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have profusely apologized for my coments. I was wrong. I was also wrong to go over the top and accuse those who favor keeping cricketer articles of being willing to do an end run around the process. I profusely apologize for that. I will explain my flawed thinking. We have explained that subject specific guidelines are just meant to suggest that GNG is likely to be met, but it has been shown that in the case of criket this is not at all true, so in that situation it would be expected that people when told that an article does not meet GNG would answer that issue, instead of fasely asserting subject specific guidelines negate a need to meet GNG, they do not. They are meant to suggest GNG is likely to be met if we search really hard, but in the case of cricket that has not provied to be the case. I am very, very, very sorry for that comment. I have made many comments on circket related deletion discussions since than and have done so in a civil manner that has avoided assigning negative intentions to other editors, and I again profusely apolgize for that comment. I was the one who went through and struck all the comments above, it was not done by anyone else, so I have shown a willingness to as much as I can fix the problem created by my actions. I have profusely apolozied for it as well. For the record, my actions 8 years ago that brought such wide spread attacks were in no way uncivil. They were a reasult of applying the general rule of category building in Wikipedia while ignoring our headache causing exception to that general rule. A headache causing exceltion that is so little understaood that I could literally go and find thousands of cases of articles that have categories that do not conform to ERGS rules, and I could go through and find hundreds of categories that by either convention of agreement do not conform to ERGS rules at all. I have even proactively made various nominations in CfD with the intention of improving our conformace to ERGS rules. I have apolgized over and over again. I went to the work of reviewing all AfDs in existence to ensure that I found and removed every last one of my out of line comments. I have apologized profusely. I really do want to increase the level of civility in Wikipedia discourse. It is just hard to attain such when so many discussions are just not engaged in at all. For example I nominated some categories for deletion about a month ago. Some of these nominations have had no comments about them at all. I am very, very, very sorry for my over reaction. I was out of line. I admit that. I am trying to do all I can to make things better. I really want to increase the level of civility in our discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, JPL has apologized for any comment of his that may have been considered inappropriate to extend this would be to inundate JPL. More annoying is that some of the editors with an opinion here are the ones who do next to nothing when it comes to building an encyclopedia and only stalk ANI and live for the drama. A lousy lot I must say. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Name names, because I'm seeing, if anything, many more productive content contributors than the ANI norm. If you're comfortable accusing people of not building an encyclopedia, you're comfortable saying exactly who you're thinking of. Vaticidalprophet 16:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, I should name names? to what end? To elongate the drama? You just validated my point and I didn’t even have to mention a name. That would be all, I won’t be entertaining any questions or comments. Celestina007 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Because if you're going to accuse people of essentially NOTHERE (which may I note is what started this), you should have the guts to actually say who you mean instead of going "teehee, if you think anything about my statement was intended as a harmful and evasive dramabomb then you're NOTHERE!". I respect you, and I don't think anyone, let alone someone worthy of any respect, should be making such cruel and baseless assertions with such a dramatic and evasive style. Vaticidalprophet 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, I also have great respect for your work and you as an editor and when I made mentioned of editors who do nothing meaningful but live for the drama, I promise you I didn’t have you in mind. In summary i guess what I’m trying to say is, there isn’t any need to elongate or escalate the matter. Celestina007 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• You might get some insight at User talk:Celestina007#A call to engage in character assasination. 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• That is certainly an example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and of the underlying problem at hand. I also think that it is rather poor advice to give to Mr. Lambert, as it is not constructive at all to encourage him to think of this as a crusade or to view people as "inclusionists" vs "deletionists." We really need to try to remember that we are all on the same team here. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Celestina,

Agreed, this is an ongoing issue which must be addressed.

Blessings,

Yaakov W.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to again apoligize for my comments. They were out of line. What I should have said is "A key part of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is a rule that applies to every article. This is the main focus on these nominations. If we want to build a collaborative and better project, we need to not act in ways that bite the head off sincere contributors. We need to consider this article in light of this principal." I am very sorry that I engaged in less than productive dialogue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that it is good that you are sorry. My primary concern is the attitude behind your conduct, specifically related to what you said here. I would like to see some sense that you understand that, aside from a few genuine vandals and zealots, most editors are trying to build a better encyclopedia. Some editors disagree with you over what it should look like. That does not mean that you are wrong or that they are wrong, but it does mean that you need to be able to participate in good-faith discussions instead of acting as though editors who disagree with you are going to destroy Wikipedia. You also need to abandon the idea of "deletionists" and "inclusionists". Some people err more on one side or the other, but you should generally assume that most editors are trying to improve Wikipedia. In general this is advice that a lot of people need to hear, you're not the only offender. But what I would like to see is dropping the idea of any sort of grand crusade to save Wikipedia, and recognition that people can disagree with you without being villains in your mind. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You are right, I was too harsh in my comment there, and I apologize. I am very, very, very sincerely sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Johnpacklambert: It is important to discern that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a content policy, whereas Wikipedia:deletion policy is Wikipedia's deletion policy. Your ongoing rationales at AfD to base notability upon whether or not articles are sourced, and therefore verified, is a conflation that is not congruent with Wikipedia's deletion policy whatsoever. It is your own notability policy that you essentially made up, and have swamped AfD with for a long time now. It's a synthesis and syllogism that carries no weight for outright deletion in AfD discussions, because it is not policy- or guideline-based at all in respect to outright deletion. Furthermore, per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Per the guideline, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• I still want to know why it is ok for someone to falsely accuse me of sexism over a false representation of events from 8 years ago, go on to call for people to write more hurtful attack articles on me and try to include them in publications. That is truly a vindictive position, and no one has called it out at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only person who keeps bringing up the sexism issue is yourself. Someone seems to have mentioned it above, but it see,s to have been universally ignored as irrelevant. I am not sure what you are talking about with regards to attack articles. My advice would be to step back from this discussion and refrain from commenting for a few hours, simple because you are digging a hole. I would suggest that Vaticidal Prophet, myself, and others, are actually offering you the best defense that you are likely to get, even if it may not seem that way at the moment. Take a deep breath, take the afternoon off, calm down, and come back and re-read some of the comments here from VP and myself about specific concerns with your behavior, and instead of immediately apologizing, think for a bit about what we are saying. We are not trying to get you banned, not even from AfDs. We are trying to help you recognize specific behaviors and attitudes that are not constructive, specific things that you could change in your approach that might help you improve your editing and efforts. Hyperion35 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If people here were most motivated by wanting civility, there would be a univesal attack on the comments that falsely accuse me of sexism. The fact that there has not been any rebutal of those malicious comments makes the claim that incivility is the number one concern suspect. I not only apologized, but I went to the trouble of striking my comments. I have made two AfD nomination's in the last 2-3 days, and no one here has bothered to point out any problems with either. I will admit they both may have been a bit on the wordy side, but the one for a school has had 2 delete votes and 1 redirect. The other has had no votes yet, but I identfied a very through search that I did, specified additional sources, and I think explained why they do not add up to enough. I may not have fully summarized it enough (in part because I got distracted by this), but I will go back and try to do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If all your participation in AfD had the clearly brilliant and caring level of research involved in something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David O. Leavitt, the only complaint people would have about your editing is that you don't use enough paragraph breaks. (This would be true regardless of whether they agreed with your rationale; as Hyperion notes, 'wanting an article kept you want deleted' is a disagreement on an issue and not a personal slight.) Note JPxG's analysis above about the amount of time between your AfD !votes. The criticisms your behaviour receives are not an inclusionism-or-deletionism matter. Vaticidalprophet 17:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that in Wikipedia people spend way, way, way, way more time criticizing. Praise is very, very rare. People need praise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am still waiting for someone to actually call out the malicious attack on me over events 8 years ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think some of the frustration comes down to people ignoring this statement under the verifiability guidelines "For how to write citations, see citing sources. Verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy." Just above that we have "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Also we have "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." This absolute core policy in Wikipedia seems to be generally ignored in deletion discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I feel a need to again apolgize. I was very out of line. I am sorry. I should not have engaged in such rhetoric. I am very, very, very sorry for doing so and wish to apolgize profusely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Johnpacklambert has made a large amount of good contributions and also bringing up the fact he has aspergers is nonsense, he seems like he made a mistake. Des Vallee (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for lighter and more focused restriction

You'd think I was ready to endorse anything after that wall of text I posted above, but the above proposal seems silly to me.

• First of all, he's already restricted from nominating more than one AfD per day (the editor who nommed the huge block on April 13 is Coin945, a totally different person).
• Second of all, who said anything about PROD?
• Third of all, who gives a damn if he's an autist? Probably half the people here are autists. I can neither confirm nor deny being one myself (since I'm not sure if I will get pwned in a similar fashion later for having said so), but plenty of people I know on this project are, and it is not a problem for them or for me. This doesn't seem relevant, and it feels kind of weird to bring it up at all.
• Fourth of all, I don't think that the category edits demonstrate that JPL is sexist, or that the Jim Crow comparisons demonstrate that he is racist. While mindbogglingly ill-advised, they both represent severe failure to consider how something would come across, which is not the same thing as deliberate expression of prejudice. I'd prefer to contribute to a project where people can say something awkward or stupid, and not be held accountable for people insisting they meant the worst possible version of it.

That said, there is one issue that a number of people have mentioned, and it's quite simple: JPL contributes to a very large number of deletion discussions, he does so at a rate (sometimes as little as 22 seconds between !votes) where it would be physically impossible to have done appropriate research, he is open about doing this for WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons, he is often confrontational with other editors, and he often fails to adequately consider the impact of what he says. For example, according to his AfD stats, he made eighty votes on April 5 and seventy-three on April 6. This is an issue (and him being an autist is not). I think that the issues with WP:BATTLEGROUND are almost all directly downstream of him participating in so many AfDs (per the stats, of the last 500 AfDs he's !voted in, one hundred and forty of them are currently open). Wouldn't you feel like it was a battle if there were 140 open discussions for people to argue with you in at any given time? In light of this, my suggestion would be rather simple: that JPL be limited (or, hell, limit himself) to ten AfD !votes per day. This seems quite a bit easier on him than to be banned from the process entirely -- and if there continued to be problems, the restriction could always be extended (in the same manner as his topic ban from nominating more than one article per day). I have no reason to believe that he is just a garbage editor, or incapable of contributing positively: certainly there are circumstances under which a site ban would be warranted, but I don't want him to get sitebanned. It is clear that he is making a decent and good-faith effort to change his behavior (i.e. by striking his recent short AfD !votes and replacing them with better-thought-out ones), despite being ganked in this thread by about a dozen people at the same time. I think that ought to count for something. jp×g 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as hopefully a good way for JPL to work in the project. I genuinely have no desire to harm or unduly sanction him; this is a way for him to demonstrate that he does enjoy AfD, that he does like Wikipedia, that he does believe in these principles he lays out. Ten !votes a day is not an overly harsh restriction; it's an opportunity to do in-depth research, to find what's what, to be confident in the end that you've made the right decision. JPL wants to do those things. I believe he can do those things. Vaticidalprophet 18:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes it is an overly harsh restriction. Especially when given without any time limit. There have been days when over 5 articles I created have been nominated for deletion. This is an absurd limit. It does not at all acknowledge the verifiability principal. This is a super harsh restriction. I am not the one who plindly mass put the same response to over 50 articles. I went back and struck every one of my out of line comments. This is over the top and wrong headed. It will effectively silence me and detroy my adility to participate in AfD at all. A limit of ten is totally unreasonable. If it is imposed it will show a clear decision to silence me and deny me effectively any participation in Wikipedia at all. It is so absurdly low it might as well be zero. It totally ignores the actual volume of AfD at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It is so absurdly low it might as well be zero -- I don't agree with this, and I don't think most people who frequent AfD do. I would consider myself a regular !voter and make significantly fewer than ten !votes on an average day. I once went a full month with virtually none due to a self-imposed hiatus after I had an action criticised. If AfD introduced a hard rule that no one could make more than ten !votes a day, it would affect very few people, including very few of the people who are 'regulars' there. (As regards your comments about sanctioning people who bring up some unfortunate past occurrences, keep in mind that the majority of participants of this conversation have confidently stated they do not agree with bringing those up, and understand your justifications.) Vaticidalprophet 19:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I am not you. The fact of the matter is there was a period of time where sometimes 3 days a week 5 articles I created would be nominated for deletion a day. The whole episode involved nominating for deletion articles on leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that all had at least 2 sources that were published in printed publications. At the same time huge numbers of articles on leaders of the Catholic Church with only 1 blog source were ignored. The whole episode really felt and still feels like it was motivated by religious animus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Correct me if I'm wrong, but 5 seems like a substantially smaller number than 10. jp×g 20:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Super strong oppose The absurd limit proposed above is just plain absurd. This would effectively silence me from participanting in any AfD debates at all. This is truly unfair and unreasonable. Other people participate in huge humbers of AfD discussions and do not in any way indicate anything but copy and paste interactions. Such people include Luggnuts who has engaged in some attacks against me above. There have been days when 5 or more articles I created have been nominated for deletion by the same editor in fact. I have apologized profusely for my comments. The above proposal is way, way, way more draconian than others. It woud silence me. It is absurdly puntative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is just plain absurd. It is puntative. It is just wrong. I have apologized multiple times. I have fixed every out of line edit. The fact that people still want to punish me shows a true vindicitivness and something that is just wrong. It is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I have tried, tried, tried to fix this. Everyone wants to punish me. No one is holding the person who attakced me with false accusations over an event 8 years ago responsible. This is wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am tired of falsely being called racist and sexist. Those are complete and total lies. I have apologized more times than I can count. I am tired of the vindictive and puntative process going on here. It is just wrong. i am not allowed any defense. I am attacked for every mistake even if it is 8 years ago, and people lie about what I did and engage in malicious attacks on me. This whole process is wrong headed and wrong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: If you read the comment that I used to open this section, you will see that I said several times that I thought these accusations were unfair. I would appreciate if you responded to what I actually mentioned as issues (the eighty !votes in one day, the !votes made with less than eleven seconds of research, the explicit WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW attitude, etc). jp×g 18:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you really thought the comments were unfair you would propose santioning the truly out of line person who attacked me falsely about events 8 years ago. Instead you propose to essentially kill my participation in AfD. You pretent to be my friend and then stab me in the back. Your poposal would silience me far, far, far more than the poposal that you respo9nded to. If there was any justice on Wikipedia the person who brought up the events from 8 years ago and proposed publishing articles attacking me would be the only one facing sanctions. There is no justice in Wikipedia unless you withdraw your attacks on me. Right now there is a double standard which says we will punish John is he apoligizes 10 times and rescinds his offending edits, but another person can engage in just as uncil actions and go unpunished. This is not justice, it is a special type of punishment that whatever your false claims otherwise shows that I was right that I should have continued to hide my autism. It is bad enough that most autistic parents would abort another child with autism if they could. I apologize and get punished, someone above engages in even more long standing attacks and receives no reprimand at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure if this is canvassing, but he is going to the talk pages of multiple users to complain about this proposed restriction: [29][30][31] 2601:249:8B80:4050:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This whole process involves denying me of any right to defend myself and punishing me for even trying. I aplogize. I strike my comments. It is not good enough. People are demianding I be silenced forever. I am going to strive to keep my voice alive as long as I can. It is all I have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• As this goes on people make more and more puntative proposals. They seek to silence me and restrict me and exclude me. This whole process is unfair. Even more unfair is the kitchen sink, punish someone for a behavior not at all related to what was brought up. The issue was not that I was making too many contributions, the issue was that I made them in a harsh and uncivil way. I have apologized for them and stuck them. If Wikiepdia was at all fair and just that would have caused this to close and no one would try to punish me. I have corrected the problem at hand. This is truly an unfair and unjust tribunal that seeks to silince and punish people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - is there actually a rule or guideline that is broken when someone votes in a lot of AfDs in a short space of time? I can't see why this is a massive issue. The decision as to whether the article is deleted or not ultimately comes from the closing admin, who will weigh up the strength of the arguments presented. If it were simply just a vote count then, maybe, I could see an issue but it isn't a vote count. Users have every right to post '*Delete - a non-notable xxxx' or '*Keep - meets WP:GNG' and not expand on that if they wish. That is their right as an editor to make that comment and a closing admin has every right to ignore that comment if they wish to do so. Again, I'm struggling to see why this would warrant a sanction. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:BLUDGEONing is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. It's true that robotically making eighty "Keep" !votes per day at a rate of two per minute could have a similar impact in the opposite direction; this would also be disruptive editing, and I would absolutely support a daily limit on AfD participation for someone who did this repeatedly over the course of years. The issue is that JPL is doing this explicitly toward the end of drowning out and discouraging "keep" !voters, and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior as well as incivility to other editors despite having been warned multiple times. jp×g 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions whatsoever. JPL has been punished enough. They have accepted that they were in the wrong and have apologized extensively, I don’t see any real reasons for any further sanctions. A warning should suffice. Celestina007 (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Extensive apologizing is great, but I'd prefer if he stopped doing it in the future, which he has said many times in this thread he is unwilling to do. jp×g 19:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Stopped doing what? Accusing people falsely of sexism by lieing about edits done by someone 8 years ago. Oh wait, that was another editor who you are not trying to sanction at all. Or maybe it is calling on people to try to publish in various print locations character assasinations attacking another editor. Oh wait, that is another thing that I did not do, but the person who did it is not facing any santions. Nope, the general rule seems to be John Pack Lambert must be punished because no matter how much we say otherwise we deem him an evil person that we want to silence and restrict as much as possible. Then we will use the fact that we have imposed one restirction as a way to attack all his behavior forwever in the future. The process is now punishment in itself. The fact that I admitted that I was out of line will now be used to silince and punish me in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The arguments about the number of votes in a day are not at all worth considering. Different AfDs call for different amounts of participation. Some AfDs have openers who have made a very clear case of discussing the existing sourcing, and have shown through before. The high count from the other day involved a very complex issue, and I have apologized for that. I have tried to address the issues at hand. I am not sure what elese I can do. Do people really expect more of a contribution on an article discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh English Boarding School. This is a very clear case of Wikipedia:Verifiability being violated. Sourcing to an institutions own website is not sourcing to secondary sources which is absolutely required. In some ways it seems that bringing up and demanding that this super core principal of Wikipedia is followed is being treated as a flaw. True, we rearely have as such slamdrunk failures of notability with biograpies, but with schools we have them so often it is truly discouraging. Biographies have a slightly better track recrod. There are very few unsourced biographies or biographies only sourced to a website that is controled by the subject. Controlled by the subject's employer is a different story, and sourced only to non-reliable sources we see a lot, but completely unsourced articles or articles sourced only to a website controlled by the subject seem to be more common in schools than anything else. I have apologized for the actual issue that caused this to come up, and have removed the ofrending edits. So why is there this desire still to punish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support broadly and open to modification. For example, an AfD on an article he has created might be exempt from the limit. This is not a punishment, any more than it would be punishment to limit someone to a maximum number of drinks in an evening if you know that they have a problem. The goal is to tone down the battlefield mindset, and the sheer number of AfDs that Mr. Lambert is concurrently handling seems like it could drive even Mr. Rogers to incivility. Perhaps this is not the ultimate reason, but it does seem like the best good-faith conclusion. I would also consider either counting comments at an AfD towards the daily limit, or limiting Mr. Lambert to a single comment per day for any given AfD where he is participating, for reasons that I believe should be obvious to anyone reading this.

  I would like to see Mr. Lambert engage in constructive discussion where he listens and considers the perspectives of other editors, and really this ought to be a goal for all of us, if someone were to reply that I need to put more effort into doing the same thing, I would readily agree. I believe that this proposal appears to be a reasonable step towards this goal. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Lie. You want to punish me because I believe that marriage should be limited to being a man woman relationship. So I see no reason to trust anything else you say. You have proposed topic banning me. This proposal is not reasonable. It kills my ability to effectively participate in discussions at AfD. What I would like to see is editors acknowledge that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a key principal and means that we should have absolutely no unsourced articles, let along over 50 that have lasted over 14 years. I have apologized for attacking other people. The fact that the above editor has expressed a desire to topic ban me is a clear indication of animus. He has clearly declared he is unwilling to engage in a constructive discussion, and instead has shown he wishes to force other people to accept a certain position on various public policy issues and is willing to use Wikipedia as a platform to punish and silence those who hold other views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Son, this is exactly the behavior that we are talking about, all in a single paragraph. I did not want to topic ban you, emphasis on the very deliberate tense used. I supported this solution specifically because I thought that it would help improve your editing and reduce the risk of a topic ban. Further, you know nothing about me or my motivations, I have been bending over backwards to offer you advice because I have a cousin with ASD, I have seen his struggles with social situations and I try to help others in similar situations. I genuinely do not care about your views on marriage, as they no longer threaten people like my coworker and her wife, who just welcomed a baby into the world. But most importantly, Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow even if we do not delete all the unsourced articles today. Non-notable articles will still be deleted even if you are not there to nominate or vote on them, which I no longer believe that you are capable of doing in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Now you have falsely attacked me with the lie that my views threten people. This is a false and malicious position. You are the one who is clearly uncil by saying that the views of someone "threaten" others. That is total and complete malarky. It is not a threat to define an instituion in a way that focuses on raising children. Marriage worked for thsousands of years and to treat me the way you do for supporting the definition of marriage that was accepted in every society until the 21st-century shows true wrongheadedness. You have clear bias against me, all your attempts to say otherwise are just plain rubbish. I did not threaten anyone, but you have tried to silence those who hold political positions you do not agree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  1. Editor 1 makes 100 articles in five minutes.
  2. Editor 2 AFDs 100 articles in five minutes.
  3. Editor 3 votes delete on all 100 nominations in five minutes.
  4. Editor 4 votes keep on all 100 nominations in five minutes.

I do not support restricting any one editor in the above hypothetical while not doing anything about the others. 1 is "building the encyclopedia", 4 is "rescuing articles", but 2 and 3 are "disruptive"? No way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I am allowed to make any comment on this without being accused of being uncivil. I will try anyway. Evidently it is because "building the encyclopedia" means increasing the total number of articles in the encyclopedia, without any consideration for any other factor. That does not make sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Like I've said, I endorse similar sanctions against anyone making massive volumes of zero-effort, driveby "Keep" !votes. I'll show up on this noticeboard to support them if they're proposed. What I object to is allowing deletion processes to turn into shoot-em-up games where any attempt to provide a reasoned argument will be instantly swamped by hordes of people robotically !voting "keep" or "delete" on every open discussion (because look, the other side gets to do it, it's not fair!). It's a Red Queen's race that can easily be avoided by enforcing a bare minimum of effort from discussion participants. jp×g 20:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: I hear you and we share the same goal. But why focus on JPL alone? It's a solid analytical point about the "vote rate" (votes per minute or vote timing) and how that leaves no room for a proper before search. But before is for nominations not participants; there is no rule that participants must perform a before search prior to voting. Second, was JPL's vote rate so much higher than other editors, in those same set of 72 AFDs? I see other copy-paste votes when I review that set. Is the quality of JPL's votes so much worse than other votes, even in that same set of AFDs? I see "keep clearly notable" and other similar votes. Is JPL's match rate so much worse than anyone else's? If we want to have a rule that participants should perform before searches prior to voting in AFDs, OK. If we want to rate limit noms or votes, OK. If we want to kick people out of AFD who have too low of a match rate, OK. But let's not hold one editor to a standard we don't hold other editors to. JPL may not be following best practices but he's not violating policy and his votes do no harm whatsoever. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Levivich You are correct that the number of votes, in and of itself, is not the problem. What brought us here is the behavior and content of those votes. The proposal to limit his AfD votes was suggested based on the good-faith assumption that participating in too many concurrent AfD discussions might be one cause of his behavior. I believe that we can call it a consistent standard that when an editor starts comparing people who vote differently at an AfD to Jim Crow segregationists, then there is a problem. And while Mr. Lambert apologized for that inappropriate behavior, he has continued to showcase battleground behavior, bludgeoning, failure to AGF, incivility, at the very least, with comments like these. You may be right that the proposed solution is not related to the problem, but it was an attempt at avoiding what may be the inevitable alternative, either a ban from AfD, a temp siteblock, or both, since this behavior appears to continue. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, yeah, pretty much. The days when we needed every article we could get passed roughly the time SEOs worked out a way to get juice despite the nofollow. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) A passing comment, and not a slight. I have no slights on anyone (and re. Celestina, I totally concur with your comment in a higher subsection that all is forgiven and all is understood). It's nearly 6am here, and I've been making a real attempt to sleep for the prior two hours, but it's a messy matter at the best of times. Here one issue is that I feel driven to check my laptop, and when I do, I come back to the sense that JPL is personally trying to blame or insult me and that there's an emotional intensity way too high to comfortably handle. I believe JPL is sincere and motivated and cares a lot; if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be supporting this, I'd just be dismissively waving my hands at the whole thing. I'd like if this could all be "we're entirely confident he understands", but...would JPL-related ANI threads be started every few months if he did? I don't want JPL to be dragged to ANI every few months, I want him to be a contributor at AfD who's a respected part of the place's ecosystem. I think he's gotten to this point because he believes, sincerely, he needs to !vote at that rate for his opinions to be recognized and valued -- but ten !votes with strong rationales are weighed much higher than eighty "not notable"s (or eighty "notable"s). I still sincerely think that if anyone were to step up to mentorship it'd be a valued role that could bring major accomplishments...but if we could wish mentors into existence we'd have a different project. Still. Perhaps I can wish. Vaticidalprophet 19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The bulk nominations by Coin were a good faith error and I have good faith they won't be repeated. The insinuations of racism by JPL were also a violation of civility, and definitely need to stop, but are not really the main issue. The reason we keep seeing JPL brought back here is his habit of reacting to AFDs with his initial reaction from the first few seconds of looking at the nomination and maybe also sometimes the article. If throttling the number of AfD comments per day is what it takes to stop that, and get him to participate productively in AFDs rather than writing quick-take comments that everyone soon learns to ignore, then that would be a good thing. If it's insufficient to address the problem, then maybe we need to think about a complete topic ban. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The above is what I mean by kitchen sink attacks. The editor acknolwedges that the issue at hand was resolved, but still wants to punish me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I have no interest in punishment. The outcome I would like to obtain is more in-depth contributions to AfDs or, failing that, fewer shallow hot takes. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • If you really wanted that you would make a proposal that addressed that issue directly. This is just puntative. Especially since the discussion had nothing to do with that at all, you guys just snuck it in on a matter that had to do with incivility, which I have both corrected and apologized for. So yes, this is punishment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
        • User:Johnpacklambert, you are in a hole. Stop digging. I don't know how this is not yet clear to you. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
        • If you really wanted that you would make a proposal that addressed that issue directly from what I can tell, that is the intent of the above proposal. You can still comment on AfDs, and ten !votes per day is not an insignificant number. I'm sure if after a few months, the quality of your !votes has improved, people would likely not object to the restriction being lifted. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It was not my original intention, but per this edit, I no longer believe that John Pack Lambert is capable of constructively contributing to Wikipedia in a civil manner. I now reluctantly support a full topic ban from XfD for 2 to 6 months, in the hopes that he will take a step back, reflect, and gain some perspective. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So now I will be punished for exercising my political rights and support proposition 8. This is the editor who brought up the LGBT issue, and proposed a total and complete broad topic ban. For calling him out in this mean spirited action, he is now doubling down on it. Yet there is no proposal at all to punish the person who brought up 8 year old issues and attacked me on them. This whole thing is getting out of control and ruder and ruder as we go. It also all goes to kitchen sink issues. Where one issue is brought up and but people bring up unrelated issues and then punish you for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly but emphatically. I pride myself on my ability to stay away from the dramaboards, but here I feel obligated to weigh in. I am not, in any sense of the word, an inclusionist. Nor am I anti-autistic, anti-religious, partisan, punitive, part of a cabal, or given to personal attacks. But I firmly believe that, aside from blocking, supporting deletion "is the gravest and most delicate duty that [editors are] called on to perform." And despite healthy measures of patience and good faith, I cannot conclude that JPL is doing the necessary legwork to justify his scores of "delete" !votes. In addition to the myriad examples already presented, here's another one. AfDs citing the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER essay were for a while among our most contentious. Not long ago, JPL !voted in five of these in five minutes: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. In each case, he !voted to delete. Not a single other editor reached that conclusion: even the most ardent deletionist supported at least leaving a redirect behind. Instead of addressing this rather obvious possibility, JPL simply gave canned one-sentence justifications that showed he had done zero research. That's not surprising: it's impossible to assess notability in sixty seconds. JPL's refusal to see that, in my view, suggests that he does not have the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. He instead reacts as if this is a scene from The Trial, stooping to unjustified accusations, personal attacks, and bludgeoning. The offer of ten AfD !votes a day is very generous. So many editors get by every day without even approaching that limit. The fact that JPL sees it as akin to zero shows that he still fails to take seriously the issues being raised here. That fact leads me to support, at a minimum, the very moderate, very reasonable proposal presented here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is deletion a more serious issue than article creation? There is no logical reason to hold this view?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • An erroneous article creation is much, much, much more easily remedied than an erroneous AfD. Substantive (i.e. not procedural) reversals at DRV are almost unheard of. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • And this to me is the very definition of a grandfather clause. Unjustified deletions can be reversed. It also ignore the fact that 70 articles having existed for 14 or more years without sources shows that unjustified creations are not well regulated. We have had total hoaxes survive over 5 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a bare minimum, although I question JPL's competence at AfD at all, seeing as how, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pani, he apparently believes "we do not keep articles without sources" and does not seem to accept that if sources can be found, an article should be kept. I only hope that his identikit votes are ignored by the majority of closing admins. P-K3 (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You are ignoring the verifiability guidelines. That clearly states that we should delete anything that is not sourced. Sources are the key. I have never argued to delete an article when actual reliable sources have been specifically listed in a deletion discussion. However my reading of the verifiability guideline seems to clearly indicate the sources really should be put in the article. It also makes no real sense to mention them in a deletion discussion and not put them in the article. I am not arguing that we need links to the sources. Sources do not have to be on-line. However we need clear references. That is clearly what verifiabilty says.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • John, the verifiability policy states that material lacking a reliable source [...] may be removed (emphasis mine). It does not state that unsourced articles must be deleted. That all articles must be sourced does not mean unsourced ones must be deleted – Wikipedia is a work in progress, and sources can always be added later. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Nowhere in our verifiablity policy or our deletion policy does it say that we should delete an article that is not sourced. An article for which sources do not exist will fail our notability guidelines, but the only way to determine that is to look for sources, not just vote to delete on the lack of sources in the article as it stands. P-K3 (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, you did exactly that, several times within the span of about 40 minutes, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Map-based controller and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow, and in the same span Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dantapura waved away sources that you could not possibly have read or considered in that length of time, given your AFD contribution rate analysed at the start of this discussion. Your grudging retraction at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/External flow then proceeded to ask how you could be expected to be "clairvoyant" about a pointer to a book with an entire chapter on the subject that was right above your first discussion contribution. Uncle G (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • No, that was reacting to the sources that were added to the article. This is all unfair that I am being threatened with we everything including a total ban from Wikipedia, and yet the person who engaged in no analysis arguments to speedy keep faces no sanctions. The only fair conclusion is that Wikipedia has a grandfather clause that default says any article that exists is treated as presumed notable unless we prove otherwise. At least that is what it feels like when those who favor deletion are put under microscopic scrutiny for their every action but those who favor inclusion are allowed to make arguments with no sources with impunity. I went though and revised a huge number of deletion votes. Yet no one gives me credit for that. I really, really went over and above to correct the issue, yet I am still being punished. This is totally unjust.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the above shows that no contribution goes unpunished. People even find ways to criticize my contribution related to David Leavitt. There is no room in the world for praise. Only criticism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose- This is just an "inclusionist" power grab and excessive punishment for someone who has already apologized. It is at least 10 times easier to add a low-quality article than to get one deleted.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich (our inability/unwillingness to treat editors equally is of some concern) and Rusf10 (who, while speaking robustly, makes an informed point wrt agendas, albeit those perhaps yet unspoken...) ——Serial 16:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose According to toolforge:afdstats, well over 90% of pages where JPL voted delete were indeed deleted or redirected. There is no issue with his editing spree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose JPL has been making extremely helpful contributions to Wikipedia, JPL did make a mistake but he has apologized and I think we can get over this now. Personally I am a an maximalist on Wikipedia and think that everything from Bread sandwich to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach should get it's own article. But he has made an immense contributions and the majority of the votes for deletes he casts in AFD's ultimately do get deleted. Are we genuinely stating that editors should be less engaged in Wikipedia or that having a minimalist position in AFD's is somehow wrong? With that in mind working past or faults is the best, and is always the best solution. Des Vallee (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No

Very simple. ☺

I said it above, and I'll say it again: what I want is not banning, nor restrictions. I want Johnpacklambert to put more effort in, and I think that xe can. I don't have a magic administrator button that gets people to actually do the research at AFD, so that we get something that is cross-checked by multiple people. Somehow that's missing from MediaWiki. But none of the administrator buttons that I do have seem right. The edit button gets me trying to talk Johnpacklambert into approaching AFD with the same approach that well-valued contributors do. Do the research; show that you've done the research; and apply Project:deletion policy correctly, not out of a sense of frustration about how much utter dren there is here. Find out whether sources exist and evaluate their depths and provenances, because that's what deletion policy and notability are all about. If they do not, make a good case showing what you did to find them. If they do, cite them. If you see others cite them, check them out, and collaborate with other people by doing things like transferring them from the AFD discussion to the article. And if you see a bad article, fix it by doing the research and writing.

I speak as the person facing an 18-year-old mountain of utter rubbish on top of an article in its very first revision in 2003 screaming to get out at Responsibility assumption (AfD discussion). There's an awful lot of this. Postal orders of Bangladesh (AfD discussion) was one person's personal experience placed into the passive voice to give it seeming authority, and false on its face. (Clearly, someone, possibly a lot of people, know what was claimed to be unknown.) But zero effort at AFD only makes things worse. We learned that with the schools thing. We learned that with many others as well.

Uncle G (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The comparison I made makes sense if you understand I was saying that people were trying to apply a grandfather clause to preserve unsourced articles that had been on Wikipedia a long time, and then if you understand what the historic origin of the term grandather clause is. I think that linguistic issue has escaped some commentators, so they clearly do not get what I was saying. I was saying that I thought people were trying to apply grandfather clauses, no more and no less. That does not lessen the incivility of it, but I think it would cause some people to actually understand what I was saying. I was saying I thought those I was reacting to were trying to apply grandfather clauses. Everything else was built on and allusions to the term and its historic origins, that was the sum total of my meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As I have said I recognize that my statements were uncivil. I get the sense that some did not understand what I was saying about grandfather clauses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    • This doesn't seem to have any relation to the comment you have typed it as a response to. Are you sure you put this in the right section? jp×g 21:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
      • It is meant to be a general explanation of the comments that caused people to open this putative process where it is only after I both fixed all the things directly related to the discussion heading and removed the offending statements did anyone even try proposing a punishment. I was reviewing some of the earliest comments and it was clear that people did not at all understand what I was saying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I understand why you might not have seen how other people would react to this, or realize the connotations of what you said. That's a separate issue. Hyperion35 is very upset by this, and I don't think that you are making it any better, because you're not seeing how xe would react to being called a liar, which you should not have done either.

    But there are two parts wrong to what you did. You've said some things, here and originally, that are truly upsetting to people. (Me? I got called someone hiding xyr identity by an account named after an identifiable public figure the other day. Possibly not as upsetting as xe thought, since the fact that I assert that people should not evaluate what I do here based upon what I might claim about myself on a user page came up in Project:Requests for adminship/Uncle G and Project:Requests for adminship/Uncle G 2 16 years ago. Being called all sorts of things happens. But the "dirty -istas" namecalling is wrong, in any form, "back to 1935!" or otherwise. One day I'll write up the history of that properly, although Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus#Proposal regarding DreamFocus has something important on the subject. It is a truly sad story of how a joke that was never true has been translated into something that people seriously, but quite wrongly, believe.)

    The other part is just rocking up and rapidly making comments at AFD by looking at the article and doing nothing else, not one scintilla of research, research that you would put into something that you nominate. Worse, you did it on mass nominations where the nominator didn't do that, either. How do you think that that's going to work properly? No-one checks, everyone looks at the articles and makes superficial judgements, and we both lose genuine subjects and keep non-subjects. Think about it. You're one of multiple checks. You have to do that job properly. You want people to write articles properly? Well people have to participate in deletion discussions properly, too.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  • There's a little more on the history, and another of my little green boxes, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron#Statement by Uncle G. Uncle G (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am being threatened with much more severe restrictions because I will not sit back and let people engage in character assasimation against me. I have a right to defend man/women marriage. It is the bedrock of a society that properly sees marriage as focused on raising children. My holding this position has caused someone to call from a topic ban. This is a way to build into Wikupedia bias. They then tried to pretend to hold another position, and now they are talking about banning me completely and totally from Wikipedia. I both apologized for my uncivil remarks and removed them. In the process above people are trying to punish me for standing up for my views.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is truly unfair that I am being threatened with punishment for defending someone who was trying to apply verifiability from someone who was trying to silence them. I have over and over again apologized for my uncivil response. I am not going to sit by and let someone argue that my political views should be grounds to limit my participation in Wikipedia. That is just wrong. I also find it truly objectionable that false accusations of sexism against me are allowed to stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As you already know, though, xe was actually getting Twinkle-happy and not doing any research, so couldn't have known whether things were verifiable. Applying Project:deletion policy involves looking for sources and failing, as it says right there in the policy and has done for a long time now. It even says "thorough". Again, think about that. How were you in any way thorough? How was the nominator? Neither of you were. You weren't defending anything. You were following zero effort with more zero effort. How does that make you better than the people you are saying aren't putting effort into writing? Be better than this. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If Uncle G really wanted to improve the quality of AfD he would do something about the people who try to argue that we should continue to defer to subject specific guidelines that have been shown to in no way reflect the likelihood of a subject passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• I am tired of Hyperion5 patronizingly calling me "son". I am just plain tired of how the whole attack John Pack Lambert for every vote in AfD by him which with I disagree goes. Especially odd is the treatment of me as someone to be punished because I am not willing enough to consider leaving redirects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

  I have asked them to stop. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone who regularly participates at AfD is bound to recognize JPL. They have indicated earlier in the discussion that they really value participating in the process. I'm glad to hear that because we don't have a surplus of editors willing to participate. However, I do have a couple of observations based on the many discussions I've closed that JPL has participated in. Sometimes while reading the discussion it seems that JPL has only considered what other participants have said and not the article itself (let alone other sources not included in the article). I would hope everyone reads and considers an article before participating at an AfD and assume JPL does so and that this thinking is simply not reflected in their final comments. I'm not sure what JPL's process is before participating in an AfD discussion, but the rate at which he participates gives an appearance that it is not fully considered. I think the proposal above to limit the number of times he participates is really just a substitute for saying "we need more high quality participation from JPL at AfD". And so that is what I would like to see JPL commit to doing. I would hope that there is thought and care behind his participation in discussions and so it would be helpful if that was demonstrated in how he !votes. I would love to see JPL bringing new ideas and perspectives to the discussion more frequently. I'm not touching on the inappropriate comments made, beyond this sentence, because I believe JPL's apologies and I would hope they know that future such comments could lead to a block or a return to ANI neither of which I'm guessing they want. In the end, if JPL can go a step further when writing his !votes I think that would do a lot to assuage people in this discussion. At that point he would simply be another frequent somewhat one-sided AfD participant; just as we see with other such people (whether keep or delete inclined) they'll never be without controversy but there also won't really be consensus to limit their participation either. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1. Probably the most reasonable and fair comment in this section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  +2 Barkeep49. VV 11:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've only diagonally read much of the preceding drama (since I do not like drama). What I do agree with is that care and effort should be put into commenting at AfDs, just as in any other discussion. I'm probably closer to the "deletionist" end of the scale myself (there's too much fancruft, etcetera); but when I occasionally go through AfDs and notice JPL's comments they are more frequently than not very brief and symptomatic of other issues as pointed out by others above (and too frequently in roughly the same neighbourhood as WP:AADD). Whether there are any effective steps to be taken (beyond engagements of good will and future improvements) is a good question (issues about SNGs being misused by other editors; et al. notwithstanding). If this issue has already been pointed out in the past I'd argue some more muscled suggestions could now be an option (80 !votes in a single day hardly gives reason to keep the "!" in front of "votes"...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would put myself in the same camp as Uncle G, I really don't see a point in banning someone from voting. Be it JPL or someone else. The only thing I can ask for and press for is simply to ask JPL do more research into why he should vote that way. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• I find myself opposing any AfD restrictions. There were two issues here: a bad batch-nom of AfDs, bad only because work clearly did not get put into them, and a bad response to the batch-nom on JPL's part, ending with a very uncivil remark. The uncivil remark is worth a warning or maybe even a short term block, if we do those for incivility. It's not worth restricting their ability to participate in the AfD process: the harm here isn't their AfD participation, it's their incivility. I agree with Barkeep49's comments above as well, though - the reason we've gone off on a tangent regarding what should be allowed at AfD is because of past behaviour, but I can also say as an AfD/DRV participant that a simple JPL vote doesn't hold a lot of weight in a deletion discussion, especially if there's well-considered keep !votes next to their delete !vote (however, this also imples a well-considered JPL keep !vote, rare as they might be, are worth a lot at AfD.) SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • a simple JPL vote doesn't hold a lot of weight in a deletion discussion Here's my thought. This has been said several times in this thread. It's been said in prior JPL threads, including by admins who routinely close AfDs. JPL's reason for making these votes, as he's made clear in this thread, is he sincerely believes they're the only way he can have an impact on an issue he considers ultra-important (whether to keep or delete articles he believes inappropriate for the project). By extension, anything that allows this to continue is actively harming his goals. Whether or not those goals are agreed with by individual editors is beyond the scope of ANI. My hope for a situation where JPL is, ahem, restricted to ten !votes/day is that those votes won't be 'simple' ones but well-considered rationales, i.e. things that closers weigh and other people concur with. In other words: that he can actually have the impact on AfD he wants. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I disagree with this - that assumes his current overall conduct is disruptive, which it's not - it's just not as effective as it could be, and this is not an AfD issue unique to him. His conduct on the batch AfD nom was disruptive with a grossly uncivil comment made, which is what we should be concerning ourselves with. SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have tried to make much more considered and deliberative votes at AfD over the past few hours.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely argue that every JPL vote today was constructive and in line with a Wikipedia guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. This is my anecdotal experience.

I rarely participate in AFD. It's hard work. There's no point at all in either nominating or !voting without putting the effort in.

I recall a couple of AFDs where a nominated article had been not so much WP:REFBOMBed as carpet-bombed. After reading all 30+ citations - in one case I !voted delete; in another, I singled out a couple of citations which I considered RS from among all the cruft, and !voted the other way.

I have among my bookmarks the contributions of a WP:SOCK, whose primary interest was in creating articles about Bollywood films sourced only to WP:IMDb; he could churn one out every 7 or 8 minutes. (Subsequently blocked, so not WP:G5 creations.) I'm slowly working through them when I have the fortitude; only a hundred or so to go. Every one takes 15-20 minutes work to make a nomination which I consider proper. I've saved a couple by a WP:BEFORE search (a stopped clock is right twice a day); other editors have saved another couple at AFD by WP:HEY, finding citations I'd missed. Win-win - either a non-notable article gets deleted or a notable article gets improved. Both results are good for the encyclopaedia.

If anyone wants to improve the encyclopaedia by participating at AFD, they must avoid WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and boilerplate !votes - or they're just wasting both their own time and everyone else's. Narky Blert (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is also one reason why a limit to 10 votes per day does not seem unreasonable. I often browse AfD, but due to the effort involved, as you mention, I skip through a lot of nominated articles (especially cricketers, so many cricketers, why?), and comment only on articles where something about it strikes me as being worth spending the time to track down sources. Hell, just copying and pasting references from multiple tabs into a comment takes up time. Even a delete vote requires taking enough time to be sure that you haven't missed any sources, or that the sources available are not significant. And then it takes time to type up a vote explaining the vote, why it does or does not meet the relevant criteria, or in some rare cases why there might be more complex issues involved (for example articles that fall under WikiProject Medicine, and then you have to explain those complex issues in a non-technical way). Some votes might be easier, of course, for example blatant pseudoscience and fringe articles.

Ten AfDs per week sounds like a reasonable workload, and I can't imagine trying to keep track of more than 20 in a week. And of course, in any given AfD there will be disagreements. Sometimes it's a factual matter or an obvious misunderstanding, other times different editors will just have different good-faith views on what constitutes SIGCOV. It also takes some experience to determine when it is appropriate to add a comment and when it isn't. For example, I no longer interact with editors who wave around WP:THREE as if it were a real rule, it just never ends well. Some AfDs won't create much disagreement at all, others will become dramabombs or even thermonucleardramatic warheads. Dealing with too many at a given time is just inviting burnout and the resultant snappish incivility in anyone.

I don't know that a limit of 10 per day will address the underlying problem that stems from a bizarre battlefield view of the process (something that seems to be overlooked in all of this), but it seems like the best compromise to deal with the symptoms. Hyperion35 (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I still find it very offensive that the false and malicious attack built on mischaracterizing editing I did 8 years ago has been allowed to stand. That attack is extremely offensive. Something needs to be done about it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Start a separate AN/I thread about it? 2601:243:1C80:6740:6D3B:D5BA:1BFB:F4C9 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the message you posted years ago, it's not really a "mischaracterization" to label you as not-so-supportive of gay people (this is your message that's being talked about). versacespaceleave a message! 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The last time I checked a few days ago, he also had an explicit statement about same-sex marriage on his user page, so it's not just an 8 years-ago thing. He is certainly allowed to believe whatever he wants, and as an American I support freedom of religion very strongly, but at the same time he may wish to consider that Wikipedia has a very diverse group of editors including many LGBT people, and of course Wikipedia has articles on many subjects including many notable LGBT people. But finally, JPL really needs to recognize that this is most definitely not the reason why people are criticizing his behavior here. He seems to be trotting this out as a reason why he feels entitled to ignore good-faith criticism on unrelated issues. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, he has the absolute right to his opinion, but I don't believe saying he's homophobic is "mischaracterizing" him when he's stated explicitly that he does not support gay people. versacespaceleave a message! 00:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

On legislating improvement

So, JPL has had a great spree on AfD since the beginning of this thread, making !votes with much more care and thought than usual, and I'm happy to see it. He'a also clearly in a lot of distress, about which I've previously expressed my sympathies. I've been looking at, responding to, and !voting alongside his recent !votes, and I'm wondering how to make sure this is a persistent improvement such that there isn't yet another JPL ANI in a few months. It's clear that this one got him to seriously reconsider how he came across to other people and make bona fide improvements, in a way that previous threads didn't. I genuinely believe this can be the start of a new age for JPL's AfD participation, but only if it's actually kept up and doesn't go back to "eighty !votes a day of one-sentence rationales" by the end of the week.

ANI wields blunt tools. It's difficult, anywhere on the project, to get and sustain this kind of improvement. The tools we have mostly just tell people to stop doing something -- stop writing about a topic, stop talking to another person, stop editing entirely. You can force a change to how Wikipedia looks with these tools. You can't really force a change to what someone thinks of those things, although they might calm down with distance. There's very little that can be done to invoke remorse in a wiki-recidivist. This is human nature. You can't legislate improvement. But we've got improvement here, so...?

I wonder if the solution might be a suspended sentence, so to speak. What if JPL has no AfD restrictions, but they'd be imposed if he goes back to not !voting with rationales? I dunno, man -- I'm dropping into informality there because this is difficult. It's gone as well as it can go, which is to say, nightmarishly awful but at least something good came out. (Ain't that ANI?) Certainly I've seen much worse outcomes. I'd like this to be beautiful. I think it could be. But how can that gold stay? Vaticidalprophet 14:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support suspended sentence I would support Vaticidal's suggestion of a suspended sentence, and I would support a suspended ban on voting in AFDs with the exception of articles he has created or contributed significantly to.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unclear about how a suspended sentence would work. Who would get to invoke that it needs to be implemented rather than suspended? How long would the suspension last for before it would go away? As I wrote in my comment above the proposed sanction was really a substitute for "make meaningful contributions at AfD" and so that, rather than some arbitrary number, should be the goal. If John can do that then the sanction is unneeded. If he can't do that then the right answer, in my view, would be to topic ban. This just feels punitive in an unnecessary way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm trying to figure out how to not be punitive. I don't know that one ANI thread can genuinely change a pattern stretching years. I do know that we have these threads every few months, and that means something is very wrong. I'm intentionally being unclear because there's no clear path, and multiple people would need to work together to decide what the clear path is. One way or another, the "JPL gets dragged to ANI, promises to change, and soon everything is back how it was when he got dragged there" cycle needs to stop, because it's obviously causing substantial distress to an enthusiastic and prolific editor. The form of stopping it where he gets fully removed from AfD is clearly not the form he wants, and is a much stricter form than needs to be the case. Vaticidalprophet 00:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly, his behavior here at this ANI event is in some ways more disturbing than his original behavior that brought him here, and I am rather surprised at how it has been ignored completely. He has been uncivil, he has engaged in battleground behavior, he has cast aspersions at other editors. I would provide diffs but one can just scroll up.

  Most significant, in my opinion, is that he has made many comments that continue to display his "deletionists vs inclusionists" mindset, as seen here and here and several other places (he has so many comments in this ANI alone that tracking down the diffs is difficult). Until amd unless that attitude changes, I have pretty much zero expectation of improvement. Hyperion35 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't disagree. Vaticidalprophet 09:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Lack of collegiality with User:Drassow

I found this edit problematic: "Black" with a capital B is widely accepted in newsrooms across the US and the UK, and on Wikipedia as well. (Never mind that capitalization is not grammar.) Turns out it seems they're doing that kind of thing to wrong a right, as here (again with a false appeal to grammar). So I left them a note, and then find their user page, which says "You're looking at this because I made you butthurt, aren't you?" -- that's the kind of thing Instagram trolls put on their profile. I removed that, and explained it goes against the collaborative spirit of our project, and am countered with this, [32], followed by their condescension on their talk page. Drassow has been blocked for edit warring (over something as silly as thinking a YouTube video is a reliable source) and for personal attacks; I suppose I can't fault an editor for mostly editing gun articles, but lowercasing "Black" is a hallmark of right-wing trolling, and the battleground attitude is concerning. Oh, I see now that this somewhat immature comment on my talk page was removed by User:Apokryltaros (and marked as harassment): thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• More disturbing diffs: "da chinese dude", about race; this, displaying lack of collegiality and again a race thing; this callous dismissal of a shitty comment directed at JzG; "cry about it" in response to a 3R warning from Jpgordon. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• An editor that pops up occasionally, makes a few minor edits, yet nearly every time they make a few edits they manage to abuse or belittle someone, and don't seem to care either. Doesn't really sound like a net positive to me. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
• For being so semantic about the definition of grammar, surely you'd realize that Chinese is a set of ethnicities and not a race, no? I don't see what has you upset about noting "da chinese dude" as the edit when adding... a photo of a Chinese dude. Either way, I merely pointed out your edits do not adhere to MOS and corrected them. You should not pretend and feign the victim when you came and edited my page without permission, I merely left a notice on it not being welcome. I don't edit your user page for the fun of it. Lowercasing black is a hallmark sign of adhering to the MOS and consistency of the article and its neutrality, the fact that you have to try and dust off items years old should stand as a testament to the desperation you have to get your way on an incorrectly formatted article. You're being a hypocrite on accusing me of "battleground attitude" by shoehorning in your desired version without actual reasoning being given. Drassow (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, capitalisation of Black is like capitalisation of Deaf by the Deaf community: it's a self-descriptor which is widely and appropriately used in respectful discussion of issues we outside the community can empathise with, but not experience. Reverting it is not evil, it is a stylistic preference.

The defiant response to the edit warring ruling is much more concerning. As we all know, three reverts is a limit, not an entitlement, and this looks like a clear attempt to use first mover advantage to get non-consensus text into a controversial article.

The "butthurt" comment is also classic WP:BATTLE behaviour, and the dogmatic statements about the MOS are entirely inconsistent with an editor who has just over 300 edits, total.

So my personal view based on talk page comments and content edits is that this user is WP:NOTHERE/WP:RGW. This discussion has already wasted more time than the benefit to the project I can see in their contributions. I would suggest a final warning at the very least. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy, I disagree with the first point: the various news organizations that use it as such are hardly headquarters of any Black community... Drmies (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I use the capitalised styling myself, but it's hardly universal nor is a preference for non-capitalised, sanctionable. But the rest of what that editor does? Hooboy. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I would define lack of collegiality as Drmies actions of editing another's user page and then making a weak AN report about it - then trying to shore up this weak report by dredging up "disturbing" diffs from a year or more ago. I've personally experienced this same "attention" from Drmies - he seems to do this type of WP:BATTLEGROUNDing when he gets a target in his sights. I encourage admins to tell him to pound sand on this one. -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

It is misleading to describe it as "dredging up from a year or more ago" when it's an editor with such low activity as Drassow - that diff was within their last 30 edits. The ratio of problematic edits is rather high.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Netoholic, long time no see. How's WP: WikiProject Men going? --JBL (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing the case of Black seems like a mistake I would easily do, but I doubt I'd stir drama over it if reverted. Speaking of which, I only remember of Drassow because of previous interaction on this noticeboard that also wasn't very constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 11:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

More disturbing diffs: "da chinese dude", about race; It's a dude and the photo was taken in China. I really don't see the problem here.

this, displaying lack of collegiality and again a race thing; I see no lack of collegiality here and Drassow apologized for their error.

this callous dismissal You're just linking the same diff again!

of a shitty comment directed at JzG; The edit summary is out of line, otherwise the comment is a bit abrasive but I don't feel that should be sanctionable.

"cry about it" in response to a 3R warning from Jpgordon. Again a bit abrasive but doesn't seem sanctionable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Section break

"You're looking at this because I made you butthurt, aren't you?"

Let us not forget we have an actual edit to look at too, one that I propose runs counter to the idea that we are a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it as trolling. Obvs it'll be restored by this uncivil, proto-racist paid editor, but at least then we can then cut to the chase and C-ban him. The algorithm is thus: WP:RGW + WP:NONAZIS = WP:NOTHERE. Then we can all get back to what we were doing; otherwise, we're just wasting time. ——Serial 11:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind that it was removed, and the Yo mama phrase, slightly hidden and coated in pseudo-plausible deniability needn't remain there either, given the nearly universal insulting punch of maternal insults. Then again, such trolling comments could also be allowed to stay on a user's talk page, in my opinion. They show whom one's dealing with. Such editors will draw more scrutiny regarding their edits. If their editing is fine, who cares, if it's not, all the better that they advertised their assholishness and drew attention. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

But Sluzzelin, I dropped a few diffs of not-fine editing. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, Drmies. I guess I meant it's better to deal with what's happening in article space, or talk page discussions. Removing stuff from a user page is less important unless it's really crass or violating BLP policies etc. No biggie, and the removal of the trolling post doesn't bother me at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You are accusing Drassow of being "proto-racist" and "paid". I assume you have a source for this (the joke on Drassow's user page doesn't count) otherwise you could be looking at a piece of approaching curved Australian wood. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Yes! No. No fucking chance. But thanks for letting us know that you, err, agree with their sentiments. ——Serial 14:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: You're saying I am proto-racist now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: The racist stuff has already been discussed in this thread. I know you've seen some if it since you mentioned it in your simultaneous 11:52, 17 April 2021 above. You may not agree it's racist, but as I said below, there's no reason why any of us should care what you think given your lack of concern for the problems other editors face because of your improper formatting decisions. As for paid, I think you already know this but on 22 October 2020 [33] the editor declared themselves a paid editor. This declaration is still visible on their user page User:Drassow, as it was when checking out recent diffs like that removing the butthurt stuff from their user page. Since they declared their employer as "your mother" it was probably some sort of lame joke. But if editors are going to include such a lame joke on their user page, they shouldn't be surprised if people see it and don't pay much attention to the details. Frankly, I wouldn't care even if someone did notice the details and so was fairly sure it was a lame joke but still called them a paid editor. If editors are going to do dumb stuff, they shouldn't be surprised if editors take it at face value and treat them accordingly. In other words, if editors don't want others calling them paid, they should make extremely lame jokes on their user page about being a paid editor. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I don't think you should have edited their user page. My talk page is categorized in various joke categories like Category:Wikipedians who are "out to get you" and/or your garage band, I hope you're not going to remove those. You should have left that to an uninvolved admin. over something as silly as thinking a YouTube video is a reliable source A YouTube video can be a reliable source, it all depends on the uploader. In this case the uploader was القناة الرديفة للجبهة الوطنية للتحرير which translates to "The auxiliary channel for the National Liberation Front". I have frankly no idea what authority this outlet has nor which claim it was supposed to support, but they do have 90K+ subscribers so the possibility that this could be a source for something would at least have to be considered. On the "main" issue I am very confused. If black people are now Black people (I can't fathom why but I'll roll with it for the argument), shouldn't white people in that case be White people? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If black people are now Black people (I can't fathom why but I'll roll with it for the argument)...

Sigh. Assuming for the sake of argument that you're not being coy for effect, it's been widely discussed. Here, from last July, the Associated Press and the New York Times explain their changes. --Calton | Talk 11:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Calton: I don't think this is really a thing where I live. Having read your links, I still disagree and think we shouldn't follow them. We're not going to capitalize "white" and we shouldn't treat "black" differently. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You’re the guy who was talking about a curved piece of Australian wood, right? Duck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Care to explain? My opinion is illegal? Wut? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What does legality have to do with any of this? ANI is not the appropriate venue to share your personal opinions on race. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, this is a collaborative project, and editors should thus act in a way that promotes collegiality. "You looked at my user page because you're butthurt" is pure trolling and antithetical to a spirit of collaboration. User pages (which aren't the user's property) are there to indicate certain things about the users, their interests on Wikipedia, whether they're admins or whatever and what articles they're writing. Not to insult the passer-by. That you (not "we") aren't going to capitalize "black" is your choice, but saying that "white" should be treated the same is...well, it's colorblind in the worst sort of way, in my opinion, but that's just my opinion: there is no agreement that it should be treated in the same way, and if you want to start a new RfC on it, be my guest. I hope you'll ping me for that. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, you warn me of boomerangs with no clue of why I should be expecting one. I gave my opinion on capitalization and there's no more to be said. There is no right or wrong here, just a choice of style. @Drmies: you should have invited Drassow to a discussion, but you decided to edit Drassow's user page which you could have guessed wouldn't go over well with Drassow. You could have asked Drassow to change it themselves and if Drassow wouldn't respond to such a request you could have asked for an uninvolved admin here. Editing someone else's user page is generally not done. The WP:User pages guideline "Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using {{subst:uw-userpage}} when immediate action is not otherwise necessary." seems like a good thing to follow, and I don't believe there was a need for immediate action, less so by an involved admin.

No, we are not going capitalize "white", some supremacists have apparently been doing that for some time. If they hadn't it could be a consideration. It would still be odd, and capitalizing black is odd. The AP article argues "These decisions align with long-standing capitalization of distinct racial and ethnic identifiers such as Latino, Asian American and Native American". Latino comes from latinoamericano which comes from Latinoamérica which is Latin America which is a name. Asian refers to Asia which is a name. I'm not sure if Native American should be capitalized. When considered as the name of a specific group (as opposed to a sum a parts of "native" and "American") it could be. But "black" seems far too diverse for that. If "black" is now synonym for "African-American", well, perhaps, time to update the dictionary then. NYT says "white doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does, and also has long been capitalized by hate groups", but I wonder if black/Black people would agree. Does an African-American from the Bronx have the same shared culture and history as a Nigerian? Does a black/Black person in the UK have the same shared culture and history? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

^^^The second paragraph^^^ WP:NOTFORUM. ——Serial 17:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, thanks. Alexis Jazz has managed to make this entire thread about themselves and their opinions--it's exactly what's wrong with ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If "black" is now synonym for "African-American", well, perhaps, time to update the dictionary then. I take it you haven't actually checked any dictionaries yet: [34] [35] [36]. Note both the definition and the capitalization. "Black" is an identity and if you think otherwise, you're behind the times and out of synch with the rest of the English-speaking world. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Deaf, blind, gay, autism and cancer are all identities depending on context. Should we capitalize all? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

None of those (except maybe gay) are identities. (Cancer and blind are identities?! Wtf?) But anyway, we should capitalize them if the dictionaries capitalize them. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You can take that up with the AP and the NYT and explain how they're wrong. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

They're not wrong because there is no "right" or "wrong" in language, but I think it's a bad idea. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since there's so much discussion about capitalizing here, I figured editors might want to see MOS:PEOPLANG. Relatively recent compromise consensus is that we should use either black/white or Black/White consistently within an article. Switches from one style to the other need explanations and talk page consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think the current draft of PEOPLANG accurately reflects consensus. I can't speak for anyone else but I have no intention of following that. "Black and white" is fine because it's what the RS do. A no-consensus RFC result doesn't change that. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Consistency of capitalizing black/white is less important than what RS are doing. Most RS are using Black and white. That's what we should do, too. —valereee (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I am on team Black/white for sure, but if you want to debate the MOS, you should go there. I disagree with the idea that we should stylistically follow what RS are doing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, do you have a rationale for not following what RS are doing? Because that's generally how we decide what to do. —valereee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure! My understanding is that Wikipedia should follow its own Manual of Style, regardless of other publications following their own style guides. Obviously, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't follow RS when it comes to content, just style! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, whether you or I think it's consistent isn't really the question. The question is what RS are doing. —valereee (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I read that MOS discussion about PEOPLANG and I'm pretty sure it reduced my IQ by a couple of points. I don't see any reason to prefer that over RS, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Wikipedia doesn't have to adopt the style of RS. You may argue that Black/white being inconsistent doesn't matter, but what I fear more is that this kind of thing only adds fuel to the fire. I fear we (Wikipedia) may push some who are on the fence about these issues towards.. less reliable sources. If Black/white was an obviously linguistically logical it would be different, but I simply can't defend Black/white. I can defend Latino/Asian, I can defend Black/White/Gay, I can defend black/white/gay but I can't write a convincing rationale for this. And if you can't defend a choice, you should refrain from making it. If everybody and their mother capitalizes "black" (like on social media, when writing a paper, etc) we should too. If RS do it but the general public fails to adopt it, I say we shouldn't. Wikipedia is written for people, so that's the spelling we should use. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that we should follow what RS are doing, because this is essentially a question of content rather than style. (However, what are RS doing? Newspapers often try to launch neologisms, new spellings, or deprecate antiquated terms, etc., but these often do not stick; this particular one (Black/white) also appears rather US-centric to me.) But what's really relevant here: it seems to me that the user Drassow has merely taken the stance that we should follow MOS:PEOPLANG, as evidenced here and here and here, and one must simply assume bad faith to fault them for that. What I do find intolerable is the phrase You're looking at this because I made you butthurt, aren't you? on Drassow's user page, which has been there since since 20 April 2020. Putting something like that on one's user page is basically a personal attack on everyone who has visited their user page since 20 April 2020, and definitely deserves some kind of administrative sanction. Perhaps a 24h block, to have a record of it? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would suggest Drassow in general to pick their words more carefully. You catch more flies with honey. (do as I say, not as I do) And Drmies should try to de-escalate whenever possible, they should have realized that editing someone else's user page directly without warning could only lead to escalation and more drama. If there is a need to create a record, a 1 minute block serves the same purpose. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Didn't realize a 1 minute block was possible. That's what should be done IMO. Also, the removal of the trolling by Drmies and Serial was entirely justified, no need at all to discuss that. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • The shortest preset is 2 hours but if you enter a custom value you could block a user for as little as one second it seems. And justified or not, if Drmies had asked Drassow to do something about it themselves to avoid consequences it would have probably (but we'll never know) resulted in less drama. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
• Valereee, how to write black and white is something the MoS should deal with. I don't capitalize because it looks odd. I'll start doing it if there's consensus to add it to the MoS, but otherwise not. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, I think it looks odd, too. :) I agree the MOS should deal with it, but I think we're in a bit of a between-consensus period here. I suspect that as more and more RS go to using Black, we'll probably have multiple discussions of whether it's time to make that change. Eventually I think we'll make it, and ten years later it won't look odd any more. Right now I'm using Black when I write, and defending that as I would the creator's choice of which citation style to use, but I don't change it when I come across it already written as black. Although the exception to that would be changing it in an article I thought it made sense to change it for, then if anyone objected starting an article-specific discussion for making that change. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think this is really a thing where I live. Given that your user page spells "apologize" with a "z", you must be American. Which means -- guess what? -- it IS a thing where you live. So unless where you're living is actually a bubble, then it's been happening "where you live" for months, if not years.
• I can defend black/white/gay but I can't write a convincing rationale for this. Your lack of imagination is not Wikipedia's problem. --Calton | Talk 01:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Calton, many people use -ize and other forms of AE without having any relation to the US: please remember that enwiki's userbase is global, and includes a great many people who aren't even native speakers. Also, please stay on topic. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • We do actually have an encyclopaedia, around here somewhere I believe, that explains that -ize is not an Americanism. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that your user page spells "apologize" with a "z", you must be American. @Calton: Deze reactie slaat als een tang op een varken. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that such accounts also seek to sow discord and waste community time, which is partly what happens above (WP:TE, WP:DE). MOS can be improved via its own processes. Editing in userspace is also allowed in certain circumstances, if it's reverted there's CSD, MfD, then admin noticeboards. The thread's topic is also relevant. Drmies is obviously not the problem and I suggest a general disruption block or a formal warning then to close this, —PaleoNeonate – 03:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I was just digging up Wikipedia:News style fallacy and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Discussion about capitalisation of Black (people) to wave around. Come on everyone! We all know where the right discussion pages are. Uncle G (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Now that this tangential sub-thread has moved on to Dutch pigs and pliers, I think it all could be safely collapsed without losing too much insight into the original topic. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a real saying (really), but yes, probably. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Alexis Jazz, please read Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks. It's not hard. And I find if funny that you'd advocate me blocking someone for a minute while you're telling me to de-escalate, and that I can't remove a trolling comment from someone's user page. We do this kind of thing routinely. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

      (comment about screen readers moved to essay talk page) Please don't put words in my mouth: I suggested a one-minute block if a log entry is needed as a technical alternative to a suggested 24-hour block to realize a log entry. I didn't advocate for or against it. While you can directly remove trolling comments from user pages, it's not always the best course of action. And you should read your last line again: "We do this kind of thing routinely". Even a schoolyard bully could say this to justify their bullying. (edit: The word even indicates here that bullying is worse, far worse in fact. Adding this for whomever that wasn't obvious for. 17:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)) This isn't an excuse. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      @Alexis Jazz: It's not "malfunctioning screen readers". It's that screen readers ultimately are not magic and so cannot be expected to be able to understand that formatted text is improperly formatted rather than being intentionally formatted. And yes, we can fix it by properly formatting our text as you've already been told with a link to an explanation. I'll freely admit, I wasn't aware of this for many many years. IIRC I first became aware of it about 2-3 years ago. I don't think anyone even pointed out I was doing something wrong, I was just reading the accessibility guidelines and realised that and realised I need to stop. I sometimes still fuck up. However as you yourself acknowledged, it's fairly obvious when you've fucked up since the visible text gets messy. So when I do that, I just fix my fuck up. It's not that hard! I admit, it's tricky when someone else has already fucked up. I generally dislike messing with others indentation since I know how annoying it is when someone messes with mine thinking I meant something I didn't. I probably should just get over that in cases where it's clearly wrong i.e. mixes indentation styles. But whatever, it means I can understand why people don't want to deal with that and do their best to not make the problem worse when replying when the indentation has already been mixed up, but leave the existing problems intact. However for those like you who are effectively telling people using screen readers to fuck off because you don't care, well I'll say the same to you in reply. Fuck off. There's no reason anyone should give a fuck what you have to say. You're not welcome here, if it came up, I would fully support a site ban of you on this issue alone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      (comment about screen readers moved to essay talk page) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      I've also had issues with this, so I tested it out in the sandbox yesterday (also look at the markup). The trick to not get multiple bullet points is to never leave an open line between two indented comments. As for equating the removal of hurtful trolling with schoolyard bullying ([37]), unduly threatening constructive participants with boomerang ([38], 2d cmt), claiming that users can't be held responsible for 'malfunctioning screen readers' after being pointed to the things we can do ([39]), bludgeoning the entire discussion, etc., it's clearly Alexis Jazz' behavior in this thread which is sanctionable. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      Extra bullets appear when there is a jump in bulleted list nesting levels. It can happen when a blank line is introduced before, say, a two-level bulleted list item, so there is an implicit jump from a zero list level to two list levels. Another common scenario is when there are two comments starting with **, and someone replies to the first comment with a prefix of ::*, presumably because they think of the colons and asterisks as indent levels and not nested list items. The reply closes two nested bulleted lists and creates a third-level bulleted list nested within two unbulleted lists. As a result, the second comment now closes these three lists and starts two nested bulleted lists, which causes two bullets to be displayed. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

      Alexis Jazz The screen reader doesn't know it's being fed garbage, so how is that supposed to be fixed? The only thing we can control is how things are formatted on Wikipedia, so that's the best solution for us here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Accommodating screen readers is more than just the right thing to do. It is a legal requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Purposely refusing to accommodate screen readers after the problem has been identified would leave Wikipedia open to discrimination lawsuits.

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation was a case where a major retailer, Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it. This resulted in Target paying out roughly ten million dollars. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, technically, Wikipedia isn't bound by the ADA - but neither should we need to be. Doing the right thing is foundational, and accommodating screen readers is 100% the right thing. Also NFIB v. Target is in contradiction with the new Winn-Dixie case, and SCOTUS generally considers corporations to be more deserving of the proteciton of law than any other class apart fomr straight, white, Christian men.

Over a quarter of a century ago I was building websites for major retail brands and I recruited a screen reader user to test our work. It took very little effort to get it right, and made a huge difference, as Bob was able to demonstrate.

People make mistakes, but when they double down after the impact of a mistake has been pointed out, and when the people who experience that impact are already self-evidently deserving of our best efforts, well, that is just a dick move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 18:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've copied the screen reader discussion to Wikipedia talk:Colons and asterisks#Screen readers and replaced my two comments about it here with "(comment about screen readers moved to essay talk page)". I won't edit comments that are not mine. I thought maybe this topic that Drmies threw in here would die down, but clearly it isn't going to so that discussion can be continued at the essay talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The bullshit keeps flying, Alexis Jazz. All you had to do was read the essay and say "yes, OK". Instead, you have to turn this into another...whatever this is. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't know about that essay (thanks for that!), I read it, and now I won't make the same mistake again. As for all the rest, I believe the proper term is trolling. Alexis Jazz should probably either take a break from this or be given a break by an uninvolved admin. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

After looking through these diffs I do have to say Drassow (and only Drassow) is trolling, the general way Drassow speaks feels more inline with a bad twitter politics thread, not a collaborative space, the fact he insults people by calling people "manchildren" is just horrid and isn't acceptable. He would be more inline with the extremely polarized boards then Wikipedia. Des Vallee (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:CPCEnjoyer and Radio Free Asia

• CPCEnjoyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) – On Radio Free Asia and Talk:Radio Free Asia:

The account appears to be a single-purpose account that has engaged in edit warring on Radio Free Asia in order to label it a "propaganda" organization. The user has also been casting aspersions on the talk page, accusing Chipmunkdavis of "perhaps intentional" misrepresentation of CPCEnjoyer's arguments. The account's username, also appears to be a derivative of a common meme, and CPC may very well refer to the CPC). The account seems to be WP:NOTHERE and has been engaging in deceptive and tendentious editing practices that include false claims of consensus on the talk page and the restoration of sources that do not actually back up these claims that were being presented in the lead in Wikivoice.

Edits include: 1 2 3 4. 5. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Claims that I have a "single-purpose" account are unsubstantiated. I have only recently made my account and am still discovering wikipedia and I believe editing multiple pages at once might be a bit too much to handle. If you feel any "aspersions" were thrown around, I apologize and if the user above-mentioned feels offended then I retract my statement, it truly was not my intention to cause him grief. Regarding the concern of my name, I believe we share the sense of humor, considering your name is derivative of a common vulgar joke "Mike Hawk". The part that struck me most about your accusation is saying that I am WP:NOTHERE, I understand I have not been much active outside the RFA article, but to say that it means that me, a user who has only recently joined the wiki, is not here to contribute to Wikipedia is simply a frightening way of thinking of new users, at least from my perspective. Also, I based my claims of consensus on the 2007 discussion which was not opposed. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

To respond in part, a single purpose account is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. Your account pretty clearly fits this definition. It's also a total misrepresentation to cite a 13 year-old comment on a talk page as current consensus, especially when the article has not called the station "propaganda" in the Wikivoice of a stable lead since 2010. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

On the same wikipage, according to WP:SPATG, in the Number of edits section, it is said that: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. As of now I have made twenty contributions to wikipedia, with eleven of them being Radio Free Asia or its talkpage. I know that over fifty percent of my edits being in the same category may seem like I have created this account with the intention of it being a "single purpose account", but I reassure you that it is not the case. As an example I will use your account, over twenty-five percent of your 1192 Main edits are related to China and the Uighurs. Does this now mean you are now a "single-purpose account"? On another note, I agree it was a bit of a stretch to cite a thirteen year old comment as current consensus, I realize it was a mistake on my part, however I have learned from my mistakes and attempted to establish new consensus in the Talk version of Radio Free Asia. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time I have only recently made my account and am still discovering wikipedia, said the new editor with a precocious edit history and a userbox on their page that one would never find on someone new to WP. Grandpallama (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know this at the start of the content dispute, but Radio Free Asia has recently re-entered the news in relation to the Uyghur genocide ([40]), so the sudden presence of a number of new/infrequent editors may be due to this. CMD (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had a thought in my head that made me say it out loud: Perhaps I should learn the policy and rules of Wikipedia before doing something that would damage the website and/or break the policy? And I have been going with it ever since. While I appreciate your flattery, some could interpret it as a personal attack, so I would avoid your passive aggressive writing in the future. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

some could interpret it as a personal attack They would be wrong, since I have accurately pointed out that the evidence of your editing history, wikilawyering, knowledge of WP policy/procedure/technicalities, and userbox (and its reference to a onwiki controversy) do not align with the assertion you are "discovering Wikipedia". As far as the complaint here goes, you've argued repeatedly (alongside other curiously new editors) at Radio Free Asia to insert material against the consensus, and participated in edit warring there (again, alongside other relatively new editors) to the degree that the page was placed under ECP.[41] Your account's very first edit to Wikipedia was to remove sourced information with a misleading edit summary. There are strong WP:NOTHERE vibes, and your unwillingness to listen to more experienced editors at Radio Free Asia or NPOVN is textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND. A TBAN is in order, at the very least, but I'm not encouraged you won't just carry this approach elsewhere. Either way, I support a sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have an issue sticking to your narrative. First you claim that I have accurately pointed out that the evidence of your editing history, wikilawyering, knowledge of WP policy/procedure/technicalities, and userbox (and its reference to a onwiki controversy) do not align with the assertion you are "discovering Wikipedia". but then you go on and say that I am showing unwillingness to listen to more experienced editors at Radio Free Asia. So which one is it? Am I an experienced editor or a new one unwilling to listen to more experienced editors? You say I am giving off WP:NOTHERE vibes, while clearly exhibiting WP:BITE vibes. I also find it very ironic to claim that I am wikilawyering while trying to do the exact same thing. Your evidence is based on the assumption that everyone who edits Wikipedia for their first time does not know the policy, procedures, its technicalities or how to use a user-box(?). Are you saying I should be sorry for familiarizing myself with those things before editing? There is no reason for me to listen to more "experienced" editors when they are in the wrong according to the policy. Seniority does not guarantee you or anyone else absolute power nor infallibility. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to listen to more "experienced" editors Read WP:IDHT. When a consensus of users oppose you on the talkpage, neutral users at NPOVN also tell you that you are incorrect, and users at ANI express concerns about your behavior, you need to start listening, or yes, it will end with some sort of sanction. Grandpallama (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Not very nice of you to cut your quote short and change the meaning of my sentence. No consensus has been established, hence why the discussion was posted on NPOVN. I have engaged in consensus building, I have addressed all of the issues that the creator of this incident report put forward, I fail to see how that equates to me "not listening". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE block. There is some seriously fishy stuff going on, probably WP:MEATPUPPETRY involving off-wiki forum coordination, regarding this subject. Look at the 3 accounts that replied to me here at NPOVN; one of them is CPCEnjoyer, who absolutely is an SPA, and the other two are the highly suspicious accounts discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EuanHolewicz432. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This ANI investigation was brought to my attention on my own investigation's page (linked above), and since this user has apparently drawn a line between CPCEnjoyer's and mine, I believe I have somewhat of an obligation to contribute here. First of all, I fail to see the supposed evidence or "suspicion" based on a shared contribution to a general viewpoint - do I have a claim on your coordination with Horse's Eye, with Mikehawk10 or Chimpmunkdavis? Of course not, and so I have not attempted to pursue such "lead", because I understand that all of you hold true a different view on the matter and no matter the result of the discussion, the quality of RFA will improve - either it will be restored to a state that I myself (and some other editors) find more reflective of the truth, or the position of the existing status quo will be strengthened (as it already seems to be, with more sources cited in the lead by Mikehawk10). I fail to see how this discussion is negatively impacting Wikipedia and therefore I fail to see the point of this charade, notwithstanding the fact that I (obviously) do not know any of the other involved users in an off-Wiki capacity, neither those who argue for or against the changes I support. This entire procedure looks to me like an attempt at "siccing" Wikipedia administration (no disrespect meant towards the administration by this phrasing, of course) at people you disagree with and as I stated in my own investigation, this really sours my view of Wikipedian discourse. I don't think CPCEnjoyer was entirely right in making some of the main article page edits and reverts that they did (at a cursory glance, I didn't really analyze the edit date and correlation to talk page), but to claim coordination is based on next to no evidence and I find it dehumanizing and slanderous. This is my stance on this most recent allegation - as for the SPA, NOTHERE claims - these are up in the air and I don't think it's in my position to argue regarding that here. This concerns only the coordination claim. --EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Preposterous. Simply preposterous. But these allegations and accusations with no proof nor substance seem to be the norm at Wikipedia, so I am hardly surprised. I would hope that anyone who is not involved in this Radio Free Asia dispute is clearly able to see that this is just an attempt at misdirection and censorship after people like Crossroads are unwilling to discuss for a consensus. The most baffling thing is that I have made my edits and talk page replies before these editors made any of theirs, so I fail to see how I am the "sockpuppet". But I digress, go for it, do your "investigation", I have nothing to hide. Perhaps you should stop and think about whether you are arguing in good faith or witch-hunting a person who you are in disagreement with. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• comment Just popping in to say- User:EuanHolewicz432 and User:CPCEnjoyer part of why people may be linking the two of you is the overly complex language and similar style of wiki-lawyering you are both partial to. You both use unnecessarily inflated language, I assume to sound more intelligent and thus convince more people- but... it really only comes across as unnatural. Which turns people off. But the language is what makes me believe there is a link between these accounts. And for the record Support WP:NOTHERE block- because they are not here to work collaboratively, and they have proved that over and over in this post. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no connection to this case or anyone in it (ANI is on my watchlist due to an unrelated case). What, exactly, are the charges against CPCEnjoyer, and what is the evidence presented? So far I see that he suggested on the talk page that another editor had intentionally misreprented an argument he had made. He should be advised to AGF and phrase any future statements as "perhaps you misunderstood my argument, I am saying that this source..." etc. That is not an ANI issue. Is the user a SPA? Most new editors make their first edits to the same article or subjects. Is there evidence of sockpuppeting beyond "these guys sound similar" because I do not see it. Is there a significant problem with his edits, actual vandalism, true edit warring, misrepresenting sources? Do you have diffs? What I am seeing here is a talk page dispute and an editor who brought a bunch of vague suspicions and accusations to ANI and nothing else. I am mot an admim, I have no power to make anyone do anything, but I would strongly advise people to present actual evidence, in the form of diffs, to show actual wrongdoing. I would also advise that SPI is the place for sockpuppet accusations, if you genuinely believe that is happening. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  The OP provided very specific complaints and a series of diffs. And the concerns raised here have been subsequently raised in the relevant SPIs, but it is not inappropriate to raise them in the context of a potentially relevant behavioral complaint, too. Grandpallama (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support NOTHERE block fairly blunt this person isn't here to try to build a neutral encyclopedia at all instead trying to use Wikipedia to spread a viewpoint, ironic because he clearly despises Wikipedia as it's banned in China. Des Vallee (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive edits by Uni3993

Uni3993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the past week, this user has made a wide range of controversial changes to philosophy-related pages without developing consensus, resulting in warnings from multiple editors. Highlights include:

• Moving Idea to Idea (philosophy) (reverted by me after a post at WP:RM/TR)
• Moving Causality to Causality (philosophy) (reverted by Kj cheetham after a post at WP:RM/TR)
• Controversial and undiscussed changes to the lead sections of many articles, resulting in reverts from many editors. I could pull out specific diffs, but just take a look at their reverted contribs (note the complete lack of edit summaries).

This behavior has persisted despite multiple warning, so I'd like to get some additional eyes on it. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• One of the things I check for when seeing a report like this is if the user is taking a WP:RADAR approach, just refusing to engage when anyone talks to them about their edits, and I ran across something I do not like the look of. They have never edited their own talk page, yet user talk edits make up over 50% of their total edits. How can this be? On March 22nd they created a few hundred user talk pages welcoming new users. A sampling of these welcomes turned up no accounts that had actually edited, they were just blindly welcoming every new account, an idea that has been repeatedly, explicitly rejected by the community. I don't think it is a coincidence that the very same day they managed to make their 500th edit and become extended confirmed, at which time they abruptly lost all interest in mass welcoming new users. Unless and until this is satisfactorily explained, I am revoking that user right. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All of my actions regarding agrees with wikipedia policies. If they don't please give examples and the URL to the relevant policy. You don't need to be a dictator. Wikipedia is alive because of donations from donors like me. If it wasn't for us common peoples money, you wouldn't even be an administrator here. Uni3993 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The site is 100% run by volunteers, I'm not paid any more than you are so you can put that card back in the deck. We're here talking about your problematic editing, the gaming of user rights was just something I stumbled onto while looking into that. You need to start addressing the issues that have been raised here and on your talk page and stop deflecting. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Since they ignored three requests to stop editing in article space in the manner that has drawn concern, and since they've failed to address anything else they've been asked to respond to, I've blocked them for 24 hours to give them time to focus on an appropriate response. Acroterion (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Persistent undiscussed reinstatement of disputed changes has resumed after the block expired. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for a week--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That was nice of you. To me this user looks increasingly like someone who is determined to make Wikipedia work they way they think it should work, policies be damned. That never ends well, but I guess it's worth trying one more time to get through to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Something concerning is that early edits included Special:Diff/746326115 and Special:Diff/773402151 which makes me wonder if some of those repeated edits that change the text without citing/updating a source would be WP:POINTy. Some edits seemed rather innocent but others were clearly problematic like minimizing that astrology is considered pseudoscientific and introducing misconceptions about the scientific process elsewhere. Then the various sudden page moves without any previous discussion. Plus the above false equivalence of dictatorship and editing-scrutiny in the encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this type of sanction is common but I would suggest forbidding page moves to encourage using the collaborative requested move process... As for claims of always going by policy, WP:CITE and WP:V appear to already be understood by Uni3993 from the above diffs, so is WP:CONSENSUS when reverted; both were violated. —PaleoNeonate – 13:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IDHT, thinly veiled accusation and overall trolling (COVID)

• Empiricus-sextus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I didn't give the GS warning early enough, so asking instead for regular administrative intervention against disruptive talk page behaviour. The editor has been repeatedly informed about WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, etc. Instead of following the advice therein, they've only continued in their WP:SOAPBOX behaviour, which includes disruptively repeating the same points; persistently accusing other editors of "not understanding" what little there is to understand in their comments (which are mostly OR, anyway); very unsubtly accusing me of being a CCP mouthpiece ([42] - this bears ressemblance with some of ScrupulousScribe's socks); and then outright trolling by making stuff up about what's been said and imagining some boldly ridiculous claims as "biggest misinforamtion of the 21st century". This is not limited to solely one talk page. Edits such as this one (which uncritically repeat some previous, debunked points) show this isn't something new.

I might have been a bit guilty of feeding the troll, here, but I'm quite confident that at least a topic ban is warranted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

We have discussed intensively - the problem is simply that not every hypothesis about the origin of the coronavirus is a conspiracy theory. This is a fundamental problem of the article. This is also the position of the WHO director, of 14 countries including the USA and various scientists - but any other position belongs for in the realm of conspiracy theory - a problem, which is shown by all articles on the origin of the virus. RandomCanadian blocked any neutral information and for e.g. concerning the WHO Report.The impact is, that the articles, also the discussed one concerning the origin are incomplete and full of misinformation.There is also a huge international discussion outside of science- which is for non-existent or relevant for RandomCanadian. The blocking of any serious information is a kind of trolling.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Neutral on Wikipedia means "neutral according to the sources", not "neutral according to one's personal opinion". The "huge discussion outside of science" (I don't see much evidence of that) is entirely irrelevant, indeed, as far as WP:MEDRS is concerned; and there's already agreement that information about politics can be included in the articles about misinformation (including COVID-19 misinformation by China, COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, ...). You've still failed to grasp that and are instead still arguing the merits of the at best dubious lab leak, based on some points very common with previous blocked users. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your own views and deductions on something - you must cite appropriate sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Coming straight to AN/I because of a talk page discussion is a rapid escalation, RandomCanadian. Tagging them as a "vandal" in the template is a bit much too. I think you could have had this discussion on their talk page - a topic ban seems out of proportion, especially as they've not edited the pages and only just received the GS notice.

Empiricus-sextus, it is not appropriate to suggest other editors are dupes of propaganda. Less rhetoric, please, and more use of high-quality reliable sources. You won't get to a good outcome by lashing out. Fences&Windows 01:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the template if that really posed problems. It might be rapid escalation, but the thinly veiled personal attacks are certainly inappropriate, and persistently making the same (already, earlier on the talk page and in previous discussion, rebutted) points is disruptive (and this isn't the first time lab leak enthusiasts have disrupted COVID discussions). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We had a hard dispute. Everything /source /statement/ e.tc. that does not fit into the conspiracy theory is filtered and blocked , even based "on high-quality reliable sources" - especially by User RandomCanadian - whom I quite respect. Sorry, if various arguments were understood personally - was not my intention.Surely it must be in our interest that the article here, but also on the origin, reflects the more recent developments for e.g. (Goverment Positions of the Biden Administration, Schweden, GB, e.g., also the WHO Director) and is consistent with WP policy. A clear differentiation of the positions (science, states, IGO, public opions,conspiration theoriets) is needed, and simply the core problem, where it probably needs some more discussion. --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what your grievance is, but the misinformation article is not the place to argue the merits (or rather, lack thereof) of the lab leak theory. The politics are mentioned in COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story ("US politicians began spreading the unproven theories of a "lab" origin, including Republican Senators Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn, as well as then-President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo".). Criticism of the WHO report is already given Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19#Biden_Administration ("had deep concerns"). That's not the issue. The issue is your persistent arguing for the lab leak with poor sources (which are not MEDRS) and with personal attacks. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits like this (completely ignoring Fringe_theory#Definitions; and then Fringe_theory#False_balance which explains why we must not use popular press sources for MEDRS stuff) also seem to indicate they here to disrupt the topic in question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said before, more in-depth discussions are needed. For the so-called Fringe Theory, there are 526 Google Scholar hits] and not a single scientific study. There is no explicit Fring Theory in science or epistemology - but we have generated something like that.The deletion request should have actually gone through, the article should be supplemented by reputbale sources - only, these do not exist de facto. "Per the discussion held here. There is no source covering this topic in a non-trivial way; it is not notable and not encyclopedic, and fails to meet the criteria for inclusion. Nearly All of the content and the uses of references/citations in the article are WP:SYNTH. Logos (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)"--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Arguing that an article about fringe theories (a notable subject, which gets lots of attention, see for ex. BBC or the common use of the concept, in stuff like [43] or [44]) needs to be deleted seems more and more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT; and shows a basic lack of knowledge of our common practices such as WP:DINC. If you don't like that the lab leak is one among many fringe theories and only deserves explicit mention in the course of discussions about misinformation, that's not our problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It is longstanding Wikipedia policy that all statements and senstences must be substantiated with reputable sources - instead of quoting media (BBC) here show me a scientific article or analog encyclopedia entry on "Fringe Theory" or. In the biggest dictionary about philosophy and philosophy of science in the world (over 5.000 pages) - there is nothing about it ! This was also the condition of the adminstrator for keep. Theorizing or synthesis is not our job. But this is a completely different topic.There is nothing more to clarify here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Not everything requires a MEDRS (philosophy certainly does not - though I find plenty of journal articles and books about "conspiracy theories" [45] [46] [47] - might just be a case of a title that needs changing - but then conspiracy theory also exists). As for the BBC, they are a reliable source for general news reporting (I think that's so obvious they might not even have an entry at WP:RSP, but feel free to check just in case). So long you stop arguing medicine with newspapers (I don't know if you have any formation in a specific discipline, but I guess no matter the topic, you'd rather employ suitable expert publications and not pieces written by journalists who may likely not have any relevant background). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as important as MEDRES is for medical issues, however, the study of the origin of coronavirus is a bioscience question, with no direct medical implication (maybe you know...?) - unlike many other questions - that is probably a total misunderstanding of the topic.In this case, you will find few reliable sources. This is understandable for all other topics with medical implications - but not for scientific investigations concerning the origin, the coronavirus belongs to the animal virology.Your sources refer to conspiracy theory, what I am missing is a scientific foundation what a "frings theory" should be - I am dealing with questions of science theory, methodology, methods in different disciplines for over 25 years - the frings theory does not exist there - it is a phantom without notability ! For our guidelines it is o.k. - but in science it even not a minority position.I see the reasoning for the deletion request - later - but the reasoning is 100% correct, form s strong scientific point of view.I think here is not the place for further discussion. I stop here.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Normal journalistic sources that are generally considered reliable are fine to report about the fact that misinformation is pushed and that some unproven hypotheses are campaigned for without warranted evidence. I noticed that I had Empiricus-sextus listed on some COVID related notes of mine with this diff and note "promotion of speculative claims about COVID-19 written by people outside of their field of expertise", so this has been going on since at least February 2021. —PaleoNeonate – 14:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

We really have a lot of misinformation about the origin of the coronavirus, but scientific hypotheses and discussions about it, are not automatically conspiracy theories. This is the small but fundamental difference of the disput with User:RandomCanadian. The controversial discussion paper by Wiesendanger (who is a execellent researcher, at his institute (where he is director) there is a physical corona research), is only a kind of literature review, an evaluation of the research studies of the Wuhan Institute, which has triggered a very large public discussion. This is also taking place in science - as the articles in the MIT Review show. Scientifically, these are not "speculations" or "promotion of speculative claims about COVID-19", but possible hypothesis, which should be investigated and tested, that is the position of the WHO director of 13 countries including the USA and Canada, as well as various scientists.--Empiricus-sextus (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Over the course of the last several months, it seems like every few weeks another extremely verbose thread about the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has come to spew bile over a different noticeboard. Frankly, it's hard for me to understand how anyone can sustain caring about this for so long, in either direction; how extremely online can we get? But, moreover, it's hard for me to empathize with the argument that letting "Those Guys" have "Their Article" is inherently evil, or that "having an article about some stupid crap that was in the news" is going to somehow get people killed (note that we have articles about Strategery and planking). I've said this same thing at probably a dozen noticeboard discussions at this point -- it seems like a content dispute. This, to me, is evidenced by the fact that every noticeboard thread about it devolves into a prolonged argument about content. The fact of the "other side" being unreasonable is probably related to it being brought up dozens of times, to the point where any reasonable person would become exhausted and find something else to do. jp×g 21:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, at their core, many COVID-19 discussions that end up at ANI are content driven, but they end up here because very few admins (one less after RexxS was booted by ArbCom) are willing to step in and enforce the GS authorized by the community on COVID articles. GS are designed to prevent issues from boiling over to AN(/I) by enabling administrators to issue sanctions based on observed conduct that is detrimental to the project. GS is ineffective when there is a very small amount (if any) number of administrators who are both watching COVID related pages, and who are willing to step in and take GS actions to prevent disruption. I feel that many administrators who would be willing to step in and enforce COVID GS to prevent disruption to the project are put off by the fact that ArbCom has recently conducted a witch-hunt against an administrator who was doing so - but I cannot say this with certainty. Thus, I will plead, to all administrators who see this, please put a few COVID articles/talk pages on your watch list and watch for disruption from single purpose accounts or those who are here to right great wrongs. GS are designed to stop these sorts of RGW issues before they boil into AN discussions - but they don't work if nobody's willing to step in and issue topic/page bans to accounts that appear to only be here for one purpose prior to them boiling over. Administrator action on COVID related topics has been lacking since the pandemic started, and have been lacking even more since RexxS no longer can action - so please, if you want these conduct disputes to not boil over here, step in and stop them using the authority given by community-authorized GS before they actually do. If there's no GS application, the only option is to attempt to bring it to admin attention here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your perception of why COVID GS is ineffective is correct. I made a report here months ago and that was also a pain to action (it was preceded by many threads in many venues, going back since the start of the pandemic). The enforcement issue has nothing to do with RexxS; he was aware of those specific issues and tried to comment on them and help, but presumably didn't find enough to take administrative action. In the end people had to wait until clear conduct issues manifested, at which point enforcement actions were taken by Boing, ToBeFree and El C. Certainly the lack of admins in COVID (compared to, say, American politics) contributes to the enforcement issues, but I suspect better reasons are a) the general issue with getting ANI threads closed with action; b) the fact that many COVID issues border on content dispute. Indeed, a recent RfC ended in no consensus and it's a very thin line between legitimate content dispute in accordance with that NC, and biased POV pushing / failure to comply with community policy standards. So which admin wants to analyse all the evidence and summarise it into something that can be actionable on the basis of policy (a requirement even for GS enforcement)? I suspect, quite reasonably, in a volunteer operation you'd have to wait in line.

Ultimately this is a failure of consensus and dispute resolution mechanisms. If there were a clear content consensus, admins could liberally enforce it. But there isn't, so the options are: a) wait for people to get exhausted and leave the topic (unacceptable IMO, and it leaves the credibility of Wikipedia's content relying on the energy of people like Alexbrn); b) wait for people to exhibit clear conduct issues, and then they can be sanctioned on that basis. Wikipedia needs a better way to deal with intractable content disputes without waiting for them to manifest into conduct ones. Binding mediation would be one solution (how that would interact with consensus is a bigger puzzle). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the problem is that virtually all conduct disputes start from content disputes where editors are unable to maintain collegiality, or violate common courtesy by WP:BLUDGEONING or similar - thus it's not helpful to characterize COVID issues as being hard to action because they are bordering on content disputes. Both this and the above thread about another user are clear conduct disputes that started from content discussions - and in this case especially, the bludgeoning has continued on this thread. It appears that the users bludgeoning this thread rehashing the content dispute is part of the reason that this thread hasn't been actioned yet - because the majority of words here are about the content dispute because the user's conduct is inappropriate (in bringing the content dispute here). This is why GS exist - because in some topic areas, content disputes tend to boil over frequently into conduct problems - but users can just rehash the content here on ANI and then admins will say "it's a content dispute" and ignore the conduct that even happened here that is detrimental to building the encyclopedia. Furthermore, I don't think it's a good idea to say that conduct shouldn't be considered problematic until a clear consensus on content has emerged - part of the reason content consensus in COVID topics is hard to form is because conduct isn't effectively policed and these threads tend to just sit for weeks without resolution of conduct issues, following which the problematic users continue blocking consensus with poor conduct. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

If there are clear conduct issues going on, then that hasn't been clearly presented in this report. There are a lot of issues filed at ANI, and the ones poorly reported about not particularly notorious editors are unlikely to gather special interest for people to go digging on their own. There's also no bludgeoning in this thread; the user has made as many comments as RandomCanadian, mainly to respond to accusations made about them (not that number of comments itself constitutes bludgeoning anyway). Conduct can be considered problematic without underlying consensus, yes, and that's often how such intractable NC disputes are resolved (one 'side' gets frustrated, says something they shouldn't, and gets sanctioned). Where there is no consensus on content, there's more leeway for legitimate dispute. At the time that COVID RfC was opened - which you voted to oppose - most editors displaying clear conduct issues, sockpuppets and canvassed editors were already blocked for one reason or another. Thus, the cause of the NC isn't conduct issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we will need to disagree here, but the clear conduct issue of bludgeoning discussions and editing in this topic area only to "right the great wrong" trying to push the lab leak theory as anything more than it actually is (a conspiracy at this point) has been clearly presented here - and no more clearly than by the user's continued bludgeoning here. This is the problem in the COVID-19 area that led to GS being authorized - many conduct disputes are in depth and complicated and aren't as simple as "here's one link of clear disruption" but are instead based on patterns of disruption from users who are either not here to build an encyclopedia but to push their viewpoint or who are, over time, proving that their participation in a topic area is detrimental to the discussions. I agree that there is much less ability for administrators to act here without investigation - it's not a clear "this is obvious, I can block and close and move on" - and that's why GS were authorized to make it easier for administrators to apply their discretion on issues that may not merit full blocks based on clear cut single diffs of disruption. The fact of the matter is that this still requires administrators willing to investigate issues (as you say, to go digging on their own), which many administrators are not touching this topic area for whatever reason. Legitimate dispute is fine, but when users are hiding behind a previous lack of consensus to rehash the same arguments that led to that lack of consensus, and especially when they are doing so with personal attacks or in ways that are detrimental to forming a consensus, action needs to be taken and it's not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

For more context, it may be useful to look at the WP:AN archives IRT COVID-19. —PaleoNeonate – 12:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In my long time in Wikipedia this is the first troll complaint - until now I assumed that arguments are not trolling. I work in the German Wikipedia on the article about the origin /Wuhan Institute and see from time to time what is in the English Wikipedia. I have looked at the whole historic discussion here and come to the conclusion that we have a structural content problem concerning the laboratory hypothesis, as well as a problem with rules- concerning sources. The dispute went primarily to reliable sources, but MEDRES covers only a small part of the sources of the very large controversial discussion.

• 1. So far, there is no scientific proof if the laboratory hypothesis, as well as any other hypothesis about the origin of the coronavirus is TRUE or FALSE. There are probabilities but no 100% evidence. There is also no postulated consensus of the scientific community on this - there are very many positions, even from renowned scientists who deny this or see it too early to answer that conclusively ! Virologist Shi Zhengli, head of the Institute of Virology in Wuhan has herself launched internal investigations into whether there was a laboratory leak.
• 2. For USER: RandomCanadian the laboratory hypothesis is already proven FALSE (my impression) and everything (any statement, source, etc.) against it is conspiracy theory. That was also his argument with deletion request. in the discussion.
• 3. By the deletion of the articel defacto the entire critical political, scientific and also in the media - was banned from the Wikipedia and the redirect on the Wuhan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_leak_story speaks for itself that all other positions (in addition there are 6.6 million hits concerning "Origin of the coronavirus") under misinformation, minority positions and conspiracy theory are to be categorized. All sources except WP:MEDRS are excluded - see above. With this we rules we can´t write an balanced, good article and by a subjective and selective choice of sources (the laboratory hypothesis is false - implicit) - we produce misinformation for the international public ourselves.

Basically, there are only three options left - to resolve this fundamental conflict:

• Option 1: We make a new article " Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy" - which was suggest in the deletion discussion by User J mareeswaran: "eak keep & rename to Accidental Lab Leak Hypothesis controversy. I disagree that this is a conspiracy theory or dis/mis-information. Intentional leak hypothesis would fall under conspiracy. Accidental leak would be a controversial position but not a conspiracy or misinformation. It is relevant article because a natural outbreak is yet to be established. The virus seems to have mysteriously appeared in Wuhan, in the middle of China, with no clue or trace about where it came from, & is surprisingly well adapted for human to human transmission unlike other bat viruses when they make a direct jump from bats to humans J mareeswaran (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC))" and include a large part of the content of the deleted article. This would be for "one of the biggest scientific controversies of our time (BBC)" an adequate solution.
• Option 2: We include a large part of the content of the deleted article under Investigation, but this is not easy.This will probably be difficult and lead to new controversies.
• Option 3: We postulate ourselves "implicitly" that the laboratory thesis is 100 % FALSE, a conspiration theory (= current implicit position) and thus produce global misinformation !

What you think about this options ? --Empiricus-sextus (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Please remember that on Medical articles, Wikipedia has a separate set of rules for sourcing, see: WP:MEDRS. When you combine MEDRS with the existing WP:UNDUE, it should become obvious why we do not generally allow these sorts of fringe viewpoints to have much space. I am not a virologist, but actual virologists have published actual peer-reviewed papers in high-quality medical journals explaining that SARS-COV-2 resembles certain naturally occurring bat coronaviruses, with mutations that would be consistent with an intermediate host, likely a pangolin. A BBC article will almost always fail MEDRS, especially compared to peer-reviewed sources. Please read WP:MEDRS and be sure that you understand it before editing medical articles in Wikipedia. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperion35, there are reasons why some people believe COVID-19 leaked from a lab, and some of these people have published their reasoning in very high quality journals, like Sallard et al in Médecine/sciences [48]. The Hakim paper in Reviews in Medical Virology does not make claims that contradict the Sallard et al paper and it says that the lab leak hypothesis requires a forensic investigation to be ruled out [49]. There are no MEDRS which definitely makes the case for any hypothesis, as there is no available evidence to support any one of them, and the Pangolin data was found to be fraudulent [50]. Even the WHO’s own report doesn’t make a firm case for any hypothesis and the WHO Director General recommended to keep all hypotheses on the table and investigate them further.

Some editors have argued that MEDRS doesn’t apply here, because the Chinese government is covering up all origin traces of SARS-COV-2 [51], and yesterday they even attacked the WHO Director General through their state media [52]. These editors believe there will never be evidence, because the Chinese government will not cooperate with the WHO on further investigations, and the WHO is a very weak organisation that cannot enforce its mandate. This happened before [53].

If you are interested, there was a recent article in Ynet explaining some of the reasons some scientists believe a lab leak may have happened [54]. China’s behavior is now making it look more guilty. Tinybubi (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the content of the article. My point was that we have to go by MEDRS, which by the way would generally exclude Boston Magazine, China Daily, Time, and Ynet. The actions of the Chinese government are similarly irrelevant. I would also caution to take the time to make sure that cited papers say what you think they say. WikiProject Medicine is a bit different than most of Wikipedia in this regard, the standards are much higher, original research is not accepted, and we are heavily biased towards the scientific consensus where one exists. This noticeboard however, is for behavioral issues. The article talk page is the place to discuss article content. My comment on this board was solely for the purposes of emphasizing the importance of MEDRS and reminding people that non-MEDRS content may be removed, and repeated attempts to insert non-MEDRS sources will likely be treated as edit-warring, bludgeoning, etc. Hyperion35 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Hyperion35, First read the Sallard et al paper published in "Médecine/sciences" in French here: [55], or in English here: [56]. Then read the Hakim paper, published in "Reviews in Medical Virology" here: [57]. Now tell me, do you see any contradiction between them? Both these high quality MEDRS lay out all possible hypotheses to be investigated and both conclude that only a forensic investigation of the lab leak hypothesis can rule it out. Yet the first paper is not allowed by NOLABLEAK editors because it is too neutral on all hypotheses, and the second paper is admissible only because its ambiguous title and introduction makes it easier for them to miscite and misrepresent. NOLABLEAK editors have been misrepresenting the Hakim paper for months. Now they want to twist the WHO DG words too. This is a conduct issue. Tinybubi (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tinybubi and Empiricus-sextus: There was an RfC on the above content issues that closed not even a month ago. The result was no consensus. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, that means the status quo remains. It seems rather obvious that a consensus will not emerge in the foreseeable future, especially given how long this dispute has brewed. I'm pretty sure most people are sick of arguing on this point, and most have withdrawn from the subject and wish to move on to different matters, so it's probably time for you all to drop the stick for some reasonable duration of time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This person is still not hearing it and continues grasping at any chance they can to form a link in Wikipedia voice - which coincidentally is the exact same reason that's included in "misinformation" because people in the general public are combining all of these unrelated things and trying to claim they "prove" the lab leak. A topic ban from COVID-19 topics, or at a minimum the origins of COVID-19, would be helpful to allow editors to focus their time on actually improving the articles instead of continually responding to this person on the talk pages. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack from SPA

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

This is a single-purpose account for adding unsourced and irrelevant trivia to the Cadillac Fleetwood article. It's happened sporadically for years with multiple editors having removed it, including myself most recently. This removal was just reverted with a homophobic slur in the edit summary. User is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. --Sable232 (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• Warned them for the PA. Have any of the previous users who added this been blocked - could it be a case of WP:SOCK? Otherwise a regular block for NOTHERE would be a possibility. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
• Special:Diff/861631028 is where you put that content in yourself. This is somewhat confusing. Uncle G (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • RandomCanadian, at least a couple of IPs, but no other registered accounts that I know of.

    Uncle G, in that case I reverted because content was removed without explanation, and I neglected to look closely enough at the content to realize that the removal was justified. --Sable232 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

    • I'm thinking that an employee of Superior Coaches, whose only contributions are unsourced content about their company's products, and who is prepared to use homophobic slurs in their edit summaries while edit warring their unsourced content back into our article, is not someone we want editing here. NOTHERE, indeffed. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I wondered how someone could be an employee of the Superior Coach Company, 40 years after it apparently went out of business. Uncle G (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @Uncle G: It might be this one instead? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
          • The custom build discussed in their edits was 1999 - too recent for a company that's been 40 years defunct. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Then something is wrong, Superior Coach Company, that content, or the userpage claim. Uncle G (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
              • As far as I can tell, Superior's Accubuilt (division? spinoff?) outlived the larger company by a while; it was them who built the Fleetwood Limited in 1999, but it seems they were acquired in 2008. I don't know how funct they are as a company now. jp×g 08:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The conduct here is unsavory, but I was able to find some sources that support that model being made in that year, and added them to the section. I agree that it may not be appropriate for that article though (and, perhaps, belongs in Cadillac DeVille). jp×g 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • JPxG, I've got no view on the content at all. If someone who isn't a paid editor wants to include it with sourcing to an article, and is willing to discuss that inclusion with other editors without resorting to homophobic slurs, that's fine. GirthSummit _(blether) 05:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      • That already happened 12 years ago. The content in question sat happily in the article for years from 2008 onwards. It wasn't added by a "paid editor". It was added by 70.111.216.178 (talk · contribs), with a source in the edit summary, with editors repeatedly reverting its blanking (see Special:Diff/929467759, above, and Special:Diff/860497266). Uncle G (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Uncle G, I'm confused here - do you disagree with blocking someone who uses language like that in their edit summaries? Their user page says that they're an employee of the company, and they've never edited on any other subject than their employer, so I don't know why you're putting "paid editor" in scare quotes. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
          • It's in quotes because it's what you said, but you misidentified which editor actually put the content in, have not got evidence of that editor being paid, and have a case for paid editing for this one that is contradicted by the very article that the content was linking to, indicating that something is awry, as well as the fact that xe didn't write the content back in 2008. It is all very confusing, as I noted earlier. Good to see that you are now confused as well. ☺ Try Special:Diff/900174594 too. It just adds to the confusion. Like Sable232, this account has both blanked and re-added this content. I've no idea what is going on, but I cannot see any scenario where paid editing makes any sense as an explanation at all. At least one party, in any scenario, would have to have a time machine. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Uncle G, I didn't block them because I thought they were undeclared paid - I mean, they have declared they're an employee on their user page. If that had been my main concern,I'd have maybe P-blocked,and talked to them about the situation. I blocked them for attempting to use a homophobic slur in an edit summary, getting blocked by the edit filter, and then changing the spelling to get around the filter. I didn't really look too closely at the history of the editing after I'd seen that - my impression is that we have very little tolerance for that sort of thing. Please let me know if you think I was wrong. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Hmm. Tone can be hard to get across here. I re-read that, and am afraid it might sound passive-aggressive, or something. I have always appreciated your perspective, Uncle G, I think you often notice things that others miss, and your interjections are always thought-provoking. If you disagree with the block, I'd genuinely like to discuss it and understand your viewpoint. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I'm fine with the block, although it does say "their employer" in the log. I do not want that continuing the way it was going any more than you do. It's just very hard to gauge the paid editing stuff, and Ockham's Razor suggests that this was garden-variety mucking about and the user page was a lie, in combination with regular editors of the article not being consistent with whether they wanted years-long-standing content in or out of the article. On balance, the idea that someone who mucks about is also lying on xyr user page is the likely scenario. On the subject of undisclosed paid editing, please double-check Earthwatch Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), EarthwatchEurope1971 (talk · contribs), and Gr33n33s (talk · contribs) for me. Then if you happen to know what road the Alfreton and South Normanton bypass is, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area is waiting for a red link to be recoloured with a redirect. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

                Thanks Uncle G, I agree that the paid editing might have been a red herring. Possibly a former employee, or as you say just someone mucking about. Anyway, so long as we're both in agreement that the abusive edit summaries are beyond the pale, I don't see any compelling need to investigate their employment history.

                Earthwatch Europe - agreed, obvious issues there. EarthwatchEurope1971 did actually declare their paid status on their user page, but only after their draft had been declined at AfC - they shouldn't have moved it into article space. Gr33n33s is an obvious sock (or meat) puppet, created to evade the block and reinstate the same promo. I agree with your protection. If someone wants to write a non-promotional article, they can do it in draft space and ask for it to be reviewed and moved.

                Alfreton and South Normanton - I don't know those places, but the view on Google Maps looks like the A38_road is the most likely contender. It looks like the Mansfield Road (B6019) would have been the main route from Alfreton, through South Normanton and into Macclesfield; the A38 now sweeps round to the south of both towns and into Mansfield. This is complete guesswork though, I don't know if that was built as, or ever known as, 'the Alfreton and South Normanton bypass'. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 10:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Vrishni involved in vandalism at several Yadav related pages

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

[58], this particular edit is done continuously to remove name of some of caste even the source says so. Also adding Yadava in place of Yadav for pseudo historical caste upliftment. The Yadav page itself differentiate between the two. Explained at top. Also a WP:CU has shown him to be the possible sock of a blocked editor.Heba Aisha (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing admin should see this too Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KroshtaHeba Aisha (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, the same edit, removed source and the names. [59]Heba Aisha (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be over content-related issues. I've fully protected the article so that all of you can discuss things on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Single-purpose IP 82.173.133.70

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

---

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

Single-purpose IP has been entertaining the community now for days crosswiki (see here) with his deletion requests and the same and recurring arguments over and over again against a certain music publisher. Got even blocked on DE:WP so the deletion discussion could finally come to an end without further trolling. The user has been warned a hundred times here and on DE:WP. It's finally time to block this toxic behavior here as well! Uwe Martens (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

A word of advice. This is not DE.WP. People aren't blocked here just because they are blocked there, so that isn't going to get you anywhere. So far, you have twice attempted to get an IP blocked here for no other discernible reason than that they disagree with your opinion. The IP in question has made a single comment [60] at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11 since your previous failed evidence-free request for a block here, and made no other posts whatsoever. What you are doing looks very much like hounding. I suggest you find something better to do with your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You're leading my argumentation of this report ad absurdum. Especially that this man on a mission is doing nothing more crosswiki for over a week now than repeating his same arguments over and over again is, was and will be the reason for the blocking! Wikipedia is not a blog. But anyway, I'm not interested in the opinion of a reviewer who was in no way involved in the case. Normally, that would be a reason to simply delete your unsolicited comment. Indeed, I suggest you find something better to do with your time! Uwe Martens (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Entirely ignoring the two preceding comments: the IP is a cross-wiki SPA who might be trying to delete the page of a competitor on WP (plausible speculation). Their behaviour, at least here on English WP, isn't immediately obvious trolling, but the fact they have been blocked for that on DE wiki and the similar single-purpose of their edits (along with a moderate to severe case of IDHT, it appears) might indicate they are NOTHERE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So why isn't anyone providing diffs of this supposedly problematic behaviour on EN.WP, rather than posting evidence-free 'plausible speculation'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Ten days of "hounding" a competitor within the music business (to use your slang), same on DE:WP and nothing more than this obsession, is still not enough? Uwe Martens (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Where in those diffs is a statement from the IP that he/she is 'a competitor in the music business'? I can't see any such thing, though I can see you making such unverified claims, along with entirely unnecessary speculative comments regarding the IPs geolocation. [61] I suggest you either provide actual evidence to back up your claims, or stop digging the hole you are rapidly getting yourself into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Service: "I'm very familiar with music and musicology.". Sometimes reading the matter before talking might help! BTW: For a "retired" user, you seem to be pretty active! Indeed, I recommend that you stop digging the hole you are rapidly getting yourself into! Uwe Martens (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would assume that most people taking part in a discussion regarding the deletion of a biography of a music publisher would be familiar with the subject matter. And please stop repeating things I say - it makes you come across like a petulant four-year-old. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think either of you are necessarily coming across at your best in this exchange. jp×g 17:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Ignoring again the last two needlessly combative comments (calm down, people) seems a wise option. Back on topic: the IPs contributions are clear enough; they make the same arguments on both sites and those have been pretty much rejected on DE.WP; and while it's likely the subject is not notable per our guidelines for different reasons, that does not excuse the IP from not being here to build an encyclopedia and disruptively repeating the same points. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Again, what went on at DE.WP isn't of concern here. And accusing someone who has only made a single post to EN.WP since the 12th of April of 'disruptively repeating the same points' seems unjustified. Just let the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 April 11 run its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Cross-wiki abuse is obviously disruptive (their edits on the German version are more obviously disruptive than here). Re-litigating a closed discussion from DE.WP here (which is what their last comment was) and repeating the same comments is IDHT. Re-pinging @LexICon: who was the blocking admin on DE.WP; they can certainly give us a clearer picture here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

IF the IP is blocked on DE.WP, they can't continue disruption there. Which then again leads me to ask how a single post can constitute 'IDHT' on EN.WP? What exactly is it about a single post in the last six days that makes a block here such an urgent matter? Why is any action required? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BE and WP:FORUMSHOP come to mind. But anyway we can leave them some rope for the time being and also wait for the opinions from our colleagues over at DE.WP to make a clearer judgement. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under a misapprehension regarding blocking. The IP is not blocked here, and accordingly, cannot be evading a block here. As for forum shopping, again the IP isn't doing that on EN.WP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

To reiterate: @RandomCanadian: Neither BE nor SHOPPING apply here. Any sanction to the IP on Wikipedia must come as a result of their behavior on Wikipedia. ——Serial 10:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The deletions request on de:wp was closed the day before yesterday by admin User:Gripweed and the decision was "Keep". --LexICon (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@LexICon: Ich kenne es schon. The question was about the block of the IP editor (by you?). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I blocked him for 3 days, because the person behind the IP is clearly not here to contribute to an enzyclopedia, but for meta- and discussion means the only. A lot of people get involved and after all, it's a waste of time... --LexICon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We should be thanking this editor for pointing out the obvious trolling by User:Uwe Martens, not blocking. If this is considered acceptable at the German Wikipedia then there is something very wrong with that project. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

What I believe LexICon is referring to is that they blocked the IP because their first edit at de:wp was proposing a deletion, and because they seemed to have come over from en:wp, where they had been doing the same (first two edits [62] and [63]), leading them to believe the IP is a sock or only participating in the project for personal reasons (Uwe had already characterized them as "Scheinbar ein Mitbewerber aus dem Musikbusiness auf einer Art Mission"). They blocked the IP for three days, without any real discussion. Now while I believe the IP has done nothing but participate in a constructive policy-based dialogue, I do wonder why such an obviously experienced user would be editing from an IP. Then again, there probably are a lot of good reasons for that (?), and it seems that LexICon's block at de:wp just was too hasty. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Uwe Martens is an author in a good standing on de:wp with more than eight thousand contributions, but only very little experience on en:wp. --LexICon (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say that that standing is diminished somewhat by this, wouldn't you? After all, xe just outright invented the "competitor in the music business from Amsterdam" stuff. I suggest perhaps not taking what xe says at face value any more. After all, here xe is telling us right at the top of this section "arguments over and over again", when the edit history in the German Wikipedia clearly shows otherwise, "The user has been warned a hundred times here and on DE:WP" when there are zero warnings either here or there (The user talk page on the German Wikipedia does not even exist as I write this.), and "repeated a hundred times, blowing up the thread" when that's clearly untrue too. Perhaps you should treat Uwe Martens as an untrustworthy source for vandal reports from now on. Because xe has done this reporting people who disagree with xem as vandals, on both Wikipedias, at least three times since 2017 now. Uncle G (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Changing the subject slightly

I'd be interested to see opinions as to whether this diff [64] constitutes an appropriate notification for an ANI discussion. It certainly doesn't look like one to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have definitely too much free time! But see above! And BTW: An auto-archived report without decision due to inactivity of the admins has no significance here. The reported user replied, so you can see that the notice was obviously sufficient (what you have seen of course, since he even replied on his talk page, but you still keep making trouble here). Uwe Martens (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It might also be wise for Uwe Martens, in relation to this [65] earlier edit here, to take note of what the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines have to say on deleting other people's comments. Threatening to remove posts from WP:ANI because you aren't 'interested in them' certainly isn't legitimate grounds to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Normally the admins' sites are moderated by admins. So once again you got a wrong interpretation. But thanks again for showing us that 100 % of your attention goes to this report for defending another time wasting user! But of course you will have the last word again, as in every section here! I'm out of here. Uwe Martens (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the lack of evidence that the IP (who has, I reiterate, made a single post to EN.WP in the last six days) has been 'time wasting', I suspect that people may well form another opinion entirely on the subject. And in particular, on who is 'time wasting' where.

For the benefit of anyone wondering, no, I rarely post on Wikipedia these days. I did however happen to notice Uwe Martens earlier, failed, attempt to get the IP blocked (I look at WP:ANI sometimes, just to see what's going down - it hasn't changed much), and was somewhat surprised to see a second thread on the same subject. Even more surprised when I found that the IP had done nothing of any real significance since the last thread. IP contributors are sometimes seen as easy targets on WP:ANI, and in my opinion, it is often wise not to take the word of whoever is calling for their block. The actual evidence that the IP has done anything wrong on EN.WP is singularly lacking, in my opinion. My opinion regarding Uwe Martens' behaviour here is somewhat less charitable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I award that notification one frowny face: 🙁 Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tbh, whatever the IP may or may not have done, I'm increasingly inclined to support a (minor, perhaps) sanction against the OP, who is demonstrating a consistently BATTLEGROUND approach ("Game over!"—wtf?!). Repeating other editors' words, casting aspersions, being reminded to provide diffs and not doing so, threatening to remove others' posts... etc.

And all this in the course of reporting trolling—! ——Serial 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Uwe Martens' behaviour

Looking at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021 April 11#Tobias Broeker and related as well as what is going on on this noticeboard it does look as if Uwe Martens (talk · contribs) is more the problem, here. Assuming bad faith of just about everyone, from the deleting administrator onwards; making personal attacks based upon geolocation assumptions; and not being interested in a third opinion offered immediately above. 82.173.133.70 (talk · contribs) seems to be doing what everyone else is doing, on the other hand, which is explaining project policy and guidelines, such as talking about "solid third-party coverage" at Special:Diff/1017172481 for example. Revoking editing privileges for doing that seems absurd, and asking for such a block claiming that it is "trolling" (see above) and indeed that it is vandalism (Special:Diff/1017282746) is problematic. Uncle G (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(Uugh, I hadn't seen this section when I posted above, but I echo the sentiments wholeheartedly ——Serial 10:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

Uugh, perhaps you should have read the second section below as well at first before talking! So you would have understood what was running here cross-wiki! Uwe Martens (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply from IP

Hi, I do not want a long discussion here. It's not helpful for anyone. Why have I edited Wikipedia (and I thought this is encouraged)? I stumbled across what seemed like a strange article, and when I looked closer it was written by the person himself using his personal website as the main primary source. I found it crazy how someone could write his own article and it go unnoticed for years. So I suggested deletion. It was speedily deleted by an administrator. Uwe Martens disagrees with the deletion (and that's okay: opinions are different), but he's quite aggressively gone after me, three times taking it to ANI, threatening blocks, attacking other editors who disagree with him, deleting talk page comments he disagrees with... Examples here from the English Wikipedia only:

• attacking ANI admin
• attacking ANI admin and threatening to delete admin's comment
• inappropriate talk page notification 'game over!'
• patronising comment to 'those who face problems with a search engine
• 'opinions of IPs are irrelevant'
• previous ANI complaint 'finally time to block this toxic behavior!'
• again 'The time has finally come to block your one-purpose-IP! EOD!'
• unnecessarily aggressive discussion comment
• again 'you shouldn't make judgments in areas you obviously have no clue about!'
• patronising comment to closing administrator 'why should I have assumed that you would follow the arguments?'

I hope Uwe Martens can stop this and instead focus on the actual deletion discussion. And not act in this way simply because he disagrees with someone (whether me, the original closing admin, other editors who say the article is non-notable, admins on ANI, ...). I've tried to focus on policy throughout. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 07:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• The community thanks the reported IP user for the repeated confirmation of his inability to recognize his own misconduct! Wherever a different opinion was expressed, he came up again with the same argument in other words, repeated a hundred times, blowing up the threads. The obsession to maltreat obviously a competitor out of the music business as well as the creator of the article over a period of one and a half weeks in several wiki projects and to indulge in never ending querulatory repetitions, are of course no problem from his point of view. Here I'll feel so free to translate one of the victim's comments: "I had also written on the day of the deletion request, but was then quite appalled by the aggressive energy of the applicant directed solely at me. I did not want to pour oil on the fire by own comments. Hence my silence and my inactivity." Ban, revert and ignore is the only appropriate consequence! And @Uncle G, we have a German saying: As it rings in the forest, so it rings out! The show is now over! I have wasted enough time here, so EOD from my side! Uwe Martens (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see from Special:Diff/1017279307 that you tried that trick a week ago. Your approach to people is terrible. You actually pulled the very same stunts over on the German Wikipedia, repeatedly blanking the other person's discussion comments (de:Special:Diff/211005573 de:Special:Diff/211006305) and then reporting xem for vandalism (de:Special:Permalink/211005910#Benutzer:82.173.133.70) just because xe had the temerity to disagree with you. And even the German Wikipedia block log and edit history do not agree that the person was blocked for wanting to delete an article or "warned a hundred times". I think that the German Wikipedia lacked an AndyTheGrump to step in before your wild mischaracterizations of someone disagreeing with you in a deletion discussion were believed too readily. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You have no clue what you're talking about! The IP user abused the German deletion discussion for his mission, desturbing repeatedly even in English language (BTW: Thanks for providing the diffs!). It's widly common on DE:WP to block and revert those troll postings. That's what we call "Meta sock puppet or discussion IP without the will to create an encyclopedica" and this was the reason for his ban. Everyone who sides here with this IP-user just prooves that he hasn't understood the problem, even after hours of talking. Uwe Martens (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's tiresome how this guy Uwe repeatedly claims to be finished with discussing and then proceeds to jump back in to insult more people in the same vituperative vein. – Athaenara ✉ 10:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very simple: If somebody can't accept an EOD and keeps talking about me, I'll feel free to respond. But that you're evidently a troll protector with a one sided point of view is nothing new meanwhile, but thanks for confirming over and over again! Uwe Martens (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree, at this point, that Uwe is being needlessly combative. Agree that being a suspicious SPA is not a blockable offence in and of itself (though I have concerns over the cross-wiki nature of the thing and the seemingly sole target). Since this appears to be a conflict between two persons, I might have proposed a one-way IBAN, but given it's an IP, I now reconsider my previous position and think that the matter should be left to the regular process (AfD, ...) for the time being. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have found a promotional article on one Wikipedia (not sure which), and followed a link to the other. And pointed out the promotional nature of the article on both. I can't see anything particularly wrong with doing so, since there was clearly an issue in both places. The 'suspicions' look unfounded, unless one is of the opinion that all IPs are automatically suspect. Which certainly isn't EN.WP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I got it already that just repeating other people's slang (see first section here) is "needlessly combative" for you! In fact it's just to hold up a mirror to someone else. All the funnier that this, only when repeated, is then considered as inappropriate. 🤣🤣🤣 By the way, this applies to all discussants and replies here. Forest and sound and so (as explained above the German saying)... Uwe Martens (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved non-admin just chiming in to say that I agree you are being needlessly combative. I urge you to look at this many people agreeing about your behavior as a sign that you should reflect. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: TBAN Uwe Martens

• Uwe Martens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support TBAN of User:Uwe Martens from Tobias Broeker (as proposer) - Uwe Martens is an SPA with ~100 edits almost all about Tobias Broeker, and as can be seen from the comments in this thread and elsewhere (DRV, talk pages), almost all of the participation surrounding this topic is negative: accusations, assumptions of bad faith, attacking anyone who disagrees, etc. This is net negative participation. Clearly they're not taking anything on board from the discussion above and prior discussions; let's separate this editor from this topic. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor correction: they don't seem to be an SPA (despite their recent edits here being overwhelmingly in that topic); they have previous contributions here (and are much more active on De.WP - where they do appear to be occasionally blocked for various things, also). Though, obviously a "contemporary music" enthusiast by the looks of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The last visit here was to immediately label a disputant a "vandal", too. Special:Diff/810719723 Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Realistically, they're a net negative at this point: their responses above are pure battleground. ——Serial 16:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

On edit: Also support anything else ranging from a block to a c-ban per their continued behavior in the middle of their own thread. ——Serial 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support Not sure this will have any significant effect once the current affair gets resolved (hence why I was suggesting letting the normal process run its course); hence think this will be an ineffective sanction. But they clearly haven't taken any of the advice given to them about their behaviour. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Uwe's behavior here certainly does not look so great, and I might go so far as to say it looks bad. Reading through this discussion, it occurs to me that perhaps the German Wikipedia is a vastly different sort of affair than this one. This would seem to explain Uwe's perplexing (to say the least) style of engagement. I'm not sure how salient this is to the current issue, but it might bear mentioning; obviously, I have no experience there, so I can't say for certain what the deal is. jp×g 17:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per self-evident inability to understand the Law of holes, as demonstrated by continuing bad-faith accusations in this thread. Leave any discussions regarding the notability or otherwise of Broeker to people who can engage in a debate in an appropriate manner. I suspect that without Uwe Martens antagonistic efforts, it might already have been resolved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support looking through Uwe Martens' recent engagements with various editors here, they all amount to aspersions and battleground-type of behavior. Per RandomCanadian above, a TBAN may not be very effective, but some kind of warning that this won't be tolerated here is needed. I doubt though that it is any different at de.wp; rather, they reported the IP at de.wp's equivalent of AIV, where it seems that a short block was given without really looking into the case. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 17:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment 🤣🤣🤣 Uwe Martens (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per their lackluster response just above mine. TAXIDICAE💰 17:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I really have to thank the community for the impressive demonstration of the circumstances in this hobby editors' project (what is just a confirmation of what was known already for a long time)! That's why I sent you a public thank for your comment right now! Uwe Martens (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is...people are going to see that as trolling. Literally, the definition thereof. FYI. ——Serial 18:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is a point where the case becomes a waste of time. Time that could have been used to review the article in question. Especially when referring to the "law of holes" linked above, after a certain point it makes no sense to discuss further. You can just laugh about it and leave the project. I mean, it's said "Wikipedia doesn't need you" - but it's much more the case that I don't need Wikipedia! 🤣🤣🤣 So the community can continue to have a meta-meta discussion at this point while the article remains in its current state, it's that simple! As I said earlier: I'm out of here! Uwe Martens (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

... and ~60 mins later the user continues their combative, denigrating behavior [66], excusing themselves with 'SCNR' (which apparently stands for 'sorry could not resist'). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 20:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It's pretty obvious that it's the German Wikipedia that has misunderstood who is the troll, not us. Let's not repeat their mistake. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  To be faire on them, they do appear to have blocked Uwe quite a number of times already for various reasons (20 if xtools is correct). Just apparently they've never done anything serious enough to justify a more permanent action. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The "problem" on DE:WP is that you get blocked if you try to represent an opinion against the mainstream. But for sure I won't make those issues on DE:WP years ago a subject here! The only notable fact in this case is that the reported single-purpose IP acted according to the motto: Attack is the best defense. And the discussants here seem to have fallen for this completely, unable to recognize own presumptuous behavior even after several notes. But sure: Keep talking about me while the party is going on at AfD the IP user is throwing! Uwe Martens (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I read all the posts and links in this thread, and I did my own research on de:wikipedia. Here on en.wikipedia, it looks like you've taken to accuse your crtics and detractors with your own annoying behavior. There are examples above. "Attack is the best defense" appears to be a big part of your own modus operandi here on en.wikipedia. I think you should not post anything at all anymore (including a response to my post) regarding this particular issue on en.wikipedia and, hopefully, come time come insight, your further contributions here will be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support it seems clear this editor has an unhealthy interest in this topic, as shown by their replies in this thread and elsewhere and their insistency they are going to leave but then continuing coming back apparently including sock after being blocked. Considering the history of the article on question, there are strong reasons so suspect some sort of COI. But even if there is no COI, I don't think this editor should be involved in Tobias Broeker in any way, not even in discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  The socking may be less clear than I thought, however the stuff that lead up to the block still seems enough to stick with my support. Nil Einne (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 2-week block for Uwe Martens

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

---

Their continued incivility, battleground mentality and refusal to listen to the advice of other editors is distressing and they've not shown any ability to self-reflect or understand the concerns raised about it. I'd suggest a block for at least a couple of weeks until the AfD and everything else can be resolved to WP:PREVENT any further sillyness. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Yes at the very least. I'll admit that I'm already very prejudiced against the article that this user is defending because of this behaviour, so it would be better to be able to discuss it dispassionately without the trolling. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Many thanks to the community for demonstrating how Wikipedia works! This will be a reference for public reviews about this hobby encyclopedists' project, far from being professional! I highly recommend to read my talkpage! Keep talking about me even after I noted several times "EOD" and "I'm out of here" and teach me in the end "the law of hole" if I respond... OMG! 🤣🤣🤣 -- Uwe Martens (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOTHERE behavior is ongoing ([67], [68], [69]) and needs to be put to a quick stop. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 21:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the discussion above. This editor has been combative since the beginning and, after many pointed it out, it seems they refuse to get the point. —El Millo (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on the discussion above - I'm not sure why this is only two weeks, if it's tied to the AfD for the DRV article maybe a month would be appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I don't get why anyone thinks that this editor will ever be productive. —Cryptic 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: I was considering proposing an indef (site ban?) but I thought that was too extreme (their long block history on DE.WP is obviously not too relevant here), and in any case giving some WP:ROPE is what AGF requires us to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  WP:AGF (go read it!) does not require we do anything of the sort in the presence of specific evidence of wrongdoing. We have that in spades. —Cryptic 00:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: If you want to make a new proposal for an indef, go ahead. But I think that would be unecessary pile-up by this point - their other edits here outside of this area don't seem to be disruptive, at least the bit I can see; and if somehow they come back with the same attitude in two weeks (despite now claiming on their userpage that they're "permanently inactive"), the problem can probably be dealt with even more easily than now. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support per doubling-down on the combativeness even in this section. And in reply to Cryptic, what people think, and what WP:AGF requires them to do don't always coincide. I suspect that if Uwe Martens resumes similar behaviour after a two-week block, the next one is liable to be indefinite though per the usual disclaimer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:OWB #46. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Uwe's perplexing comments in this thread and general openness about a lack of interest in collaborating with others. jp×g 04:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Some honest advice, RandomCanadian, wrt your administrative work: your heart is clearly in the right place, but you're regularly a degree or two out in your assessments. In this case, for instance, you should probably have proposed an indefinite block. Reasons: they edit so rarely that there's no reason to expect them to even notice two weeks (yes, there's a sudden spike nine days ago, but that's this particular incident). I think an indefinite-which-is-not-forever-block would have found much traction. IMHO of course. ——Serial 10:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Understand your point, even if I disagree on the specifics of this case. I was hesitating between proposing an indef and a "block until this can be resolved" but in the end I thought the first option was too harsh: I don't think an indef is necessary to prevent further disruption at this stage, since the disruption here (ignoring DE.WP), as their recent edits, has been mostly concentrated on one issue which is likely to be resolved within the short-term (if their "retirement" is not just drama-queening, then the outcome is de-facto the same). If they come back at some point and continue their past behaviour on new topics, then it's a WP:ROPE issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Is there a CoI issue here?

I wasn't going to comment on this earlier, since it seemed rather unnecessary, given the way that the discussion has been going. I would however note that Uwe Martens is now referring to Wikipedia as a "hobby encyclopedists' project". Which leads me to ask, is Martens actually involved in the "music business" in any way, and more specifically, does Uwe Martens have any sort of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with regard to Tobias Broeker? Beyond the obvious reluctance to accept other people's opinions concerning Broeker, there might not be much in the way of direct evidence for this, but denigrating others for participating in a 'hobby' would seem a strange thing to be doing if that was all that Martens was doing too. And if it isn't a 'hobby' for Martens, shouldn't we be told what it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's very obvious that there's a conflict of interest here. I'm still reeling from the fact that editors and admins of the German Wikipedia don't seem to realise the obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Phil. What happened on the German Wikipedia was very disappointing. I saw a self-written article and thought Wikipedia would want it removed. The German article (also by Broeker and now Uwe Martens) is still there and I believe will not be deleted, even if the English one is. But that is their choice: I tried my best to help. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • If obvious, then what a stupid way to go about pushing it. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I doubt it. It's just a way of trying to assert superiority, just like all of the "obey my EOD" stuff (e.g. Special:Diff/1018784471) is. The actual account with the self-evident conflict of interest is the one named after the subject's main work. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd take a look at this discussion before turning off the laptop and I have to say: it's getting more and more amusing! First of all, I have already mentioned that I am not a paid promoter. Rather, it became clear that the reported single-purpose IP is apparently on a personal mission and coming out of the music business (see his comments on AfD). Furthermore, as always in the last few years, it becomes more and more clear that effort and benefit of this wiki project are no longer in an acceptable ratio. What was expected is a professional encyclopedia with professional behavior, but all I was confronted with was table talk and mushrooming squabbles, all discussants proved being incapable of reflecting on their own pretentious behavior and wondered about the answers! This is no environment for professional editing articles. Highly interesting anyway to get the circumstances of this project confirmed again, Wikipedia as its best, thank you very much again all discussants for the confirmation! This discussion will be definitely added to my collection of highlights! But keep talking about me in my absence, I don't care anymore! Uwe Martens (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the above, I'd say it's safe to just indef this user per WP:NOTHERE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You said "I'm out of here" more than once before making that comment, so you have shown yourself to be a serial liar. I don't believe that anyone apart from you is amused by such lies. Someone just please block this editor indefinitely, so that "I'm out of here" becomes a fact. The comments about hobbyists and professionals and paid promoters clearly reflect badly on Uwe Martens, rather than anyone else here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Indefinite block (Uwe Martens)

Having reviewed the above discussion, I'm seeing more than enough NOTHERE behavior to justify an indef block as an admin action, which I am going to go ahead and implement as I think it is both warranted by the situation and a simpler solution than enacting both a 2-week block and an indefinite TBAN. While there has been some explicit support for a full site-ban, this has not clearly won community consensus, so this block is a normal admin action rather than a CBAN. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Reasonable decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the latest edit of theirs above. Seems reasonable indeed, or at least more so than a full CBAN, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 and thanks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Socking by Uwe Martens?

Does anyone else think that Special:Contributions/178.113.28.33, who made 4 edits yesterday, all relating to the Broeker AFD, seems to bear more than a passing resemblance to Uwe Martens? Note the enthusiastic use of ! here, along with what might arguably be seen as canvassing, [70], and the attempt to control who participates in the discussion here. [71] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your CU tools are useless here; but is the IP quacking loud enough? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a duck, I'm going to go ahead and block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rosguill. No, RandomCanadian, not useless, but I just can't talk about what I might find. The good news is I'm not placing any CU blocks in relation to this matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor S_Marshall

• S Marshall (talk · contribs)
• Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs)

He has accused me of falsely following him to Battle of Dunkirk. On three occasions. Here[72], here[73], and here[74]. He was warned[75] after the 2nd that these false accusations (Here's my edit history[76] at the article. It is on my watchlist and has been so for about two years) but went ahead and accused me the third time.

Please note this other thread at his talk page[77] where he is labeling editors as Indian at a talk page discussion[78]. I am not the only editor who is having difficulties with this editor of late....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Of note; in that diff you provided, he said that Razer2115 is an Indian. Razer2115 notes on his userpage that he is Indian. I don't see a problem with calling someone an Indian who calls themselves an Indian. No comment on the rest of this as yet. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not on its own, but saying: With these four rather dubious points, there was agreement from Indian editor RaviC, confirmed sockpuppet MyLord, Indian editor Sdmarathe, editor of undisclosed nationality 1990'sguy, Indian editor Adamgerber80, and Indian editor DBigXray. In other words, that whole discussion consisted of Indian editors deciding that India hadn't lost ... that really seems very inappropriate. There are in the grand scheme of things editor diversity issues that can lead to problems on specific articles, but just listing the nationalities of all the people that you disagree with in some argument definitely seems to be the wrong way to go about addressing that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: I also have no comment on the rest of it but using national or ethnic origin as a label or using it to imply misconduct is not appropriate. You really should have a problem with that (especially when the other labels applied are "confirmed sockpuppet” and "editor of undisclosed nationality” so the intent is clearly to discredit the opinions of the editors listed). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I did use a label: I labelled Indian editors as being Indian. But please, show me where I used that label to imply misconduct.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• S Marshall: I would really welcome the participation of experienced editors in both the content disputes referred to. One is on Talk:Battle of Chawinda and the other is on Talk:Battle of Dunkirk. Source-focused analysis of both matters would be enormously helpful. I agree that I have called editors "Indians", and I deny that this is a personal attack or slur of any kind. I have accused WilliamJE of griefing and I absolutely stand by that characterization. As one of the outcomes of this AN/I, I ask that WilliamJE is formally banned from editing my talk page.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't have to get a formal ban of somebody from your talk page. Just tell them they are banned, and everytime there after that they do post to your talk page, just revert it. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I could do that, but it would really help my inner peace if I didn't have to. I find every contact with this editor stressful. I should disengage from him completely but this would mean ceasing to edit articles I've worked on very hard, and I'm finding myself unable to pay that price. Also, past behaviour suggests that he would follow me to other topic areas.—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this, so it's not an offer from me to do it, ... but: There is an option of a partial block which prevents a user from editing specific pages, such as your user and user talk page. If that's a viable option, then I'm sure an admin. would be willing to do so. The only other option I can think of is an WP:IBAN. — Ched (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I would love to be given a two-way IBAN with WilliamJE. It would stop him from following me around reverting: the perfect outcome. Please, please do that.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• I imagine a one-way I-ban against WilliamJE is more likely: although they say, ... I am not the only editor who is having difficulties with this editor of late, this really needs a fat {{cn}} next to it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and none is presented. Indeed, while rather superficial, this compares rather more favorably than this in the blame-stakes. WJE is, after all, being slightly disingenuous in stating the number of times he has edited the SoD article: it hasn't quite been over 20 times—and only once before 2017—whereas SM has edited over 200 since 2009. ——Serial 09:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• (Note: This is notwithstanding any objections which either party may have to it. ——Serial 11:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC))

• I don't seek that outcome. To get a one-way Iban requires a set of diffs about a conflict that goes back many years, and it would take a lot of hours of my volunteering time to produce them, and I find the matter stressful. I don't want that. Whereas WP:IBAN says that A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption. I do want that. Quick, painless, over. The downside is that I can't revert one of WilliamJE's edits, but then I only do that when he reverts me first; the upside is that he can't revert one of mine. Hell, yes: I'll take that. Hey, sysops! Why not do that right now? Hand down a two-way iban and close the thread! Don't drag it out, get it done and move on.—S Marshall T/C 10:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Serial Number 54129:

• • • 1-If you're going to claim I was slightly disingenuous in something I wrote, you better make sure you're not doing the same. I wrote 'approximately 20'. Are you telling me 18 isn't approximately?
    • 2- Even a slight check edit history at Battle of Dunkirk will show I have it on my watch list. What's the proof. Check out these edits here[79] and here[80], and here[81] and here[82]. An editor who does a reversion two to five minutes later on multiple occasions has to have that page on their watchlist.
    • 3- My history at S Marshall's talk page doesn't warrant a community ban from me posting there. I have made four edits there[83], two were ANI notices which are required, another was warning him not to violate NPA, and the other was about doing Seealso redlinks. The last I have made the same edits[84] to at least a half dozen User talk pages. Smarshall's claims I am following him are dead wrong, See #2 above, and his wanted ibans have no justification....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      • What we have here, WilliamJE is not just two different editors but two different approaches. On the one hand, we have an editor whose reputation is such that he has been asked, by admins, to stand for adminship; and on the other, an editor who spends so much time at noticeboards that he could be ANI's plus-one at the Noticeboard Christmas Party. ——Serial 13:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• You are making an art out of sticking your foot in your mouth. According to here[85], I rank 801st (with 11 edits, now 12) in the last 50,000 revisions to this page. Who on the other hand ranks 31st with 191? You. Serial number 54129. The editor partying around here isn't me....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  If you think this is only about numbers, and not the times you have been dragged here, then you're either incompetent or trolling.

  I also note you are still edit-warring on Battle of Dunkirk, where you do not seem to realize the purpose of an infobox. ——Serial 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Let's all ask ourselves, firstly why WilliamJE would want to remain free to post on my talk page when I've asked him not to, and secondly why he would want to avoid a no-fault two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 14:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Hammersoft: Generalizing people's views by speculating and targeting their race/ethnicity/nationality is violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. S Marshall has shown clear inability to understand this simple thing and continued with the disruptive cheap shots by falsely claiming that "everyone who doesn't think India lost the battle is Indian"[86] contrary to the fact there is a lack of reliable sources supporting his false views. This disruption is clearly sanctionable under the DS he had been already warned of.[87] As for Battle of Dunkirk, WilliamJE is editing the article since 2012. He is not following S Marshall contrary to the false allegations made here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be a rather odd interpretation of what Hammersoft actually said. — Ched (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• @WP:MILHIST coordinators: The editors above are sorting this out here, but as this is a dispute within out purview, as it were, does anyone wanna take a look at the articles just to make sure that insofar as content is concerned nothing is atrociously out of place? TomStar81 (Talk) 15:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • From that WikiProject, I'm grateful to Gog the Mild and Indy Beetle for their helpful contributions to Talk:Battle of Chawinda. Other editors contributing there need to be aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. I hope to see an uninvolved sysop reading the debate so far, analyzing the many allegations of misconduct, misleading, falsehood, tendentious editing, misconduct, and racism, and doing whatever is necessary to restore order.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Forest vs. Trees comment: At a glance, there seems to be a pattern which concerns me. There are some issues regarding the editing of the same articles: Raw Data here. But what strikes me the most is the similarity to this thread. Since Swarm was involved in that block, I'd be interested in their view of this. My concern here is that kicking the can further down the road may not be in the best interests of the project. — Ched (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me that Ched is onto something here. Very interested in Swarm's view. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• To echo what S Marshall wrote above (15:11 UTC) and more: I want to strengthen Indy beetle and Gog the Mild's hands for being consistently helpful in this topic area over the course of many years. I see you! El_C 16:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't give me that much credit, I rarely do much in the India vs. Pakistan area of milhist. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars is a good essay. Getting user_talk template messages may not bother some, but it sure annoys the hell out of others. Maybe someone could help S Marshall with an edit notice to make his request even more clear? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was going to offer, but it seems he's aware of the option: User talk:S Marshall/Editnotice — Ched (talk) 10:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• This thread isn't really about the use of templates on my talk page. The community needs to decide whether WilliamJE's complaint is justified. There are two limbs to it: Firstly, I've called WilliamJE's behaviour "griefing". Does that, in context, amount to a personal attack on him? Secondly, I've called editors "Indians" and remarked on a correlation between being of Indian nationality and holding a particular view of the outcome of the Battle of Chawinda. Does that, in context, amount to a racist attack or casting aspersions within the meaning of WP:ASPERSIONS? I would like to request a clear finding on those two points, please.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • * I support you on disliking the templates. The are impersonal, going non-personal, and often are used with condescension.
    * whether WilliamJE's complaint is justified? In principle, all complaints should be acknowledged and validated as the perception of the complainer. The real question is whether their desired outcome is justified.
    * Labelling editors as "Indian" on a question of Indian significance, this is a matter of delicacy. There is obviously something valid to it, and care is needed to avoid offence. I suggest that instead of labelling as "Indian" and thus having a personal nationalist bias, ask them if their nationality disposes them to having a personal bias on the topic, and go from there. If it is about reviewing a past discussion, being factual is probably the best thing to do. No, it does not amount to a racist attack, but it may be perceived as one. As with all such complaints, in principle, act on the complaints of those personally aggrieved, not others complaining on their behalf. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would Oppose any finding of PA based on "griefing". While it's not a word I've seen often, whether or not something has caused you grief is something only you (S Marshall) can attest to. In the matter of referring to someone as "Indian", unless someone has said they are opposed to being referred to as such, then I would Oppose any claims of racism. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention that during the trying times we live in at the moment however, all editors should be aware of the pitfalls when posting such claims, or acting in a way that encourages such claims. Trying to identify anyone in regards to nationality, sex, religion, or race is inherently problematic on a site steeped in anonymity.

Personally, I would not be opposed to any boomerang proposals regarding WilliamJE's history of problematic editing which include: edit warring, personal attacks, and harassment. — Ched (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I've dealt with S Marshall on an off for about a decade. The most recent substantial one involved being on oposite sides of a debate. They are precise, direct, blunt, expert, and have exhibited 100% impeccable behavior. There was clearly no personal attack or racism in either of the noted instances. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Since SM has explicitly asked above: I don't think SM is a racist, but his argument was clearly intended to undermine the arguments of others on the basis of them being Indian. Regardless of whether or not the editors' nationality biased their opinions, doesn't this violate WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

  I interpreted those remarks as more of a WP:MANDY kind of thing, FWIW. Not so much 'you're Indian so your view is worthless', but rather, 'you're Indian and it is well known that feelings run high on [certain issues]'. Although admittedly phrasing it like that rather than as they did might have saved a bit of trouble. ——Serial 10:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, your own comment above is inappropriate. Imagine how it would sound if you substitute "Indian" by "Jewish" or "Black" or "transgender". We don't, or at least should't, ascribe other editors motivations based on their national or ethnic identity or any other demographic characteristic, and we should not try to discount their opinions on that basis. S Marshall's edit attempted to do both: With these four rather dubious points, there was agreement from Indian editor RaviC, confirmed sockpuppet MyLord, Indian editor Sdmarathe, editor of undisclosed nationality 1990'sguy, Indian editor Adamgerber80, and Indian editor DBigXray. In other words, that whole discussion consisted of Indian editors deciding that India hadn't lost, on the basis of arguments that the previous and much more thorough RfC had already examined and rejected. S Marshall was faced with a difficult situation involving POV pushing and even sockpuppetry. But they still should not have made this comment and the comment does breach WP:NPA, for reasons noted by ProcrastinatingReader. (In relation to User:Sdmarathe, I should also note that their user page does not mention and did not mention in the past the user's nationality or ethnic origin.) Nsk92 (talk) 11:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of Wikipedia's personal attacks policy in this context is that it's not permitted to make ad hominem comments or implications about editors on the basis of their characteristics. (Imagine trying to edit Palestine-Israel articles if this were permitted!) Indeed, in a recent ANI about an editor who was trying to undermine GorillaWarfare's ability to edit sexuality articles on the basis of her userboxes, it was widely held that said comments were personal attacks. I appreciate it's not a 1-1 comparison, because that editor also rambled at length about the matter and made Godwin's law comparisons to the point of unacceptable harassment, but the crux of their views was a comment that someone with strong views (or so they perceived) cannot edit on those matters neutrally, and that comment in isolation was also deemed inappropriate iirc. Back to this case, I accept the statement could be true (that nationalist tendencies can invoke biased responses on contentious topics), and I'm sure SM didn't make the comment with bad intentions, but above he asked for "a clear finding on those two points". My opinion is that his comment, at least as worded, violates the WP:NPA policy. Accordingly, I think it's reasonable to think editors might've taken offence and so I don't think this report is frivolous, even if it results in no action, and don't see the need for any boomerangs on that basis. On the note of action, I don't endorse any sanctions, as there's no reason to think SM will persist if the finding here is that it was a personal attack and I think SM is just requesting feedback for the future. It's also admirable that he restored the thread's attention onto himself after it was heading somewhere else. On the note of boomerangs and IBANs, I'll note that I haven't tried to analyse the broader history Serial links to above which may justify further action, but believe it's appropriate for one of the two parties (or someone else involved) to start a new thread if they believe community intervention via IBANs is necessary to prevent disruption. It's unlikely anything productive in terms of hard action will come from this thread, but the involved parties may find feedback helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• "Well of course he's going to dismiss Indian people's opinions, he's a white British guy" is also a Mandy statement yet also inappropriate. Edits, not editors. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not, wholly, at ANI. ——Serial 14:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the answers to both questions that S Marshall has posted above are relatively obvious "no"s. On the first, there's a clear pattern of behaviour here, and an IBAN may be warranted. The second is more complicated - considering the RfC is on a topic that was contentious enough to have been at some sort of dispute resolution page 13 times (including this one), the dispute is nationalistic, the dispute referred to participation in a talk page discussion was meant to overturn an older better attended RfC, and S Marshall was responding to an argument that the talk page discussion superseded the old RfC, I don't think pointing out the fact it reflected a certain viewpoint was inappropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 19:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Remedies

In the discussion above, I requested firstly, that the community impose a quick, no-fault two-way iban between myself and WilliamJE; and secondly, that the community formally ban him from posting to my talk page. WilliamJE opposes both these measures, and expresses that he wants to remain free to amend my edits, interact with me, and use my talk page. Please will the community consider how best to respond.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm amenable to placing a PBLOCK on WilliamJE preventing him from editing S Marshall's talk page. However, if this were to be implemented, it's only fair that S Marshall gets a PBLOCK from editing WilliamJE's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Support as 2nd choice. (considering the history, 2-way IBAN would be my first choice) — Ched (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

LTA

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

---

Could someone please block 121.200.4.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with everything revoked? It's an LTA interested in vandalising "Sneed" or "Snead" related articles. See also filter 1137 aimed at this abuse. There's a report at AIV but there's no patrolling admin I fear, and I'm weary of this vandalism. Thanks, JavaHurricane 03:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: Thanks for monitoring the problem. However, edit warring with them at User talk:121.200.4.224 is pointless and in fact is only sport for them. For an LTA, apply WP:DENY as much as possible (no excitement). JJMC89 has blocked the IP for a short period. If problems resume, you can notify me but I probably won't respond quickly. Johnuniq (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

B.Lukashyk and POV

B.Lukashyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is clearly only here to push POV (look at their 27 edits) and is likely a sock of User:Piznajko who made themselves infamous for starting, by evading their block, a successful Kiev -> Kyiv move request. Could we block this one now please, before the disruprion raised the same level as the one from Piznajko?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:BITE, WP:ASPERSIONS. You can’t just label every new editor you don’t like as “Piznajko” and try to smear them on various discussions with negative speculation like this comment and this one. Those pages are subject to WP:ACDS-EE. Either provide evidence or remove your slander and apologize to your victim. Enough is enough. —Michael Z. 23:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The user has zero good edits, everything either has been reverted or raising issues which got solid consensus recently and not dropping the stick when told so. AGF is not a suicide pact.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

May I btw remind you that you are topic banned from Kiev/Kyiv, and posting the links above are a clear violation of your topic ban?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User_talk:El_C#My_topic_ban. I'd take this to WP:ARCA myself, but I kinda need a break from there right now. El_C 14:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IPs disruptively making unsourced changes to pages

Two IPs, 79.19.12 and 62.19.152.24 ([[88]] and [[89]]), so far, are changing dates and other information for no apparent reason (without explanation), contrary to the sources, on haplogroup pages, Haplogroup D-CTS3946, Haplogroup CF (Y-DNA), and Haplogroup CT, in a manner verg similar to a group of disruptive IPs that were blocked earlier. I have reverted them asking them not to make unsourced changes and warning them but they have continued. I have recently warned them not to make unsourced changes or they will be reported. I suspect that they may be the same person (they have made some of the same/similar edits) and their edits (persistently changing dates, seemingly randomly, without explanation, and to some of the same pages as the current IPs) are similar to those of another IP group based in Italy that I reported, I think some months ago, that were blocked, some of which were these I believe [[90]], [[91]] and [[92]]

Here are the recent IPs' edit histories (I have notified both of this report on their Talk pages):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.19.126.62

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.151.24

And three earlier disruptive IP's histories for comparison (similar edits and to some of the same pages as made by the recent IPs):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.174.0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.189.174

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.19.175.135

Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

That's 79.19.126.62 (talk · contribs) + 62.19.151.24 (talk · contribs).

@Skllagyook: I left a warning at the IP's talk pages. Please notify me if any similar problems occur. Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Please check the contributions from both IPs. I see that some have not been reverted. If they are unwarranted, please revert with edit summary such as "unsourced" or "unexplained". Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will do that. Skllagyook (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Long-term CIR regarding Oranjelo100

Oranjelo100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Oranjelo100 has been editing since 2013 and has since accumulated more than 70 unique non-bot warnings (I manually counted 78 just now) from a variety of editors and admins, almost all of which are repeatedly about referencing unreliable sources, copying content without attribution, not using edit summaries, and improper categorization. Oranjelo100 almost never responds to these warnings, and the rare response from Oranjelo100 does not demonstrate and understanding of the underlying issues (e.g. this remarkable sequence with Eagles247 or this exchange with Joe Roe).

Just for their repeated unreferenced and very poorly-referenced edits, there is a litany of examples from the issues reported on their talk page sections in recent years:

16 talk page sections of WP:V warnings since the 2016 ANI discussion
"December 2016" "Providing sources" "December 2017" "Please be careful of fake news" "January 2018" "June 2018" "Citations" "Citations and communication" "October 2019 (2)" "Incel" "Sources are not optional" "Wealth of sports leagues" "August 2020" "Bad source" "Recent African origin of modern humans" "Citing unreliable sources"

On this issue alone, examples since March 2021 include:

Examples of unreferenced or poorly-referenced edits since March 2021

Unreferenced cryptic additions about historical routes of human migration Unreferenced OR about antimatter weapons Citation for a claim that wearers of a specific tattoo are child molesters from a celebrity gossip site Citation for a mass slaughter claim from a celebrity & showbusiness news site Citation and another citation for faster-than-light travel from known predatory publisher Trade Science Inc. (cf OMICS Publishing Group and Beall's list) Citation for string theory from an unpublished science essay contest submission Three citations for quantum gravity from unpublished preprints Citations for comparisons of the Yemeni famine to the Holodomor from opinion articles in Daily Pakistan and Newsweek Citation about a Chinese embassy response from WP:FORBESCON Citation about mass killings in China from an opinion article in the Toronto Star Citation about mass killings in China from 112 Ukraine Incomplete sentence/quote about torture in China from WP:TOI Restored without comment after its removal and still not a sentence Unreferenced incomplete sentence about a legal report Restored without comment

Other highlights from this past week include !voting in an closed & archived RfC.

A WP:CIR block was mooted at ANI in 2016 with support from two now-inactive editors (Turdas, Poeticbent) and two admins (EdJohnston, Drmies), and no opposition. It was eventually archived without being carried out, with Oranjelo100 continuing the same negligent & non-communicative behavior. Its possibility was brought up again directly to Oranjelo100 by Swpb in 2019. This editor has not stopped making disruptive edits, continuing to make the same mistakes that other editors have warned them about for years. I am proposing an indefinite CBAN below due to the extraordinary breadth & timespan of editors who have complained about Oranjelo100. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite community ban

An indefinite community ban of Oranjelo100 due to persistent long-term disruptive editing and failure to communicate, particularly relating to WP:CIR. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support (proposer): Given that this is an editor making hundreds-to-thousands of edits per month with 8 years' of highly problematic editing and poor communication in response to dozens of warnings, a community ban for Oranjelo100 is likely warranted as a preventative measure until the community has faith that Oranjelo100 can edit without causing further disruption. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support and a huge thank you to MarkH21 for initiating this overdue process. The body of evidence is staggering – Orangelo100's bad habits are numerous and serious, and they have never shown any willingness or ability to stop, despite the requests of dozens of frustrated editors. The likelihood of Orangelo100 becoming a net-positive contributor has gone from slim to miniscule to nonexistent. A CBAN would be unequivocally good for the project, the editors, and probably Orangelo100 themselves. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 18:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support Good idea, and something that should have been done long ago.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support : In 2016 I said this: "...I would prefer if what seems to happen to many other ANI issues doesn't happer here, and that the issue would be handled to its proper closure instead of being left up in the air until it gets automatically archived." -- and here we are five years later. Heh. Maybe this time. —turdas^{talk - contribs} 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support exactly per nom. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I don't believe that a CBAN is the most narrowly tailored response here. The vast majority of edits made by the editor are positive contributions to Wikipedia; though the user does have a problem with citing sources that are not generally reliable, it does not appear that the user is doing so in some malicious way. I believe that the user should be required to do some sort of training related to communicating with other editors and the use of reliable vs unreliable citations, in order to improve them as an editor. If such a training is available, I believe it would be the best measure in place to ensure that the user, who enthusiastically contributes to the project, can continue to do so positively. If the editor shows an unwillingness to reform, then perhaps a ban would be justified under a preventative rationale, but I'm not sure that we're at that point yet. I do not believe that the user is an overall detriment to the project, though I do believe that the user's citation and communication practices stand to be improved. I would strongly recommend that the user be given a mentor towards this end, if anybody is willing to mentor them, and I generally feel hesitant about applying WP:CIR blocks for accounts with tens of thousands of edits that have generally improved the encyclopedia. I understand that my proposed mechanism is unusual, though I would humbly ask that we consider it in this case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is essentially exactly what I told the editor in question in 2016; to familiarize themselves with basic guidelines about reliable sources and listen to feedback from other editors. It seems the feedback fell on deaf ears then, as it had before then and has since. What makes you think it will be different now? —turdas^{talk - contribs} 02:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

1) Your "training program" (if you could find such a volunteer) sounds like an extended form of the guiding interventions that have demonstrably had no effect on this user; and 2) One can't translate "the majority of the user's edits are ok" (if that is true) into "the user is a net benefit to the project". The damage left by the bad edits, and the time taken by other editors to fix them instead of doing something more productive, far outweigh the good here. Whatever good edits Orangelo100 makes can by made by any of the thousands of editors that don't cause constant problems. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The idea I have in mind is something along the lines of it being between a mentorship and supervised editing. In short, it would be a formal community sanction that would serve as a final warning from the community writ large, but also it would leave the door open to some pathway for improvement for the editor who seems to enthusiastically edit Wikipedia. And, Swpb, I agree that you can't translate the majority of edits being good with an individual being a positive contribution—if a 51% of a user's edits are countervandalism and 49% are blanking pages then it's obvious that the user is not helpful (and obviously it does not need to be this extreme). But, I do think that a weighting of Oranjelo100's contributions to Wikipedia, in particular, would show that they are a help to the project overall rather than a detriment. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree on the practicality of your program, the sufficiency of the warnings given so far, and the balance of the editor's impact. —swpb^{T • go beyond • bad idea} 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - The user has had ample time and ample warnings to correct their behaviour. We're not responsible for their refusal to accept valid criticism. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Their block log is empty and this has been at the noticeboard for two days with no action taken. Are there other options between "do nothing" and "indefinite ban"? Peter James (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support how to deal with a long term editor who makes a bunch of okay or decent and some good faith but extremely poor edits is always tricky especially in a case like this where it's not one specific topic but seems to be any topic where they may use terrible sources and it's not even any specific source or types of sources they have problems with but they seem to lack the ability to judge the suitability of sources. While the community can try to nudge an editor in the right direction, and it seems we have, ultimately they have to take responsibility for their editing including improving it. They seem unable to do so for whatever reason, as shown by their responses. We've also given them a lot of time to improve. I'm not sure a term limited community ban would be useful under the circumstances and I don't see any other restriction we can impose. I'm unconvinced of the merits of imposing mentorship on an editor, I think the editor needs at least some willingness for this to work. And there also needs to be someone volunteering. Given all this, an indefinite block or ban seems the only option. Since understandably, no admin is willing to unilaterally impose a block, a cban seems to be the best option. (Technically we could come to a consensus for a block and not a ban, but I always find that weird.) As generally the case, indefinite doesn't mean infinite. If the editor ever shows they seem more willing and able to address the concerns we can reconsider. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So if the editing is not disruptive enough for a block that can be removed by any administrator, the result should be a block that will never expire and is unlikely to ever be removed? Peter James (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • It's not that the edits are insufficiently disruptive. I have been advised by an uninvolved admin that a long-term pattern for an account with this long of a tenure and this many edits warrants a community-wide review. This will only be unlikely to ever be removed if Oranjelo100 continues to not communicate, acknowledge, and demonstrate understanding.
      Up through now though, this is a case where after a pattern of behavior has been well established and a user shows they are unlikely to do things correctly, a block, topic ban, or full ban may be the only solutions that minimize disruption to the encyclopedia (WP:CIR). This is indefinite (i.e. until they communicate and demonstrate trustworthiness) due to the scale & breadth of topics, warnings, and time. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Question for User:Oranjelo100 and Comment - This thread has been open for 72 hours. Do you have an alternate proposal? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - They haven't edited in 72 hours. This raises the question of how long to keep this thread open before an admin closes it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

IP rant

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

---

5.25.168.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Nationalist IP keeps removing academic references that state the city of Adiyaman is Kurdish-majority populated. Their arguments include: "[A] book called "Kurdish Awakening" are not acceptable source for the name of a city. Both are heavily ideological Kurdish irredentist nationalist sources". The book was not even written by a Kurd but by a Ofra Bengio. Its one of those cases where I can give dozens of reliable academic references to back up the info, but they'll be removed with random arguments. If a specific reference is genuinely problematic, they can contest that instead of removing all references as has been the case[93]. At Adıyaman Province, the editor removed info based on a BRILL encyclopedia and their argument was nothing more than a rant about Kurdish nationalists.[94] --Semsûrî (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert but I can comment on some non-content matters at Adiyaman:

The IP definitely violated WP:3RR with about 8 reversions in 3 hours (see contribs). I am about to make a report at WP:EWN. The IP hadn't been notified about Kurds/Kurdistan Discretionary Sanctions, and I just notified them.

Semsûrî has not violated 3RR, having made 3 reversions (including consecutively-saved reverting edits).

I just reverted IP users most recent edits to ensure that the edit warrior doesn't get the advantage. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to take a step back for now. They are digging their own grave. --Semsûrî (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The IP's reported to AIV and the affected pages to RFPP (they appear to be dynamic). Hopefully that puts a stop to it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Beyond My Ken disruptively editing

The user @Beyond My Ken has begun reverting 50+ of my edits that were fixing articles by following the MOS:ORDER guideline. They gave me a message on my talk page, where they failed to give a proper reason for their reverts. Now, I didn't want to start reverting, probably because I didn't want another issue on that topic, so I have decided to report their disruptive editing here. Some Dude From North Carolina 19:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll repeat part of what I wrote on this editor's talk page:

MOS is a guideline and not a policy. It is not mandatory. Also, Wikipedia's guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive. If you come across a very large number of articles in which the "good article" tag is at the top and not at the bottom, that means that a large number of Wikipedia editors are putting it there. In that circumstance, it is more appropriate to change the guideline so that it reflects actual practice, then it is to change a very large number of articles in a way which does not affect the rendering of the page, and which clogs up people's watchlists. I beieve that you have already been advised on ANI that doing this -- making unnecessary changes -- is not a good idea.

You seem to have settled on a method of editing which involves taking a single guideline of some sort and then making mass changes to reflect it. Again, this is a bad idea, since actual practice is more important than a written guideline, and mass changes should always be discussed before they are made, and a consensus reached that making the changes is appropriate. As far as I can tell, you have not done this. I suggest that you find a different modus operandi for editing here.

The editor was previously reported for similar behavior here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Now the editor says on his talk page -- where this discussion should be taking place before they precipitously jumped to AN/I -- that a bot put the "good article" tag at the top because it didn't know any better. I would assume differently, that the bot's actions were approved by BAG, and constitute a de facto consensus for the tag going on the top of the code page (near where it will render) rather than at the bottom far away from it. And if the editor knew that they were changing the edits of a bot, why didn't that clue them that they should have spoken to the bot operator if they thought the bot was making a mistake, rather than making mass changes without a consensus to do so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the reason is that a code where a bot adds an icon right to the top of an article is easier to make than making it detect "authority control", categories, and nav boxes. As I've mentioned, consensus was reached at various discussions (here and here) and the document of the icon, where it says, "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before the defaultsort and categories." Some Dude From North Carolina 19:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, why are you linking to a discussion where it was found my edits were not an "actual violation of any policy or guideline"? My edits moving the GA-icon were following MOS:ORDER, a guideline, and reverting 68 of them wasn't helpful. Some Dude From North Carolina 19:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Those discussion were not a consensus for making mass changes, they were discussions about the guideline. That's not the same thing.

I linked to a previous disucssion because although it was fouund that your edits were not "tagbombing" as reported -- and, indeed, I commented to the effect in the discussion -- it was pointed out that they were unnecessary and that unnecessary changes clog up user's watchlist. In other words, you were told that that behavior was not desireable, but this discussion and a look at your contributions indicates that you did not take that advice to heart, and continue to edit in the same fashion. That makes it relevant.

It seems to me that this editor is making a lot of perhaps unwarranted assumptions about the bot, without ever contacting the bot operator about what he thought was an error in the bot operation. I'd also like to know how an editor with 10 months experience learns so much about this -- did they have a previous account? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Am I not supposed to read the guidelines? Some Dude From North Carolina 19:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Newbies aren't always clueless. ♔MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

10 months isn't nothing. How is it suspicious that someone who has been around for ten months is competent? Elli (talk | contribs) 11:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know how an editor with more than 11 years experience hasn't yet learned why edit summaries are important, the meaning of IAR, and why the MoS exists. Baffling. Pyrope 17:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just wondering if the argument pushing for discussion before mass changes would also apply to mass reverts... - wolf 19:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• No, not when the reverts are restoring the status quo ante. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, why on Earth, after all these years and all the blocks and warnings, are you edit-warring against the Manual of Style? You know better. Please just stop and we can all go do something more productive with our day. Editors do not need your permission to make changes in accordance with the Manual of Style, especially not trivial ones like this that have already been discussed, even if they were not discussed with you personally. Mackensen (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

With that, @Mackensen, can I revert their edits back to following MoS? Some Dude From North Carolina 19:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina, no, just one man's opinion here. There's no rush, and others should weigh in. Mackensen (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, I guess I'll wait a day or two. Some Dude From North Carolina 19:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to, Mackensen, I almost always edit productively. I suggest you take a look at my contribs here and on Commons for an indication of that: creating articles, substantially updating articles, uploading images, cleaning-up categories, reverting vandalism, all the usual stuff I do, while the editor who dragged me here was making mass changes without having a consensus to do so, and without talking to the operator of the bot he thinks is responsible for the "problem" -- and you're pointing fingers at me? Please. I suggest you refresh your memory on the difference between a mandatory policy and a guideline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You've been discussed on this board countless times because of edit-warring you engaged in because you don't like the manual of style. Please, let's not pretend that this is a new problem. Your antipathy to the MOS is legendary but you've gotten a pass because yes, most of your contributions are excellent. Anyway, guidelines have consensus. They wouldn't be guidelines otherwise. They're not mandatory, no, but they generally should be followed. It does not follow that because they are not mandatory, editors are free to ignore them whenever they like, for no reason whatsoever other than they don't like them. You don't have to edit in accordance with them either, but if someone comes along and does, the right response is not to mass-revert, yell at them, then revert them on your talk page when they tried to answer a question that you asked! Mackensen (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I had no idea I was legendary!

I will take your remarks with all the weight that they deserve given your clear lack of understanding of why a guideline is not a policy and cannot be treated as one, and your obvious personal prejudice against me, which I am very sorry to learn about. As for stopping, I stopped as soon as this unwarranted report was filed, so, again, I have no idea where your animus is coming from. Do think on this, though: if MOS must be treated in the fashion you suggest, than how in heaven's name can guidelines ever be be truly descriptive of what Wikipedia editors do, when there's no wiggle room for them to deviate from the strict letter of the law, and they are forced to toe the line. That would make them prescriptive, and we know that's not supposed to be the case. Do recall that WP:IAR is still one of the pillars. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a significant flaw in your reasoning. Of course guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive, always have been. If a guideline does not describe present practice, then it should be changed to match that practice. Guidelines also represent best practices; while not ironclad, they should be followed unless there is a good reason not to do so. That the guidelines do not describe your editing does not mean that the guidelines are wrong. It does mean that every time you edit in a contrary fashion, you're undertaking a special burden to justify why your edit is better and why we should depart from the guideline in this case. I would expect that to be article- and context-specific, and wouldn't seem to apply to a mass reversion. If the guideline is in fact wrong in this case (either wrong on its face or no longer describing present practice), then it should be changed. If not, then the original edits should stand. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You keep trying to make it personal, but it's not. In any case, I'm wasting my time and energy here, I can see that. Someone should give me a buzz if I'm needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: WP:IAR says that if a rule prevents an improvement being made, then it can be ignored. Moving the template that displays the GA icon from the top of an article to the bottom of an article is not an improvement, as it has absolutely zero effect on the display of the GA icon. Therefore IAR cannot be invoked for that edit. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing. What kind of people have nothing better to do than edit war over something as silly and petty as the MOS? Utterly pointless. If the problem's with the bot, that needs to be said to the bot operators. Though really MOS:ORDER seems like CREEP and I see way too many purely cosmetic edits by bots and regular editors alike because of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would add that I'm not happy with the signature of User:Some Dude From North Carolina. It has prevented me from being able to look at this issue without prejudice. I have no idea what policies or guidelines say about it, but I do know that it should be a bit less intrusive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's just their username highlighted in blue (with a turtle), so it's certainly not the worst I've seen. Perhaps it's the length of username that's distracting you. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I can see what it is, but I'm just saying that it prejudices me against that editor, so it would be a good idea to change it. For every editor like me who admits to such prejudice there will be very many who don't admit to it (even to themselves) but act on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point, I guess. Although I don't have a custom one myself, loads of admins/functionaries do, so to each their own. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

  Incidentally, I also find it distracting. Some Dude From North Carolina, please consider changing your signature to something a little less demonstrative. I'm afraid I don't have any better advice than that :/. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't see how the conversation went to my signature, but it has been reset. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI, where talking about whether {{good article}} should be at the top or bottom of a page is not wasting enough time, so we will also talk about whether we like or dislike the signatures of the editors talking about whether {{good article}} should be at the top or bottom of a page. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Isn't it better for editors to admit to their prejudices, rather than act on them and throw loads of dirty underwear against the wall in the hope that something will stick? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It's better if everyone stays on topic. An editor bringing a matter to ANI isn't a reason to raise entirely unrelated concerns about the editor. This is called "hijacking a thread", and threads devolving off topic (as this one has) is a huge problem at ANI. It might even be the #1 obstacle to ANI working better. If there is any editor out there who is prejudiced against another editor because of their signature, then that editor should simply not participate in ANI threads involving the other editor; that's a better outcome than either announcing their prejudice, or throwing their underwear against a wall. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't see the point of reverting those edits: while what BMK says about the Manual not being policy is true, it is still a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow and doesn't warrant going out of your way to revert such changes absent a consensus at that page. Moreover, the argument about clogging up users' watchlists is defeated by doing something that has that effect. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I would take this somewhere other than WP:ANI. Mass edits in line with an existing consensus or guideline are reasonable to make, but should be made with a degree of caution to avoid rewarding WP:FAITACCOMPLI behavior; often they're necessary, but if someone objects and starts reverting you when you're making a mass edit, even if you think you're clearly in the right, the thing to do is to stop and take it to an appropriate discussion board for the edit you're trying to make so you can ask what other people think - not to immediately drag it to ANI as a conduct issue. Putting aside the issue of whether your edits are right or wrong, or whether BMK was right to revert you, I feel that both your edits and BMK's revisions should be defensible to the point where they don't belong on ANI (ie. it's reasonable to attempt to edit multiple pages into line with a guideline, and it's reasonable for someone else to say "wait, slow down" and ask for more discussion, especially if you're enforcing a guideline that hasn't gotten much discussion previously.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have to say I concur with BMK about the need to make these edits. {{good article}} is at the top of most GAs due to preferential bot placement; the guidelines do not reflect practice. Making mass edits to put it at the bottom of an article is also a WP:COSMETICBOT violation, meat or otherwise. Simultaneously, this sounds like a really lame thing to edit war over. Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Cosmetic edits for placement that make no difference to the reader aren't a good use of editor time, but reverting all of them is even more of a waste and just as unnecessary. Schazjmd (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, they are not the same. Reverting removes encouragement for similar edits to be repeated. I haven't looked at the merits of this case but reverting misguided bot-like edits is often desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really "misguided" when the edits are following a guideline and template rules themselves on the way templates should be ordered, and another editor decides to revert them simply because they were originally at the top. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is 100% possible for guideline-following edits to be misguided. Specifically, the very underlying structure of Wikipedia is that it is not, so to speak, statute law. PAGs describe accepted practice, not law from on high. Where guidelines are in flagrant contradiction of practice, the guideline is wrong, not the practice. This is not a fringe viewpoint but the very basis of the project and indeed what distinguishes enwiki from large swathes of the Wikimedia project -- and, I've seen it convincingly argued, part of why enwiki is the most overwhelmingly successful bit of it. Whether BMK should have reverted your edits is a reasonable topic of debate; reverting a cosmetic edit is still a cosmetic edit, and communication is a more powerful tool than undo. Whether you should have made them is not. You shouldn't have. Vaticidalprophet 08:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO it's never a good idea to revert a cosmetic edit solely because it was a cosmetic edit (as opposed to thinking the earlier version was better). As Vaticidalprophet said, arguably you yourself are violating the guideline against making cosmetic edits. More importantly, one of the strong arguments against cosmetic only edit is they unnecessarily fill up watch lists and edit histories. Hence they tend to be okay if part of a non cosmetic edit. You're just compounding this problem if you revert all edits. I don't think trying to discourage repetition is a good reason for mass reverting, at least when WP:DENY doesn't apply and the editor is using an account so can easily be blocked. As always the solution should be to ask the editor to stop and if they refuse, take it to ANI. While discussions over "this editor won't stop making cosmetic only edits even after asked" are annoying, they're less annoying then discussions over "editor A keeps made a lot of cosmetic edits and editor B reverted them all". As always, in DENY case it can sometimes be acceptable to mass revert to try and discourage repetition and with IPs especially if they keep changing I could perhaps see it attempted. And in that vein, with both IPs and accounts, I could see making a few reverts, but not mass reverting, to try and get attention. I would also note that I'm not even sure that mass reverting will be more successful in discouraging repetition. I mean I'm sure it would be with some editors. But with other editors and this may very well have arisen here, it tends to get their backs up and make discussion more difficult. While editors digging in is never good, ultimately it's not uncommon human nature and handling situations e.g. with a tone and approach to try and avoid it can be helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be contrary to what the policy says: Keep in mind that reverting a cosmetic edit is also a cosmetic edit. If the changes made in a cosmetic edit would otherwise be acceptable as part of a substantive edit, there is no reason to revert them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh look, BMK is edit waring across multiple articles over something asinine and pointless? Just another Monday. This is all so very stupid and lame. PackMecEng (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Mackensen said. Paul August ☎ 01:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• This entire edit war is pretty silly, but it would be nice if BMK had tried having the discussion before carrying out the mass-reverts. This wasn't something that needed to be fixed immediately, and the mass-reverts definitely cast doubts on the legitimacy of BMK's gripe that the OP was clogging watchlists. On the other hand, the location of the GA tag really doesn't matter, and moving it from one place to another is cosmetic and unnecessary. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Seconding this - It certainly doesn't help that BMK still presents himself as the authority on MOS when historically he's been in the minority on these issues, but ultimately this looks like a non-issue on both ends. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 03:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Guidelines "not being mandatory", per WP:PG, refers to the fact that guidelines are "best practices supported by consensus" that "editors should attempt to follow", "though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". They are still the community's consensus on how things should be around here, and an editor making corrective MOS edits, no matter how petty, no matter how pointless, is still implementing the community's will, and should not be reverted without good reason. "It's a guideline, it's optional", is not a good reason, nor is it even true. I'm sympathetic to the argument that mass changes that are not really needed should not be performed because it absolutely does clog up watchlists. Botlike mass changes should virtually always be discussed in advance, I agree with that all day. However that line of argument pretty much goes out the window when you're reverting them for no reason, you're just doing the same thing at this point. Also I am not a fan of this notion that the MOS can or should be arbitrarily ignored, I don't know where it came from and I don't know why people feel the need to propagate it, but it's not a good position and it should not be tolerated. The policy says "common sense" and "occasional exceptions", I do not like editors twisting it from "best practice that should generally be followed" to "completely optional". ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Agree that this is a tempest in a teacup. I find the justification that reverting a bunch of edits that cause no change in display because they clog up peoples watchlists pointless, since the reverts would also show up in the watchlists. This all should've been discussed in advance, and from now on the matter should be handled through talk pages. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I personally don't give a hoot where the icon template goes, but if MoS and template documentation agree, I cannot imagine any good reason to edit war otherwise. The MoS says a lot of things, and bringing articles into conformance with it is generally good. For example, the MoS says that the lead of Abraham Lincoln should not be Abey L was a real-ass king, notable for being based, also he was like, the President and shit. Would it then be reasonable to revert to this version, because "MoS is only a guideline"? How many times would a new account be allowed to make this edit before being indeffed? jp×g 06:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've posted a new thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Changing the location of GA and FA icons. Wow, what a pointless thing to edit-war over. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• I explained this in more detail above. Handling mass edits is always tricky. I'm personally willing to accept some use of BRD even for mass edits if the editor reverting is sure that the earlier version is better, although IMO it's still generally better to establish a consensus first. But I can't see BRD for mass edits if the editor isn't sure but feels the issue needs discussion. In the event of no consensus can be reached, the status quo ante should be taken as the version before the mass changes. (As I explained another time, I'm assuming that there was a reasonable ongoing discussion. You can't just tell an editor I object to your changes then leave for a year and come back and start and RfC and then demand reversion if no consensus is reached.) Worse still if the editor doesn't care or even agrees with the change but feels the edit shouldn't have been made because it was a cosmetic edit. As I explained in more detail above, if you want an editor to stop and discuss or just stop, ask them, and if they don't do that and keep making mass edits then bring them to ANI or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW I probably do more delisting of good articles than anyone else and as it is a manual process it is slightly annoying the few occasions when they template is not at top of the article. Aircorn (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • So I think this discussion here proves there's enough controversy about that aspect of MOS:ORDER (and that the guideline therefore conflicts with common practice) that it needs changing. We probably need an RfC for that, but I'll go ahead and boldly remove the controversial bit from the guideline. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Answermeplease11 at the RD

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

---

Answermeplease11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing pretty much exclusively at various reference desks. Numerous people (I stopped counting at five) have told them that this really isn't the replacement Yahoo Answers, but they've continued. The questions have taken a turn from misguided to absurd, which has pretty much convinced me that they're NOTHERE. The latest one is Is it possible to restore DMX’s dead body?. – Frood (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for reporting, blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please rangeblock disruptive IP editor

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

---

Resolved

Although Special:Contributions/91.99.128.0/17 has the occasional constructive edit, the vast majority of their edits are unexplained deletions of text, often signifcant amounts, especially at the Neo-Assyrian Empire article. Could that range be blocked please? FDW777 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:AWikiGenius disrupting RFC with extremely long, bolded paragraphs

The user AWikiGenius is disrupting the RFC currently being held at Talk:Justin Bieber with extremely blocky, bolded essay-sized paragraphs with an unnecessary amount of bolded blue links. This has been pointed out by another user too. Attempts to address this by creating a sub-section on the same page are being reverted (more than 3 times) as seen on the talk history. Not sure if there is a policy violation yet, but I wanted to request admin attention anyway. (Note: I am the creator of the RFC). Looking at their edits this month, they seem to exist as an almost single-purpose account to oppose the purpose of this RFC (removing some professions from the opening sentence of the Justin Bieber article).--NØ 10:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say that it's unhelpful, at best. Most editors won't even try reading material presented in that way. Mackensen (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It's clearly against WP:TPG (see WP:SHOUTING: Avoid excessive emphasis...Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously). User:AWikiGenius's behavior on that page is, unfortunately, belying their username, to say the least. ——Serial 11:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a comment on the RfC which may result in the restarting of the RfC and not an "Extended Comment" or "Threaded Discussion" as you have categorised it under. Please do not mess with the RfC and consensus-building. Please do not try to hide my comment, It is a comment on the RfC which points out the fault of User:MaranoFan. First, User:MaranoFan tried to collapse my comment altogether as "threaded discussion" but now he has placed my comment on the RfC under the "Extended Comment" section completely miss categorizing my comment. Please do not mess with the RfC and its comments. It's not under your authority at all to mess the RfC or its results or any of the comments made by other users on the RfC. Also, please do not treat ANI lightly, it is for serious incidents. Our minor issue could waste the time of Administrators which could have been used to deal with other Vandals and serious incidents. I urge you to comply with the RfC and Consensus policies and stop messing with the RfC and its comments. Your hiding and messing with the comments by other users could alter the result of the RfC. Thank You
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  11:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

AWikiGenius, since you care so much about other people's time, are you going to remove the excessive bolding that has been deemed in violation of WP:TPG yourself, or will someone have to waste their time doing it for you?--NØ 11:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No one asked for you to do it, please do not assume. Please do not get heated over this simple issue. Let's make Wikipedia a better place and interact with each other kindly. If you would have simply asked me to correct the bold then I may have done it. Messing with the RfC and consensus building is not the way to do it.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  11:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was building nicely before the addition of 15kB of bolded text in the middle of the discussion. Kindly go and at least remove the excessive bolding from it. This thread can be closed when that happens, though your responses here do not make it clear whether it will?--NØ 11:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, this account is not a single purpose account if you look at my entire edit history. I don't have enough time to dedicate to Wikipedia as before. Now you are just finding excuses. I am just interested in this single topic for this period of time, and I voluntarily chose to spend my time on it instead of other articles. Is the Wikipedia Editor not allowed to focus on a single topic for even some weeks? Please don't stretch it. Your accusations are false and uncalled for. Regards. I only hope the best for you.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@AWikiGenius: - Single-purpose or not aside, entire paragraphs of bolded text are highly unnecessary, and are not conducive to any RfC. Try and keep your RfC comments short and readable. I struggle with not writing a paragraph myself sometimes, and I do like to use visual emphasis to make my points, but there's a line, yknow? --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's text emphasis. I don't see how text emphasis, by itself, can rise to the level of sanctionable disruption. But it's certainly distracting and rather offputting. I've closed more than 150 RfCs and I've never seen anything quite like it. AWikiGenius, I'm not going to demand you change that, but I'd suggest that you consider doing so. I've noticed that Wikipedians are more likely to listen to people who come across as calm and succinct than those who come across as overexcited.—S Marshall T/C 12:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just so everyone knows, there are some other concerns with them too (though mostly unrelated). They made WP:POINT edits at some Taylor Swift album articles: [95], [96], [97], after some of Swift's fans removed positive reviews from the article for Justin Bieber's album Justice. They have also hinted that they will try to remove professions from other singers' articles at the Bieber RFC, one of them being singer Meghan Trainor whose article they have never edited before they ran into conflict with one of her fans, me.--NØ 12:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Not convinced it is disruptive. It's not productive for them as for many readers they'll just ignore what they're trying to say. I for one wouldn't read through those paragraphs, I'd skip them completely, so it's more of a self-undermining thing that means no one will hear their points than something disruptive. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for all the kind suggestions and comments ❤, I've removed most of the Bold edits and changed them accordingly. I appreciate all the help.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  19:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

There's still a lot of bold. And in an even more puzzling turn of events, AWikiGenius has decided to move another user's comment under theirs. They likely kept it above AWikiGenius's essay because they did not want their normal, non-bolded, one-line comment to get lost in it.—NØ 19:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not broken any Wikipedia policies even if you think that There's still a lot of bold. As the WP:SHOUT clearly states, "ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate." which I have never done in Wikipedia before and it continues with "Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously." Which according to my opinion, after my recent change is more than enough.
And about the other issue, as I have stated in the edit summary, it is according to Chronological Order. Because the user commented after me but cut the line in between (diff). You are simply searching for excuses from the very beginning. Please, stop assuming so much and please stop bothering administrators for any tiny complaint you have, I am sorry this may sound harsh but this is ANI for serious incidents and not your personal complaint box. I urge you to try to find the solution and reasoning before coming to ANI. Thank You.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  20:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You made your first edit at ANI yesterday [98], no need to explain it to people who have been on Wikipedia for more years than you have months, Justin Bieber fan. Making large quotes off of guideline pages does the opposite of convince people you are experienced. And if you do go through with the WP:POINT edits you have hinted at the RFC page, that will constitute a clearer demonstration of your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Your reverse psychology will not be stopping anyone from reporting it. Anyways, most of the bold has been removed, so this discussion can close for now. I won't bother replying to any more wikilawyering from this user.--NØ 04:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's kinda ironic for you to mention that since 15 out of 20 of your top edits [link] are all about Meghan Trainor which you have clearly mentioned on your User page ^{(Backup Link of Latest revision of the User page)} that in your own words, you are not only a fan of her but you stan her. And also, the word "Meghan Trainor" is mentioned 35 times on your User page alone. At first, I didn't quite understand your constant threats of reporting me on the first day after I commented on the RfC because all I did was talk about an RfC and consensus for all the artists with similar inaccuracies, but after thinking about it in my clear mind and scrolling through your profile I found out that you are a Meghan Trainor fan whose Wikipedia Article also has the same inaccuracies for which you started the RfC in the Justin Bieber article for. Really amusing to say the least. I understand that it may be difficult when it involves your favourite artist, but Please try to be non-biased about this. Anyway, It's not up to me or you, it's up to the administrators, sources and the Wikipedia Policies. I'm sure the administrators will be non-biased and hold every artist's article accountable up to the same standards and will choose the result for the better of Wikipedia. I mean they are administrators because they are clearly qualified and experienced to do so. Please trust the administrators and please try to maintain the same mindset for all of the other artists consistently without any systemic bias for your favourites or prefer one artist over the other. I hope we can uphold every artist's article with similar "inaccuracies" which you thought were wrong, and not show any bias. It should also be your main concern as a Wikipedia Editor. I will uphold my duty as a Wikipedia Editor and I encourage you to do the same. I also didn't know that I didn't even have the right to defend myself just because I am a new user without being constantly bitten for it. I hope we can come to agreements in the future. Regards.
--- A Wiki Genius  ❤  12:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

AWikiGenius, do not bother me with any more pings. I have already stated I am done with this discussion. Your WP:POINT edits will be dealt with later when they happen.--NØ 13:01, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In my opinion, the RfC comments were indeed unreasonably long and unnecessarily bolded. However, I am not sure how this warrants an AN/I thread. jp×g 20:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Per JPxG ANI really wasn't necessary, but I also agree that AWikiGenius's wording style isn't helpful in getting things done. This shouldn't be a surprise to any experienced editor, that an editor who's been on Wikipedia four months would do something that is perceived by veteran editors as taboo. The best course of action would be a warning to AWikiGenius, not to keep bolding their wording because it's obviously an issue. Jerm (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey Jerm, thanks for your comment. Warning for breaking which policy exactly? Please mention. I am sorry if I may have misunderstood you, just trying to be clear.
    --- A Wiki Genius  ❤  20:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You haven't violated any policy, but what you are doing is not considered helpful. If editors are perceiving your contributions as unhelpful, you could be blocked on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Being concise, keeping discussions focused, avoiding excessive emphasis, and avoiding meta commentary are all part of the talk page guidelines. Being able to communicate effectively is required per WP:CIR, Wikilawyering is a disruptive behavior per WP:TE, resolving complaints about your editing is expected under WP:COMMUNICATE, refusing to do so is disruptive under WP:DE, and intentionally flouting WP:TLDR, WP:BLUDGEON and WP:KEEPCONCISE is disruptive as an extension of WP:GAME. I don't think there's any action needed here, it should just be a learning experience for a newer user. However that's not to say the user does not need to make adjustments, this is a minor issue now but "I'm not technically violating any policies" is not a game we're going to play if you're willfully flouting the community's basic behavioral expectations. Not saying the user is doing so as of yet, just that they should be aware that it is absolutely something that can and will get you blocked. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• In whole, agree with the spirit of what Swarm says above. I note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when a significant number of other editors express a concern about another editor's efforts, and it is not addressed, that hurts the project and is not a productive way to go forward. Sometimes less is more, as goes the saying. I don't give 2 cents about whatever the dispute is ultimately about, but a quick look at the RfC shows an extremely long post with much bolding and external links. I've boldly removed the bolding per the preceding comments which highlight how distracting this is, a fact reflected by the de facto violation of talk page guidelines this caused. I'd suggest AWikiGenius consider summarising their arguments and putting the rest of their detailed reasoning (evidence?) in a semi-hidden state (using {{hat}} and {{hab}}) so that the information is still there without occupying an undue amount of space. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• Request: Could AWikiGenius possibly add flashing multi-colored neon lights, bally-hooing spots, and a screaming siren to their signature? It's not quite distracting enough as it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Emptying categories out of process

User:Laurel Lodged has repeatedly but unsuccesfully proposed the merging of some categories at CfD:

• In April 2018, here, e.g. for Category:1883 establishments in Austria and many similar ones
• In April 2021, here, e.g. again for Category:1883 establishments in Austria and some other ones (see also at the same CfD the discussion directly below, which is more of the same).

Despite these being closed as "no consensus" on 15 April, Laurel Lodged started implementing his proposals the next day anyway, e.g. here and here.

I asked him to stop[99], and User:Liz did the same[100].

Two days later, he continued with these removals, e.g. here. Now User:Fayenatic london[101] and again Liz[102] asked him to stop.

Today, again two days later, Laurel Lodged continues to empty these categories despite his proposal to do so having failed[103]. I contacted him a final time about this[104], to no avail[105].

Can Laurel Lodged please be forced somehow to stop doing this? He may obviously disagree with the CfD result, but he is not at liberty to simply ignore it (and the pleas of multiple people to stop this). Fram (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Reply This nomination is premature and out of process. A RfC has been started to deal with this situation using a single article as a test case. See Talk:Aggsbach Charterhouse#RfC about the categorisation of this article. I think that it would have been very useful to have received third party input in the article, as opposed to the categorical, space and it's a pity that the nominator chose not to engage in a meaningful way with it before resorting to ANI. All remedies for his perceived grievance were not exhausted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • You are free to find a new consensus, but an RfC for a single article is not the best way to proceed (just like discussion on that article talk page was not the best solution for a problem spanning many articles). Even so, the RfC doesn't mean that you can continue removing these categories, and that is what has to stop. You started the RfC at 14.05[106], and then continued to remove the categories[107]. Starting an RfC is not a reason to continue to ignore the lack of consensus for your previous proposals, or the requests by people to follow that CfD closure. Fram (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Interim reply to above points Shouldn't that be for ANI to decide? Naturally, I dispute your interpretation of the April CFD. But even if your interpretation was accurate, it would not necessarily be binding on an individual article. Each article stands on its own merits; it cannot be assumed that because an article has existed in a category for a time that it should always exist there, especially after the creation of more accurate categories that were not available at the time of the original CFD. That' why a test case on 1 article was the most practical solution. It would have been tediuos indeed to have opened RfC on each article in dispute. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Laurel Lodged: When you completely ignore multiple people asking you to respect the CFD process, when people are polite and patient and you simply ignore them, I guess the next step is to mirror your rudeness. If you change this category again on any page before there is a clear consensus to do so, I'll block you from editing for intentional disruption until you explicitly promise to stop. And the responsibility for this ridiculously drastic step lies solely with you, and your refusal to talk to the 3-4 people who have all sent you messages about this over the last few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• I can commit to making no further changes in the Austro-Hungarian article and category space pending a resolution here. Should I prepare my defense case now? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  As long as you agree to stop until it is resolved, I don't see a need for a "defense case", as you put it. The content-related issue can be resolved elsewhere, and there won't be a conduct-related issue anymore. In other words, there won't be a resolution here for the category-related question, ANI isn't for content disputes. Some combination of the RFC, CFD, your user talk page, etc. will be more than adequate to handle the underlying question. The only issue for ANI is continuing to make disupted edits after multiple people asked you to stop. That appears to now be resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't the nominator also be blocked from making changes in this space while ANI is in progress? This [diff], for example, from a few minutes ago, shows him removing the Category:Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918). It most certainly was established in that state at that period of time. Why would he delete it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Because I'm not editing against consensus, and because the category I added instead can easily be a child of the one you refer to, like this. I think it is overkill (after all, we don't even have an article for the Empire of Austria (1867-1918) separate from Austria-Hungary, and my category already placed it inside the Austria-Hungary cat tree), but if you want you can add it (in the categories) as a parent cat to all the relevant Austria child cats, I won't revert you. Categorization in the articles at the lowest level, and categorization on higher levels (geographical, political, longer periods) in the category tree, that's the normal procedure. Fram (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• If this is you admitting that your edit to remove a legitimate category was incorrect, then I think that you ought to self revert. On that article and on all the other articles in the Austro-Hungarian space where you have also done it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• "If"... no. Parent categories usually don't belong in articles. Fram (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• So there is no contrition then? For the record, there was no duplication or superfluous categorisation with Category:Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918). It catches all establishments for the Empire. The other categories are date specific, therefore no overlap. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• In your argument, replace the category "Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918)" with e.g. "Establishments in Europe", which catches all establishments in Europe. It is not allowed on any articles that have a more specific subcategory, e.g. "establishments in 1898 in Europe", or "Establishments in France", or (usually) "Establishments in 1898 in France". (which would also override the "1898" one and the "France" one). Claiming that a non-date specific one and a date-sepcific one have no overlap because one catches all, and the other is date-specific, is simply weird. Fram (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not really sure a defence case is needed either, this appears to be a clear-cut case of ignoring a specific consensus a user doesn't agree with, especially considering they brought this to CfD and are now WP:FORUMSHOPPING with the RfC. If they continue to recategorise in this manner I think a block will be necessary to prevent further disruption. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Even Mr. Chauvin was permitted to enter a defense. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think comparing anything that happens on Wikipedia with anything to do with Chauvin, et al., is a really REALLY bad idea, you know? ——Serial 11:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think that a demonstration of prejudging a case without permitting the "accused" the benefit of making a statement in his own defence is an even worse idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I think topic-banning you from categories, narrowly construed, is an excellent idea. ——Serial 14:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's long been a problem that people (including Laurel Lodged) have been able to ignore the rules in this respect without sanction, & I would strongly welcome a tougher approach. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
• 1. This is not a court, so no, you don't get a "defense." You present your view on policy and try to back it up, that's it.
• 2. Comparing your ability to edit Wikipedia to a hot-button case of murder is horribly tone deaf, and you should reconsider ever doing that again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• +1 on point #2. You're headed down a path that will bring you no happiness here, Laurel Lodged. Please take a step back, and let the CFD happen. Even if consensus is wrong, you have to live with it. It sucks when you're sure you're right, but that's the way Wikipedia works. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• +1 on point #2. "To be born, or at any rate bred, in a hand-bag, whether it had handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life that reminds one of the worst excesses of the French Revolution." That author was being satirical. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Statement for the Defence This, among other possible paths, is the categorical hierarchy for the category cited by the complainant above: Category:1883 establishments in Austria → Category:Establishments in Austria by year → Category:Establishments in Austria → Category:Events in Austria → Category:Austrian culture → Category:Austria. So all roads lead to Austria, which has Austria as it topic article which is defined officially the Republic of Austria. This state was created either in 1918 or after the signing of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10 September 1919. Either way, the state did not exist in 1883. Nothing established or disestablished in 1883 can be said to have occurred in the modern republic.

The complainant deleted a parallel categorical hierarchy that I created. Let us take the example of just one article in 1883 – Arlberg railway. The categorical hierarchy that I created is Category:Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918) → Category:Events in the Empire of Austria (1867–1918) → Category:Events in Austria-Hungary → Category:Austria-Hungary → Category:Modern history of Austria → Category:History of Austria by period → Category:History of Austria → Category:Austria. Once again, all roads lead to Austria. Following this navigation path, however, it is obvious to the user that he/she is following the trail of a former country which also happens to have a shared history with a number of successor states, which, among others, includes Austria.

Why create the new category structure? Because it was suggested in the April 2020 CFD discussion. See "there certainly was an Austrian Empire as one of the constituent parts of Austria-Hungary. As we allow year categories for constituent parts in general (e.g. for Wales) there is no reason why we should not do that for Austria as well" and "Renaming to Year in Austrian Empire is definitely an option". (@Marcocapelle:). Also "One of the constituent parts of the Austrian Empire was the Archduchy of Austria. I do not see why we should not have categories dealing with this sub-national polity, but it should be defined by reference to its boundaries, not those of post-1918 Austria" (@Peterkingiron:). See also "Upmerge Category:1788 establishments in Austria to Category:1788 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire." (@Johnpacklambert:). See also "The relevant states were the Austrian Empire (1804-1867), and the Archduchy of Austria (1453-1806)." (@Dimadick:). Explicitly, here from Marcocapelle, "They are currently in the tree of Austria-Hungary but I am advocating keeping (the empire of) Austria and (the kingdom of) Hungary apart.". Again from Marcocapelle, even more clearly, "Austrian Empire would be a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. (Kingdom of) Hungary would be a child of Austrian Empire from 1804 to 1867 and a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. Both Austria and Hungary would be children of the Habsburg Monarchy before 1804.". Again, more explicitly, from Peterkingiron, "One of the constituent parts of the Austrian Empire was the Archduchy of Austria. I do not see why we should not have categories dealing with this sub-national polity, but it should be defined by reference to its boundaries, not those of post-1918 Austria". In summary, I took the above as a mandate to create the new category structures for sub-state entities in the Austria-Hungary.

The sub-state entities are Category:Empire of Austria (1867-1918), also formally known as "The Kingdoms and Lands represented in the Imperial Council" or more informally as Cisleithania; Category:Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), also formally known as the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen or more informally as "Transleithania". In this way, an article can more comfortably be assigned to a political entity that has more to do with what is currently recognised as encompassing the historic "Austria" while explicitly outruling the possibility of it being attributed to an entity that is not now, nor never was, "Austria" (i.e. the wider Hungarian lands).

In summary, I populated a number of articles with the new categorical structure for historical Austria (i.e. the Empire of Austria (1867-1918)]] as well as the relevant "by year" categories for the articles (e.g. Category:1883 establishments in Austria-Hungary) if they were lacking. I believe that this was the right thing to do and that it was supported by the advice of several senior editors. In hindsight, I should probably have left the "Austria" categories in place as a weird ghostly presence. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a conduct resolution board, you are arguing content instead. And like I said, all you needed to do, if you wanted a category tree for Category:Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918), all you needed to do was add this category to the existing "by year" cats, like I have done at Category:1883 establishments in Austria. If you make a better CfD, you may get agreement to rename these to "1883 establishments in the Archduchy of Austria" or "1883 establishments in the Empire of Austria" or whetever, but until then you shouldn't empty these categories in your preferred but unsupported manner. Fram (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I find the argument for misuse of the term very persuasive. The notion there is any coherent use of the term Austria pre-1918 is not really defensible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • ...which is the content dispute. This ANI is for the conduct dispute instead. Fram (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• It would have been better procedure to request renaming 19th-century categories "in Austria" to "in the Austrian Empire" by means of a new CfD nomination. I would have supported that. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• Austria (as a duchy, as an empire, as a separate component of Austria-Hungary, ... as a region: now I could go looking for sources but stuff like [108] "medieval%20austria"&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D%2522medieval%2Baustria%2522&ab_segments=0%2FSYC-5810-test%2Fagg_test_noocr&refreqid=fastly-default%3Afe2e1e006f9c92bd26ebd61138c99e6d&seq=1 the book being reviewed here, ... - although these categories are unlikely to exist for anything further back than the last few centuries...) certainly did exist prior to 1918. But that's a content dispute. As to the conduct issue: editing in defiance of existing consensus (or lack thereof) and ignoring advice by fellow editors is not really compatible with the purposes of a collaborative project and I'm quite sure LL should know better and should most definitively seek further dispute resolution (such as a wide-ranging RfC on an appropriate Wikiproject or noticeboard) instead of editing in as though they were in their own bubble. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• I see that Laurel Lodged has two blocks, in 2011 and 2013, for emptying categories out of process and one more in 2014 for "edit-warring across multiple articles and categories". This means that they are perfectly aware of the problem and are not interested in following our policies. This means they should be blocked long-term. I think we may be a bit lenient while they keep their promise not to touch categories without consensus having been establish, but one edit against consensus, and I am prepared to apply a long-term block.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As well as many category edits, Laurel Lodged does write articles, which don't afaik cause trouble. A ban from category edits is an option. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, but it can not be technically imposing by partial block from the category namespace, it should be then imposed and logged. May be this is the easiet outcome indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Tesldact Smih: Battleground behavior, aspersions, personal attacks, and more

Tesldact Smih (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Tesldact Smih frequently displays disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in his interactions with other editors, an approach that has degenerated to include aspersions and personal attacks. This and other behavior, detailed below, indicate an editor who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

After they cast aspersions against several editors in this discussion at WP:RSN, (Clearly also you are an unreliable judge. That is, your opinions are biased here, and complete and utter fabrications [...] are promulgated and misleading speculative opinion [...] is being promulgated, both here), Tesldact Smih leveled personal attacks against User:LuckyLouie here: LuckyLouie is lying and I trusted Lucky Louie to at least be fair minded. Tesldact Smih shortly thereafter received a template warning on their Talk page concerning these aspersions and personal attacks. In direct response to that message Tesldact Smih made a new personal attack: Vexatious much? And perhaps just an eensy weensy bit dictatorial (well, a lot dictatorial. Relatedly, in the RSN discussion Tesldact Smih responded to an observation of their personal attacks by doubling-down on the attacks against LuckyLouie (Lucky Louie was “lying by omission” – which he was and galling for me to see his [LuckyLouie's] comments – it was a betrayal of trust), and making a new personal attack: you cannot prevent yourself from committing a lie. All of this occurred more than a week after Tesldact Smih had, in response to his egregious personal attack in another discussion (Are you somehow incapable or otherwise incapacitated for some reason?), been explicitly informed of the WP:NPA policy.

The discussions at Talk:Grey alien (starting here) also illustrate Tesldact Smih's battleground approach. Not only are aspersions cast (one example here: It would be lovely if you could please familiarise yourself with the actual discussion we are having), but a consistent bludgeoning of the discussions is utilized, featuring disruptive and repetitive walls of text. Requests that Tesldact Smih refrain from such behavior (for example, here and here) were ineffective. That Tesldact Smih is WP:NOTHERE is further evidenced by the contents of their sandbox (which perhaps merits deletion per WP:U5): an extremely long, pseudoscience-pushing collection of WP:OR that seems constructed to right great wrongs, to use WP as a personal/promotional web host, and which Tesldact Smih claims here is intended to replace the current [Grey alien] article. Tesldact Smih's repeated expectation that other editors read that document before responding to their wall-of-text comments (for example here, here, here, and here) indicates an inability to engage appropriately with other editors.

Several experienced editors, including User:LuckyLouie, User:5Q5, and User:Schazjmd, have made good-faith efforts to help Tesldact Smih improve their approach and understanding of WP policies (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), unfortunately to little positive effect.

The ongoing combination of personal attacks, aspersions, bludgeoning, etc., merits administrative or community action. To prevent further and worsening disruption, I request consideration of a topic ban for User: Tesldact Smih from ufology topics (broadly construed, and including Grey alien and other hypothesized extraterrestrial beings/creatures) or a block. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would call the attention of the community to Tesldact Smih's behavior at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Brian Dunning (Skeptoid Media): Reliability as a source and User talk:Tesldact Smih#Bludgeoning discussions, casting aspersions, and personal attacks. Comments such as

• "I am sorry, but I cannot sit idly by while complete and utter fabrications in Dunning’s defence are promulgated",
• "Vexatious much? And perhaps just an eensy weensy bit dictatorial (well, a lot dictatorial, but who's counting hey)?" and
• "If you are unwilling to take advantage of my research expertise to improve the Grey Alien article, then perhaps you are in the wrong place"

are strong evidence that Tesldact Smih is unable or unwilling to cooperate with other editors in the areas of UFOs and space aliens. I recommend a topic ban with the usual offer to appeal after six months. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

AE would also probably have been appropriate for this, but I also support a topic ban since all their edits so far appear to promote on a fringe topic with a false balance or from typical ufologist's view (their sandbox work can also attest to this, other than previously mentioned issues). They can write decent content and this could arguably be worked with and improved, but when their approach is criticized they tend to be unreasonable. A topic ban would allow them to learn how Wikipedia works elsewhere and hopefully demonstrate a general interest in the encyclopedia. To resume about Dunning, Skeptoid is a long-notable series commonly used in relation to fringe and pseudoscientific topics (and not all episodes are by Dunning). When told about WP:PARITY, a straw-man was argued that for some unrelated difficulties Skeptoid should suddenly be avoided. They bludgeoned the discussion there but I believe that they eventually understood that. Future may tell... —PaleoNeonate – 16:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Classic WP:SOUP. Even after multiple explanations of policy, they don't seem to grasp it, specifically WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:SECONDARY sourcing. They completely reject the concept of WP:VNT — arguing instead for their own analysis of WP:PRIMARY sources via endless Talk page debate [109]. A TBAN could be helpful to end the disruption and perhaps encourage them to work on other parts of the encyclopedia that they are not so emotionally invested in. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks like RGW stuff to me. An overly aggressive campaign to remove a source whose conclusions they don't like, rapidly morphed into attacks on anyone who doesn't accept their view as ineffable wisdom. I advocate a TBAN from fringe topics for at least 6 months to let them learn the ropes in an area that's not such a hot button for them. 1,300 edits, almost all to User:Tesldact Smih/sandbox. Says it all, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A quote from the current sandbox:

No history of grey aliens can be complete without considering the role of the nation state. UFOs-as-alien-spacecraft represents an existential threat to the nation state, the fear being that a widespread belief in UFOs-as-alien-spacecraft will threaten the sovereignty of nation states (people of earth...).[123][124] Thus, since at least 1956 - and the CIA inspired Robertson Panel (1953; whose recommendations were ratified by Cold War powers in 1956[125]) - nation states have launched a covert war of disruption, debunking and denial against the idea of UFOs-as-alien-spacecraft, co-opting leading Hollywood and key academic, scientific and media identities to that end. Denial of FOI requests for ufological information under the blanket ruling of "for national security reasons", in the eyes of the nation state is literally true, so nation states tend to withold genuine UFO information, while at the same time injecting misinformation and disinformation into the popular and scientific ufological discourse.

The supposed intent of the current sandbox is to replace the current Grey alien article, which simply isn't going to happen, per WP:SOAPBOX. Despite their protestations to the contrary, the individual is clearly profringe and should probably be topic banned. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

If there is to be a topic ban -- which looks like the way this is going -- blanking that sandbox would seem to be appropriate.

Given Conservapedia's page on UFOs[110] ("Project Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who flew as Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 14, declared that NASA has known for sixty years (as of July 24, 2008) that extraterrestrial scouts have contacted various governments of Earth, yet no government has ever dared admit this"), Tesldact Smih may find that they welcome his/her research on grey aliens. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how to respond, or even if I should, for I believe my editing record and the article I was invited to write speak for themselves. All I can say otherwise is that I have never intentionally breached WP guidelines. Yes, I have made mistakes and some missteps, primarily in the context of being new here, however whenever those errors have been pointed out, I believe have acknowledged them in good grace, determined not to repeat. Naturally, I will abide by any determination WP makes in this regard. Thank you.Tesldact Smih (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm everything other editors are describing here is accurate. Per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, I think a temporary topic ban is appropriate, not permanent only because Tesldact Smih claims to be a new editor. If the behavior continues after the ban, then further action would be needed. 5Q5|^✉ 13:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I have seen zero evidence that Tesldact Smih even understands their basic problem, which is that what they want Wikipedia to say about grey aliens does not and never will agree with reliable secondary sources and the consensus of other Wikipedia editors. I recommend an indefinite topic ban from aliens and UFOs. After six months of editing other areas of Wikipedia without aspersions, personal attacks, etc., Tesldact Smih should be allowed to appeal the topic ban. Only if they demonstrate that they now understand what they did wrong and show us that they were able to spend six months in other areas without repeating the objectionable behavior should the topic ban be lifted.

Above, Tesldact Smih claims "I have made mistakes and some missteps, primarily in the context of being new here, however whenever those errors have been pointed out, I believe have acknowledged them in good grace, determined not to repeat" I believe that the record at Talk:Grey alien, User talk:Tesldact Smih, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard clearly shows them being repeatedly warned and repeatedly responding by escalating the behavior they were warned about. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

By temporary topic ban, I mean at least six months, the same as proposed by editor Guy above. 5Q5|^✉ 15:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Support topic ban. The battleground approach demonstrated in their latest edit to Talk:Grey alien, in which they go to ridiculous lengths to read into another editor's comments and draw spurious conclusions brought me to support the proposed ban. However, as they have never edited any other topic, I expect they will stay away for six months, then return and resume the same behavior. For that reason, my preference would be an indef topic ban, so that some indication of understanding wikipedia norms would have to be demonstrated before lifting it. Schazjmd (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Support topic ban - Per my previous comment above. —PaleoNeonate – 04:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Support topic ban Per my previous comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The difference being that the temporary topic ban would automatically expire after six months while with the standard topic ban the editor has to successfully appeal after six months. The idea is that they have to edit productively in other areas to show that they can behave rather than just sitting it out without editing and then going right back to the behavior that resulted in the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Guy Macon, that addresses my concern. Schazjmd (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

Per WP:SNOW further discussion is unlikely to change the result, and meanwhile we are seeing continued walls of text and casting (somewhat milder) aspersions on Talk:Grey alien. May we please have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, make a decision, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Things haven't improved. Their latest Talk page comments [111] continue to be focused to the person rather than to the content. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Zhjsb

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

---

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

Hi. This user has been asked to stop creating non-notable articles on cricketers, to which they acknowledged. However, they've just continued to ignore this. They seem to have massive WP:CIR issues, including, but not limited to creating articles that already exist. Everything they've created is up for deletion.

A side issue is that it's almost certainly a sock account of a banned user, and there's a live SPI case. I don't want to jump the gun on that or forum-shop, but this user's edits at best are disruptive, and I'd be grateful if an admin could take a look to expedite this matter. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: they're blocked now, just had a look at the SPI archive for that user... looks like they're trying to give Daft a run for his money! StickyWicket (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, and thanks to @Ponyo: for the block. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought Justshepu was part of the puppetry, but I saw nothing done, just thought I point that out, regards. Govvy (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:EditorUnitedStates

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

---

• EditorUnitedStates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Steven Hotze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I got a newly registered user removing sourced content at Steven Hotze. I did send two template warnings but no response. Based on this edit summary and the content being removed, it seems the editor is trying to protect the image of Steven Hotze. Jerm (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm: Looking at the page now, I concur that it looks like the new user is removing applicable categories and content. The citation of the anti-LGBT activism to Texas Observer seems sufficient enough if the magazine is reliable (which it appears to be based upon its awards). We probably should better attribute what media is making the claims, since it's a BLP, except where the claims are widely reported. Even the particular label of "conspiracy theorist" is be cited to multiple sources calling him that in the article. The editor seems to not understand WP:NOTCENSORED and it's quite possible that they are WP:NOTHERE. In any case, the new user looks like they need some time to cool down.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully the massive blanking of sourced content is over. The page is on my watchlist, but I ask someone also keep an eye on the article. Jerm (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked one week. Hopefully that will get their attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Something fishy at Conservapedia article

See [112]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant to show you this talk page, which has a similar notice: Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia Félix An (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

You've been trolling at TCM this week too. Oui? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

No, I have not been trolling. My edits were made in good faith. Félix An (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, AN/I is for "discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". How does this report reflect that?

Also, it doesn't seem you have tried discussing this with Félix An before coming here? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Please, just give me a break. I have enough things to stress about already, and I really didn't want two angry Wikipedia editors to bully me today. Félix An (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Then you have a simply solution: don't troll and don't push POVs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trolling though! How am I supposed to prove that I am not? I did not mean to push any POV, I am against extremist conservatives, but I think that people need to get along with each other, since there is an inherent enmity between CP and WP. Félix An (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia fails WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI, so we cannot treat it "fairly". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia was indeed a fundamentalist reaction to Wikipedia but it's not WP's role to justify their apologetics or find a common ground between that ideological project and an encyclopedia that aims to be mainstream and reality-based. It cannot be considered a competitor and the claim that WP editors shouldn't edit it because of a conflict of interest is nonsense (it may make sense for people involved with CP). This is not very different than another claim I saw here where my reply was this. You claim that you would like to avoid conflict on WP, then I advise to carefully read what others write. There also are many other topics on Wikipedia to edit if these are too sensitive to approach rationally. —PaleoNeonate – 10:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that there is a problem (Félix An seems to think anyone who disagrees withe them does so because of systematic bias[113]) I agree that this ANI report is premature. Go to their talk page and try to reason with them. Stay calm and avoid any aggression no matter what they do. If that doesn't work, come back with specific diffs by them from after your discussion that demonstrate a problem ANI should address. I recommend that you withdraw this now. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

And here are some good edits that I made recently to prove I am a bona fide editor. Shown is a photo that I took (with my very own camera!!) recently for the article GO Transit rail services#Door operation

A picture THAT I TOOK just for Wikipedia

I've also done some AfC reviewing. Please, give me a break. I am stressing out about people getting angry at me right now, and I wasn't asking for trouble. I didn't mean anything in bad faith. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Félix An (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's a silly notice, Félix, please don't re-add that. Although to be fair, that notice at Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia is pretty silly too. I'm removing it, we'll see if that sticks. An ANI thread is a tempest in a teapot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I understand. I guess it could be removed in the other talk page too. Roxy, please forgive me. I stress about you and a certain other editor having a sentiment against me every day. I'm sorry, and I beg on my knees for you to be nicer to me. Félix An (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  Am I still in trouble? Please, I do not want to get blocked from WP. The website means a lot to me. Félix An (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Félix An: No one is going to be blocked because of this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Félix An: I'm not angry at you: you understood the problem and stopped doing it. That's OK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu OK. Sorry about that. Félix An (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved already, but I'll point out that both notices seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of a WP:COI. Simply using or participating in a website isn't sufficient for a COI - we don't consider people to have a COI on Twitter, Facebook, Yahoo, Google, Reddit, and so on for using those sites, not even if they're extremely prolific users. A COI has to be sufficient to When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, which is to... further the interests of the encyclopedia. Hmm. That seems odd to me - I would assume people agree that a Wikimedia employee, unlike a random editor, could reasonably have a COI on those pages? But that wording feels a bit tangled and doesn't really reflect our actual mission as clearly as it could. I've started a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest, though perhaps I am overthinking it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

All pages of English wikipedia when it comes to Portugal are being vandalized by a user for a few years and who later joined a group of friends to help him in the process.

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

---

I think this is not a new topic for Wikipedia, because wikipedia have already managed to block many users who have vandalized pages for long years. But I wanted to report a user who vandalized Wikipedia for 2 years, and his collaborating friends too, he mainly vandalizes the pages of Portugal, everything that has to do with Portugal he is there to vandalize, it is not a new thing 10 years ago a group of vandalizers were caught to vandalize the pages around Portugal and they was blocked, this user he was blocked in Portuguese wikipedia, these people cannot continue to vandalize Portugal's pages on Wikipedia, and they have to be blocked, if they are not I will speak to the direction of wikipedia hope that they resolve the matter, i am not a wikipedia user i created the account today to report it because this cannot continue, he is known for vandalizing the page of the portuguese empire and the list of the biggest empires in wikipedia, user - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TompaDompa

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicefactsmoment (talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• If you're going to claim that another user is "vandalizing" part of Wikipedia, you need to provide evidence, in the form of links to specific edits. Also, as the big bar at the top of the page says, if you start a discussion about an editor on this page, you MUST notify them. I've gone ahead and done that for you. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok Thank you, he instilled his own idea based on a theory, and does not allow other users to place other more realistic and historical sources that his source has everything but history, in this case in the list of the biggest empires, the Portuguese empire is always removing editions from other users, and often asking to block them, in other editions of it, it would be a long list, but you can see in the user's edition record, he himself removed that the Portuguese empire was the first global empire when are historically proven data and were also previously on wikipedia. links: 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires 2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Empire&action=history, here then is an extreme stubbornness - 3- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires ; he seems to rule on Wikipedia and the others are unable to do anything against it, and from what I saw in his editions it has been going on for many years. (Justicefactsmoment (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC))

• (Non-administrator comment) Looks like a sock of Roqui15. JBchrch (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• I suspected Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mark Boron notice how notice the (brackets) around the username.92.2.74.169 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:IanElam and WP:VERIFY

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

Persistent addition material that is unsourced or fails verification since March. Multiple warnings issued on talk page; no response. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 21:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

IanElam has only made six edits this month, and your saying IanElam as been disruptive since March. Why did you wait this long to file a report? Jerm (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I was working my way through the Uw-unsourced warning templates. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's hold off on action until the user starts editing again and repeats the same behavior multiple times. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sudipto Surjo's block expires and they immediate resume their disruptive conduct

Sudipto Surjo (talk · contribs) was reported by me to this board on April 11, for template disruption, unilateral page moves and disregard for collaboration. There was already a strong case for blocking them, but they expounded the issue better than I could have, by continuing their conduct, rather than engaging with us here. As such, they were blocked by El C for one week. Their block expired and immediately, they resumed their disruptive behavior, which includes adding unsuitable content to navboxes and making massive unilateral page moves without discussion. I find it unsettling that they did not respond in the slightest to the block, but rather resumed their uncollaborative work, showing no sign of interest in collaboration or engagement. More extensive disciplinary measures may be in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 01:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning, as well, that Canterbury Tail expressed their suspicion that Sudipto Surjo is a sockpuppet of Aledownload. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel that a permanent block would be fully justified at this point. Deb (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the next one should be permanent, but I was willing to give them a bit of rope.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Any objections if I increase it to six months? Deb (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Not from my side--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

90.179.1.217

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

---

Special:Contributions/90.179.1.217 looks like self-promotion of cs:Vratislav Preclík, amatérský historik (amateur historian), esp. edits like [114]. They were warned, see User_talk:90.179.1.217#Please stop promoting yourself, but have not stopped. Wikisaurus (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This IP user hasn't edited since October 14, 2020 - over 6 months ago. Why are we discussing a possible issue about this user now? The IP user is  Stale; there's no action needed at this time. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Compromised account

Resolved

Can someone take a look at Tom.doyers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as it is possibly compromised; no edits between 2015 and a vandal edit this morning. CU check may also be required. Thanks Nightfury 10:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Tom.doyers is blocked indefinitely by Maile66. I believe i request it not on this page, but in AIV instead. 36.77.95.2 (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Nightfury - Unfortunately, checkuser data won't help here. The user hasn't previously edited since 2015, and technical data available to checkusers only go back three months from the time that the data was logged. We won't have any basis of comparison here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (again)

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

---

10 days ago NonhumanAnimalAutonomy was blocked by @EvergreenFir: for WP:FRINGE, WP:RGW, WP:BLP violations (requiring revdel), and ultimately being WP:NOTHERE. The discussion is here. After him writing extensively on his talk page about how he would be better (including a promise to change his username, which he hasn't done), his unblock request was eventually approved. He has now gone back to his old self, this time edit warring and making personal attacks at Veganism. A cursory glance at the edit history will show his edit warring, including attempts to WP:GAME the system, making personal attacks against Bodney, and disregarding the views of others because they're not vegan. Given that he has now claimed to be leaving the project for the second time (which is hilarious for an account that is 12 days old), I think we make the decision easier for him and simply indef him. He's clearly incompatible with this project and is more concerned with pushing his own personal ideology and casting aspersions on other editors rather than building an encyclopedia. — Czello 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked again for NOTHERE. FWIW I wouldn't have unblocked the first time, but that's just me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Has there ever been a more sick burn than enjoy your pizza? I think not. Greyjoy ^talk 13:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sick burn! ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Editor not using edit summaries

Willform (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not using edit summaries for virtually any of their edits despite two warnings I've given them for this, nor have they communicated regarding other warnings they've been given. As they often make contentious edits in WP:AP2, these things are especially important. I'm not sure if AN/I is the appropriate venue (it feels a bit harsh) to address this, but it seemed like the logical next step after warnings have failed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There is actually no requirement to leave an edit summary. Indeed, one of our erstwhile administrators almost never does so (see here). Mind you, he doesn't ever seem to do any administration either. 81.129.194.183 (talk) 18:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a requirement to WP:COMMUNICATE though, and this editor is not doing so through any other channels. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and copyright violations at Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

User:AmirahBreen has been tendentiously editing the article on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed for at least several months, resulting in an article that read like a laundry list of criticisms and complaints against the subject. There have been numerous copyright violations as well, mostly sentences lifted directly from sources or closely-worded paragraphs; a few have merited revdel.

AmirahBreen created a BLP/N thread stating, "I am concerned for this article because I feel there are attempts being made by a group of people to control the content of the article and the admin who is contacting them and asking them to do so is at the center of it." AmirahBreen disputed that they were editing in a slanted fashion, and spent a fair amount of time disparaging other editors, at one point referring to them as "a pack of hounds" while saying they were supporters of the article subject trying to whitewash the article. Attempts to remove the negative POV are met with reversions and stonewalling/talk page bludgeoning. Diffs from mid December 2020 - mid March 2021 are unavailable due to copyright revdels, and some of the other diffs provided may end up revdel'd due to other copyright concerns. This list below is not exhaustive, but I'm trying to balance TLDR with other editors' time.

[115] Large BLP/N thread.

WP:NPOV

[116] Restores negative content to lead that was not fully supported by cited sources, and re-adds NPOV "refuses to leave" language. [117] Argues to keep NPOV text about renouncing American citizenship. [118] My removal, as the addition is revdel'd. Added a negative quote from an analyst not mentioned in either source cited. [119] Again my removal, addition is revdel'd. Sources cited do not support the language. "opposition candidates were again targeted by government forces, while taking part in a protest in Mogadishu over the election delay, when shells fired at them landed inside Mogadishu Airport." The chaos at the protests came just hours after an intense exchange of gunfire erupted in Mogadishu in the early hours of Friday morning...said in a statement that “armed militias” had attacked military posts with the intention of taking over government buildings... he said.Mr. Khaire later said in a news conference that shells fired against opposition protesters had landed inside the city’s international airport. Source is clearly not stating government attacks on protesters or government shelling of the international airport as fact. [120] Added "The Lower House attempted a motion on 12 April 2021 to extend Mohamed's term by two years with no elections taking place, which the Upper House declared unconstitutional." Source says Somalia’s lower house of parliament voted overwhelmingly to extend by two years the term for the government of President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo... The special session saw 149 MPs vote in favor of the extension, with only three opposed. [121] Added negative content about conditions and food ration cuts in a UN funded refugee camp in Kenya. [122] Removed supportive text from Italian undersecretary of foreign affairs. Was sourced. [123] Adds a negative quote from the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations committee responding the the Lower House's vote. This is WP:DUE while the Italian undersecretary's support should be removed? [124] Removing tags with majority of editors supporting the tag. [125] "The prime minister apologized for the attacks pointing out that peaceful demonstrations are a democratic right.The prime minister apologized for the attacks pointing out that peaceful demonstrations are a democratic right." The prime minister did not apologize for the attacks, and the wording that was removed from the response also contributes to the POV. Source states the prime minister was "sorry this happened" and "peaceful demonstrations are a constitutional right but armed ones are not." [126] Placing blame on article subject directly, source actually says the administration is not ready. Picked the negative information out of the source, as the source also says “There are several reasons which caused this fiasco," Abdulfatah said. "Lack of good will is one of them because both sides were engaged on defeating each other instead of focusing on the gist of the issue. Secondly, there is a degree of recklessness among the Somali politicians because, all the Somali people were waiting the results from the talks but yesterday both sides were delivering wealth of information and started demonizing each other.” [127] Adds "an estimated 20 people were killed." Sources cited say "A protest leader said “some have died” after the clashes." "“Some have died and others were wounded,” he said, without giving details." "The United States Embassy in Somalia said that “as many as 20 people may have been killed or injured” in the morning clashes in the capital"

Close paraphrasing, copyright infringement

"some view this election impasse as a new stumbling block for Somalia's road to democratisation." There are those who view this election impasse as a new stumbling block for Somalia’s road to democratisation source - removal - addition revdel'd "The United Arab Emerates expressed "grave concern" over the deteriorating situation in Somalia, calling upon the interim government of Mohamed and all parties, "to demonstrate the highest levels of restraint in order to achieve Somalia's aspirations to build a secure and stable future for all", and expressed its hope that stability would prevail in Somalia, "in a way that preserves its national sovereignty and fulfills the aspirations of its brotherly people"." UAE expresses grave concern over deteriorating situation in Somalia... called upon the interim government and all parties to demonstrate the highest levels of restraint in order to achieve Somalia's aspirations to build a secure and stable future for all... The UAE expressed its hope that stability would prevail in Somalia in a way that preserves its national sovereignty and fulfills the aspirations of its brotherly people.source - removal - addition revdel'd In November 2020 the First Deputy Speaker of the Upper House of Parliament, Abshir Mohamed Bukhari, said that Mohamed had proven unreliable in overseeing the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in the country First Deputy Speaker of the Upper House of Parliament, Abshir Mohamed Bukhari, has said that President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo has proved unreliable in overseeing the upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections in the country. source - removal - addition revdel'd Mohamed was accused of wanting to subvert Somali nationhood to consolidate power. And there are those who suspect incumbent President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed ‘Farmajo’ of wanting to subvert Somali nationhood to consolidate power. source - removal - addition opposition party leaders wrote to the Turkish ambassador in Somalia urging the Turkish government not to send the shipment, for fear that Mohamed would use it to 'hijack' the upcoming elections. Somalia’s opposition says it has written to Turkey urging it not to send a planned shipment of weapons to a special police unit that they fear incumbent President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed could use to “hijack” forthcoming elections. After hearing that Turkey planned to send a shipment of weapons and ammunition, including 1,000 G3 assault rifles and 150,000 bullets to Harma’ad, a special unit in Somalia's police, between Dec. 16 and Dec. 18 opposition candidates said they had learned Turkey was planning to deliver 1,000 G3 assault rifle and 150,000 bullets to Harma’ad, a special unit in Somalia’s police, between Dec. 16 and Dec. 18.source - removal - addition Council of Presidential Candidates announced that they no longer recognise Mohamed as the President of Somalia since his term expired without any agreement on the path toward elections to replace him opposition leaders say they no longer recognise President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed after his term expired without a political agreement on a path towards elections to replace him. source - removal - addition revdel'd the electoral implementation tensions had been compounded by questions over the legitimacy of Mohamed’s mandate following the expiry of his constitutional term in office on 8 February And electoral implementation tensions have been compounded by questions over the legitimacy of President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed’s mandate following the expiry of his constitutional term in office, on 8 February. source - removal - addition revdel'd to overcome Al Shabaab, to provide national security sufficient to organise universal suffrage and to ensure a complete constitutional review of Somalia's supreme law. promised to tame Al-Shabaab, provide national security sufficient to organize universal suffrage, and ensure a complete constitutional review for the country's supreme law. source - removal - addition Abdi Hashi, was not invited to this week’s meeting despite being from Somaliland, and he has argued that he, not the president’s people, should select Somaliland’s commission members. Abdi Hashi, was not invited to this week’s meeting despite being from Somaliland, and he has argued that he, not the president’s people, should select Somaliland’s commission members. source - addition - removal

Article talk page bludgeoning
AmirahBreen · 141 (64.7%) Ohnoitsjamie · 28 (12.8%) ScottishFinnishRadish · 14 (6.4%) Removing huge amounts of own commentary from article talk page: [128] [129] [130] [131] [132]

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This feels like a perfect candidate for WP:3 rather than ANI 2001:4898:80E8:3:C18B:6B0C:568:318C (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that applies due to the BLP thread, other users discussing during the RFC and other users editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The talk page from March 13th onward is just a series of conversations between you two with next to no outside edits aside from two from User:Ohnoitsjamie. This is why I suggest a 3rd party, because it's clear you two disagree, and that otherwise it looks like a content dispute. Would you consider trying WP:3? 2001:4898:80E8:3:C18B:6B0C:568:318C (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the BLPN thread linked above to see why I don't think that's a worthwhile use of time. See [133] for an example. Anyone who disagrees with them is a bad actor who is part of a group acting in concert against them. I was a neutral, uninvolved editor when I started editing the article and since I agreed the article was slanted I was just someone Ohnoitsjamie summoned to do his bidding. A third opinion also won't address the significant copyright violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I have been following this page for awhile due to me answering an edit request on the article. If anything, ScottishFinnishRadish is the third opinion when there was a dispute between AmirahBreen and Ohnoitsjamie earlier. I had remained silent on this matter as I don't have the capacity to wade through 93 sources in another nation's leader's article, but tracking the edit history thus far indicates that AmirahBreen exhibits signs of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV in this article while ScottishFinnishRadish has been trying to neutralise the tone on the article only to be reverted by AmirahBreen. SFR has accurately summarised AmriahBreen's behaviour on the article and her behaviour is worthy of attention here rather than WP:3 as I feel that no number of third party opinions will cause AmirahBreen to take a step back. – robertsky (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I first came across this article as a result of an WP:RFPP awhile back. As I've noted in past threads including the original WP:BLPN thread I created to try to get more eyes on the article, the article reads like a running tally of all things critical about the subject without much regard for quality of source, and most of it had been written by AmirahBreen. I applaud ScottishFinnishRadish's efforts to reign in the negative POV slant of the article, and I've tried to pitch in along the way, but I believe we're beyond WP:3 here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if anyone who has a bit of time to spare could take a look at this and offer input. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP User:68.6.77.55

Resolved

Legal threats are not civil. [134] I was referred here by a Teahouse editor and I now see that this action by another editor has been taken here [135]. Is that sufficient? Thanks. --Ooligan (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooligan, they've been warned, so I'd give them a chance to heed the warning. You can come back here if they do it again. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

ok, thanks --Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Iamsarbmalhi - possibly NOTHERE

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

I am growing concerned at this user's behaviour and lack of responsiveness. To date, they have not responded even once to any of the COI or UPE messages left for them. All of their articles seem to be covert advertising and borderline COI spam. Not blatant enough for WP:AIV but I think that their deleted edits show a pattern of concern. Their lack of interest in editing in areas where they don't have a COI and repeated attempts to game the system by recreating the same articles over and over again make me concerned that this account is WP:NOTHERE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• An indef for this quite clearly WP:UPE editor seems entirely warranted, IMHO. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • He’s spamming his block appeal in his talk page. Kaseng55 (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Procedurally declined one, left other open. I wouldn't consider 2 appeals spamming worthy of revoking TPA. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Needlessly vexatious

Can someone take a look at User:JimboBuckets99? It seems to include some needlessly vexatious remarks, including the blunt lie that the user is a Wikipedia:Service awards#Master Editor (or Illustrious Looshpah). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, WP:SVC says: These awards are unofficial – displaying the wrong one carries no penalty (except possible disapproval from other editors), so there's nothing to be done about that. As for the userboxes, some of them are needlessly divisive per WP:UBCR and should probably be removed. However, you should raise your concern with the editor directly before coming to AN/I. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The userboxes seem like a bigger problem than the false award, especially the one that says" This User Does NOT Believe that Truth is Arrived at by Consensus", since that belief seems to run contrary to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia that decisions are arrived at via consensus. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Jackattack1597, interesting... that one struck me as one of the few that could be kept. Which part of WP:UBCR do you think it violates? The one about non-Christians being "wrong about their worldview" seemed the most problematic to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reflection, that one doesn't really seem to violate the policy, and I definitely agree with you about the wrong about their worldview one being very problematic, and the marriage between a man and women one is pretty obvious since that userbox was previously deleted in an MFD.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Since WP:OWN is rather clear that nobody owns their user page and that addressing significant concerns is acceptable, I'll go ahead and do just that by trimming quite a few of the boxes, not limited to the ones which are avoiding community consensus by being recreations of already deleted ones... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can anybody tell if User:JimboBuckets99/Userboxes/Userbox Name is G4 eligible to an already deleted template? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  RandomCanadian, this is the closest MfD I could find, and the outcome was actually keep: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BillCJ/UBX/atheism Is Harmful. Probably best to start a new MfD, especially since that one is 11 years old. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any previously deleted ones matching that one either; a new MFD seems necessary, but I'm not entirely sure if it would be deleted since incoherent isn't quite as bad as harmful, and even the harmful one was kept, albeit a decade ago. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jackattack1597, a lot has changed in 11 years. I think it's worth a try. I opened an MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:JimboBuckets99/Userboxes/Userbox Name. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  It might be a good idea to start two separate MFDs; one for the atheism and religion is harmful boxes, which were kept a decade ago when standards were more lax, and one for this one.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Jackattack1597, if you want to start an MfD for the old userbox, go ahead; I'm only interested in addressing the issue at hand. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  As we say in French, l'union fait la force, so I've created an MfD for the two "X is harmful" ones (you two seem to be already aware, anyway). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  So a userbox that says that I believe that God's existence can be proven objectively is "divisive"? JimboBuckets99 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, that one's borderline. Several that RandomCanadian removed, though, were very inflammatory and not borderline at all. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  It's borderline inflammatory to suggest that you are a traditional theist? JimboBuckets99 (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, I don't think so. I wouldn't have removed that one. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  JimboBuckets99, I restored that one. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, might have been a bit harsh on that (though Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially_divisive_words does seem to recommend avoiding using "believes"; and I fail to see what one's religious convictions have to do with building an encyclopedia [especially since WP:NPOV quite clearly states that the only opinions which are relevant are those of WP:RS.]). But nevermind, there are plenty of silly userboxes so that's not a major issue nor a fire I'm on which I'm interested enough to start pouring oil on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I personally think userboxen related to religion or politics are generally a bad idea. This isn't social media, it's an encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think the allowances for what is and what is not acceptable in user pages might need rechecking, but I broadly agree that userboxes about politics and religion have little purpose, except maybe for editors who might have some expertise in these areas (but then that's entirely not the same as the kind of userboxes we're facing here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  They're also usually more tolerated for experienced productive editors (i.e. WP:NOTWEBHOST may apply). —PaleoNeonate – 09:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could the username be a violation of policy? Jimbo is most probably a reference to Wales... —PaleoNeonate – 09:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• While we need to police problem edits and problem editors, it's not really necessary to police people's userboxes. Nor is it a particularly good idea. Userpages like this one are helpful. I mean, finding someone with a userpage like that is a lot like finding an insect with yellow and black stripes on its thorax. You get some warning.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the appropriate guidance can be found in WP:UBCR as previously cited, specifically where it says Express what you do like, rather than what you don't like. Express what you comprehend, rather than what you don't comprehend. Express what you do, rather than what you don't. Express who you are, rather than who you aren't. It would also be helpful to remember that the entire point of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is that it is open and welcoming of editors of all religious beliefs and those who have no religious beliefs. Userboxes that explicitly denigrate other users' beliefs are not conducive to the broader project. Hyperion35 (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
• This user is now at WP:DRN, claiming to be an outside observer, but obviously part of the conflict... —PaleoNeonate – 00:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps the revived Fisheries and Fishing project can help us assess all the WP:Trouts in need of serving here. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sock in the ARBCOM:EE area

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

---

Who is Special:Contributions/All_for_Poland? I don't know enough about the topic area to know who it is but clearly... @Primefac: so as not to ping the first person in alphabetic list on ArbCom... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Also they're quite obviously WP:NOTHERE so if anybody fancy a block on those grounds... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

This user has been indefinitely blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Epipelagic

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

Back in 2019/2020, I had marked a few inactive WikiProjects as inactive because they had no activity, but fast-forward to this year, Epipelagic reactivates WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing which was one of the WikiProjects I marked as inactive. I didn't care if the editor did because they are a legit member of the Wikiproject. However, the editor didn't know how to reactivate the assessment table. I didn't know how either, but I wasn't panicking because nothing is truly lost on Wikipedia. However, Epipelagic was obviously panicking because I apparently put the project in shambles. I wanted to help, but then editor gestured that I was childish/immature. I did not take kindly to that. I did not want to help, but the issue was later resolved, see full discussion.

Now today, two weeks after the discussion, Epipelagic finds another one of the WikiProjects I marked as inactive, WikiProject Soil. Only in this WikiProject, the editor is not a true member. Epipelagic reverts my edit which was me marking the WikiProject as inactive then proceeds to insert themselves as a member of the WikiProject. After, Epipelagic sends me this message demanding that I revert my "foolish" revision. Not only that, as I said before, Epipelagic is not a legit member nor am I, but the WikiProject is obviously no longer active, but Epipelagic doesn't actually care to maintain WikiProject Soil but is trying to insert authority/prove a point, see my reply. The editor did not respond to my reply, but instead, started canvassing, going to User:Sadads's talk page and asking for support in the argument.

I've had enough with the insults, Epipelagic started the discussion but doesn't want to continue it but wants someone else to join in on the argument and does not actually care to maintain WikiProject Soil. Jerm (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Epipelagic going full WP:BATTLE over something weird? That rang a bell. I’ve only had one interaction with this editor AFAIK, and it it left me very puzzled what his deal is. Fishing techniques included as a “technique” Jesus’ Miraculous catch of fish. Someone took it out for fairly obvious reasons and Epipelagic reverted. I only involved myself once with the one revert of Epipelagic. They reverted me but their response in their edit summary and in this thread seemed to be both unnecessarily ballistic and just plain strange. (Apologies for the ‘WTF’ comment for which I should be ...trouted.) They took the trouble to dig through my contribs to make this comment about an article I’d created 6 months earlier to make this random insult: “Christs' miracle technique of fishing is one of the most prominent of all known ways of fishing, much better known than something called haaf net fishing which I have never heard of before.” Storm in a teacup. No idea whether Jerm’s incident and mine are isolated instances or are a pattern. (By the way, I noticed that multiple editors over the years had tried to take that out of the article with epipelagic reverting each time.) DeCausa (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Then WikiProject Soil must also be about using it for miracles (sorry, I couldn't resist).^[Humor] —PaleoNeonate – 09:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I did wonder whether adding this article to WikiProject Soil would resuscitate it. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe this one? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I find it highly unconstructive that they would declare that they would not communicate with your further... while canvassing for others to mount up against you. They can either work to resolve disputes or not work at all. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 12:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree the responses have been over the top, and there's also nothing wrong with marking projects inactive when they clearly are. Although I do wonder if it might be better to just post a quick message asking before doing so and giving a week or so for a response. But in any case, if a project was marked inactive in October and it takes until April to notice, this is strong indication the marking was correct. (Although it sounds like some stuff didn't happen until February?)

However I don't see an editor need to have been active in the project before it was marked to be able to revive it. Any editor should be free to revive the project if they're truly interested and capable of doing do. They didn't need to respond in the way they did, although frankly I don't see why them marking the project as active was reverted. While they didn't initially add themselves as a member, it seems better to just give them the opportunity to revive the project or at least ask them if they planned to make an effort rather than assuming bad faith that they aren't truly interested in reviving the wikiproject. While obviously their responses were far from ideal, they don't seem enough to call into question whether they truly intend to revive the project. Epipelagic does seem involved in areas loosely related to soil, so their genuine desire to revive the wikiproject seems easily possible.

If there is a long term pattern of Epipelagic marking projects as active but doing absolutely nothing to revive them so they remain dead, we could discuss this, but I'm not seeing any evidence for this.

TL;DR, I see fault both ways here. Epipelagic needs to learn to respond in a more reasonable fashion and needs to accept that anyone is free to mark an inactive wikiproject as inactive without needing to ask permission. Jerm needs to let editors revive Wikiprojects if they put in a genuine effort without requiring they prove themselves beforehand.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind if anyone marks the WikiProject as active, so long as the person is serious about joining/maintaining the project. Epipelagic though is not that person as the editor is not reactivating the project to improve it, rather, responding negatively after what occurred in the last conversation concerning WP:FISHING by trying to prove some sort of point or insert authority hence the message on my talk page where editor is telling me what I can't do but never stated that they were reviving the project to join, help improve it, or even show interest. Jerm (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Responses like the one immediately above this one is why I stopped trying to sort this matter out with Jerm. Jerm seems to think he has powers which allow him to magically discern my intentions. We reached a point where Jerm refused to let me reactivate the project without edit warring. Instead I asked an admin with some relevant background knowledge to assess the situation. The admin didn't bother to acknowledge my request, although it in no way breached WP:CANVAS. At times, Wikipedia can be frustrating for content builders. Walking away, and maybe abandoning areas where you want to develop content seems to be the only available option. I should have read the signs, swallowed the frustration, and walked away.

Then, as something different and to introduce some spice, DeCausa jumped in with some historical grudge over me opposing a deletion he had wanted to make. He characterised the matter as me "going full WP:BATTLE over something weird" and "unnecessarily ballistic and just plain strange". But in actuality, I responded civilly with reliable sources backing the status quo. It is DeCausa himself that then went into full WP:BATTLE, unnecessarily ballistic and just plain strange. I recall being surprised at how seriously DeCausa took the matter. As DeCausa says himself, it's just a "storm in a teacup".

Another user has just made the deletion DeCausa wanted to make. But this user includes in his edit note an adequate reason why the sources I gave didn't do the job. Had DeCausa responded in this manner, I would have happily let his deletion stand.

DeCausa, you also characterised as a "random insult" my suggestion that Christ catching the fishes was better known than an article written by you called haaf net fishing. The insult was not "random". It was a response to your claim that Christ's technique of catch fish was not well known. Further, it was not an "insult" at all. The reason I knew about your article is not, as you suggested, because I trawled through all your contributions. It is because I have an interest in salmon and have written more about them than anyone else on Wikipedia. I had previously come across your article, which I enjoyed reading as it was about a method of catching salmon I hadn't come across before. So your article had surprised me... which was why it came to mind. But I still think Christ's work with fish is, if only marginally, better known than your article is (so far). Sorry, but there it is. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t say that Christ’s miracle wasn’t well known or anything like it. And I have no doubt that “Christ’s work with fish” will remain better known than my article (?!!). I have no idea why you might think it’s relevant to say that and it remains puzzling, amongst many other things, why you mentioned it at all. I’m glad you let Yngvadottir’s deletion stand, for whatever reason. (It wasn’t “my” deletion, as you described it - I supported the deletion of another editor by reverting you.) That aside, what you said back then seemed to be flying in the face of rationality. But maybe you were being more tongue-in-cheek than I realised, or maybe you were just having a bad day. Either way, there’s nothing more to be said from my point of view. DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I came upon this thread while looking at ANI for something else. If a WikiProject appears to be inactive, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with marking it as such. But once an editor shows an interest in reviving it, that should be OK too, and there is no valid reason to make such an editor jump through arbitrary hoops in order to do so. Remember, this should be about improving content, not enforcing The Rules^TM. So if Epipelagic wanted to revive some Projects, the correct reaction would have been "thank you and good luck". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1 this was my reaction to the situation, Sadads (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

  +1 from me as well. We are all volunteers here, and all projects are volunteer run. AFAIK we have no "private clubs" here and all projects are voluntarily joined. If a new volunteer wants to get a defunct one up and running again, more power to them. That being said, the other editors insistence at one time on shoehorning a biblical myth into an article about fishing because it's a well known story does give one pause. Heiro 00:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Epipelagic has no intention in helping out with the project though, the editor reverted my previous edit which was me marking the project as inactive back in 16 September 2020. Of cource, I reverted because the editor is not being honest. The editor then proceeded to insert their name as a member of the project as if they actually cared about approving the WikiProject. After, I get this message which is still on my talk page indicating nothing about approving the WikiProject, but reminding me that "We have been over this in some detail before." and to self-reveret my "foolish" edit which is all clear indication of retaliation from our previous discussion about WP:FISHING. Of course I called out the editor's dishonesty, but instead of continuing the discussion that they start, Epipelagic proceeds to canvass to an uninvolved admin to join in on the discussion. And here we are now. Epipelagic is obviously making every discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jerm (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

It takes two. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm letting the matter go because it is indeed a trivial thing for ANI, however, Epipelagic needs to reassess themselves on how they interact/communicate with others. Epipelagic, you can't just start a discussion with demands and expect willingness from the recipient. That is not a real discussion. You make things even worse by gesturing insult such as calling one's edit "foolish" as you did on my talk page, or worse, alluding to me as some immature individual as you did in our previous discussion. I was not happy about what you said, but you already know that. A discussion then becomes irrelevant when you refuse to respond/continue it. Then you choose instead to canvass another editor to join in on the discussion. That is extremely counterproductive, and it only looks worse on you when you're the one who messaged me first. Jerm (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Please spare the repetitive lecturing and didactic pomposities Jerm. For perspective you would need to own up to your initial behaviours, which I have not embarrassed you with. But raking over past silliness lays to waste the brief time we are alive, and, with the possible exception of arbcom, ANI is the last place on Wikipedia, and maybe the Planet to constructively sort things like this. Let's just agree we both need to think about what happened between us and how we can both develop more skillful ways of interacting in the future. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although I have had my own disputes with Epipelegic in the (distant) past, I'm really not seeing the problem here. WikiProjects are voluntary associations of editors who share an interest in a certain subject. Marking them as "inactive", as Jerm did, is fine, if their inactivity is obvious, but it seems to me that any editor who shares an interest in that subject can remove that designation and try to start the group back up again, whether or not they had belonged to the group previously. After all, there's no application to fill out or test to pass in order to join a WikiProject, one just adds one's name to the list of members. Whether one did so in the past, or does so now would seem to me to be irrelevant.
  I would suggest that Jerm continue to mark WikiProjects as inactive when they come across them, but that they also allow them to be resuscitated, if it can be done, by any editor with an interest in doing so, and also that Jerm and Epipelagic try to avoid each other for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

User:DavidWood11 – Severe competency issues

DavidWood11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been here for about 4 months, they contribute almost exclusively in contentious areas, where their edits as far as I have seen are either poorly sourced or have some issue or the other. They have been alerted about DS sanctions but on attempts at communication with them, they don't seem to understand policies, barely seem to be able to understand what is being said to them and their responses are almost incomprehensible which makes me think that they do not have an adequate enough understanding of English to be able to contribute constructively here. See this recent set of diffs and interactions for instance (date and time are in IST):

• 11:01, 11 April 2021 They make an addition to a BLP with a section heading taken from an allegation, among other issues.
• They restore it for a second time on 10:40, 13 April 2021, I leave a caution template on their talk page and later explain the issue to them on 12:16, 13 April 2021.
• They start this discussion on my talk page, possibly attempting to mimic the caution template. I respond by explaining the policy on onus to them.
• 10:34, 11 April 2021 They make an addition to Yogi Adityanath cited to a news report about a study apparently praising him, with promotional wording such as "...Yogi government handled the migrant crisis most adroitly against the unforeseen challenges...". I remove it on 07:58, 16 April 2021 seeing as the news report was an updated version and did not reflect the addition, while leaving a fact check link of the report in the edit summary.
• 11:45, 21 April 2021 They restore the same addition to the article, citing the fact check link itself for the line.
• This is followed by this talk page discussion which more or less displays their competency issues where their responses show both their inability to communicate properly or understand what is being said.
• 13:45, 21 April 2021 In the meantime, they make a new addition to the article about an internet survey on Adityanath being rated the "best chief minister". I revert this but self revert again since the page has a 1RR restriction which I had missed. This makes them think on 15:06, 21 April 2021 that reverting without discussion is not allowed, even after I had earlier explained onus to them in the first discussion. Also note that they evade discussion on this addition throughout the talk page discussion.
• They also start another discussion on my talk page. At one point, I more or less tell them to stop responding on my talk page but it doesn't deter them, their last comment more or less seals the deal for me that they don't understand English well enough and will interpret things to whatever suits them.

Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Not really pertaining to this particular report (per se.), which I've yet to review closely, but I've upgraded the Yogi Adityanath page from semi to WP:ECP for the duration due to disruption continuing regularly from confirmed accounts. El_C 16:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Dear Admins, may I kindly request you to give me time to submit my side in the defense against the allegations as levelled by Tayi Arajakate Thanks. DavidWood11 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Yappy2bhere

I've been here for about 2-3 months now, so admittedly I'm new. Every edit I've made has been paricularly music based given that I am a musician. Every time I make an edit, however, Yappy2bhere (talk · contribs) is quick to revoke my edit and accuse me of "vandalism" despite me citing virtually every source. Like editing incorrect information on both the Static Major and Bad and Boujee pages.

Even though I may or may not have made editing mistakes, this person will also go out of their way to personally attack users for supposedly making mistakes or something, and from what I've seen this person has been reported in the past but still continues to aggravate incidents.

--SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

You need to source your work when making dramatic changes to articles. Claiming different keys is certainly not small. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 13:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that mistake, but could this user please stop claiming every other edit I (and other users) make is vandalism? It was more than just that one edit. It's seems fairly unproductive if you ask me... --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly, I can see some warming template abuse on the part of Yappy2bhere, as they certainly piled them on high within a matter of minutes on the 19th, when they could have simply addressed things with a single message. Regardless, you are technically engaged in an edit war on the page Static Major, with you adding the same information repeatedly. I'd ask that you desist with that behavior. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 15:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say your behavior rises to the level of vandalism, but it's not absurd for Yappy2bhere to think it might be. You should probably read WP:MINOR. Some vandals will mark major edits as minor to hide from scrutiny. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Understable, I apologize and will stop. --SHUTUPGOODLORD (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm looking at [this edit, for which OP received a lvl3 warning, and the OP is correct. The source does not say it is in G-flat Major. It doesn't state a key. It shows six flats. That could be either G-flat major, or E-flat minor (ignoring the possibility of other rarely-used church modes). The music starts with an e-flat minor chord, which is highly indicative of a key signature of e-flat minor. Therefore OP corrected the article according to the source. SHUTUPGOODLORD, it would be really helpful if you stated as much in your edit summary. Yappy2bhere, did you check the source before accusing ShutUp of vandalism? For what it's worth, OP's user name (I'm presuming meant to be humorous, but simlarly names accounts are often WP:NOTHERE) and newness to project, doesn't engender confidence. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

As a learned musician a quick glance at the score reveals what is obvious; and the OP is indeed right. Now the username might be problematic; but that doesn't excuse the WP:BITE and lack of WP:AGF from somebody who's been here since 2009, apparently. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I did check the source. It's entitled Migos feat. Lil Uzi Vert \"Bad and Boujee\" Sheet Music in Gb Major - Download & Print - SKU: MN0171443, as you would have discovered had you checked it yourself. You don't have to be a learned musician to notice the "E-flat minor" chord notations on the first page, but unless you're prescient you can't say that the song doesn't start in the minor then shift into the major. The edit was reverted because "as a learned musician" isn't a WP:RS, it's WP:OR. I'm sympathetic, but not swayed. You may "know" that the cited source misinterpreted the key signature, but you still need a source to make the change wiki-credible. (Right, RandomCanadian [136]?) This is Wikipedia. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Yappy2bhere (talk) 05:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

IP persistently adding WP:FRINGE, edit warring, personal attacks/incivility

Recently an IP (95.168 116. 108, [[137]]) has been removing long-standing WP:CONSENSUS material from the geographical variation section of the Brain size article and adding statements regarding racial difference in brain size and intelligence with multiple refs (several authored or co-authored by J. Phillipe Rushton) - sources and positions that are considered WP:FRINGE per an RFC discussion (here: [[138]]. I reverted their edits explaining that racial hereditarianism is fringe here per the RFC, (and posted a link to the RFC in my edit summary). The IP reverted me stating that there were other co authors besides Rushton, that Rushton had been published in many respectable jornals, and accused me of "pushing a leftard agenda", here [[139]].

I reverted again and explained again that the issue was not a personal "agenda" but rather the decision of the rfc and the policies against WP:FRINGE. I asked them nit to edit war. They seem to have ignored the RFC and to missed point regarding fringe. The IP reverted me again repeating much of what they had said before. This failure to engage with the issues raised, combined with their uncivil language, seems to be disruptive. I have not reverted or explained again, to avoid edit warring and because they seem unwilling to WP:LISTEN. I also left a message regarding it for USER:Generalrelative (who has often engaged recently in related pages/topics), on whose page the IP then posted, inaccurately claimed that the sources they had removed were non-scientific and continued to miss the point with statements about ideological "witch hunts".

One of their recent edit summaries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1019337976

And the page's edit history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Brain_size

Any attention to this matter is appreciated.

Thank you, Skllagyook (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I have already semi-protected the page under the DS for race and intelligence and have issued a DS alert to the IP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

And PMC already knows this, but I also left a note at WT:MED to get more eyes on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@PMC and Tryptofish: Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 22:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to serve only as a leftard platform of lies which I knew long ago, I just wanted to make sure how far your libtard propaganda has come, to censure scientific facts, that is really low. Wikipedia is now Metapedia of leftards. But denying the truth cannot ever change a fact. Facts are all around you, and Wikipedia is only on your screen, but then, maybe you have nothing outside that screen, that would explain a lot.--95.168.116.108 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Make up your mind, are we "leftard" or "libtard"? There is a difference. This is an encyclopedia, so precision matters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked 72 hours for personal attacks and general disruption. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Block requested for apparently static IP

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

Can someone please block this IP? This is the "Happy Tree Friends" vandal that I most recently reported at this thread a couple of months ago, which resulted in the IP range 2603:9000:F407:8000:0:0:0:0/50 being blocked for a period of one year. This new IP seems static (all edits under the IP going back to 17 October 2020 are by the same user), and all edits are the same characteristic behavior of claiming that some random company has bought another company at some future year (e.g. [140][141]). Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Much thanks. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mtstroud

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

---

There's a user that has been adding lots of unsourced content to James L. Buckley so I did a rollback, that person then threatened me because they didn't like what I did. See here. I would take it to dispute resolution, but I think it's moved beyond that point already and I didn't want to start an edit war. Snickers2686 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rollback really shouldn't be used for unsourced material but his response was beyond inappropriate. Left a note on his page. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"He asked you a simple and perfectly normal question ... and you responded like he raped your dog or something". HAHAHA Jesus Christ, Ian.thomson... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

They've also been trying to add the right wing populism category to Gina Carano which seems to be a violation of BLPCAT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Onlinenow and User:Texashistory

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

photograph of Parita, Texas that I personally took myself so there is no copyright violation so get off your high horse

Except this is clearly false as Dylsss found the original at FfD. I have some additional facts that I'll just list, feel free to connect the dots:

• Onlinenow also wrote an article, Juan Nepomuceno Flores, which contains the statement "Therefore Juan Nepomuceno Flores is a historically, culturally, and ethnically significant Texan of hispanic descent."
• Talk:Juan Nepomuceno Flores is filled with disjointed rants about Wikipedia notability policy.
• The talk page has 8 edits by Onlinenow (including creation) and 1 edit by TexasHistory.
• The edit by TexasHistory is similar to those from Onlinenow.
• TexasHistory has been inactive between 20:19, 27 January 2009 and 06:20, 12 April 2021.

I'm gonna get my Magic 8-Ball to see if it can solve this mystery. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Rohit Chopra 1974

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

---

• Rohit Chopra 1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"New" editor who has been here a week edit warring over the content of pages such as Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. aand Wikipedia:Standard offer. They also have an unusually keen interest in editors who have been blocked and in block evasion.[142][143][144][145] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm honestly not sure what to make of this. This account could be evading a block or trying to mess with us, but it seems more likely that they might just be genuinely interested in the topic of Wikipedia policy and enforcement. I've left a note here on the user's talk page asking them to discuss any changes they wish to make on policy changes and get input first instead of simply editing the pages directly. I think that this is the best approach to take in this case; we can always escalate things from there if more issues arise with their edits. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Now blocked as LTA by JJMC89, —PaleoNeonate – 03:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Whelp, there you go... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP 98.42.61.224

At the risk of over-escalating this I am currently involved in a slow edit war with this IP at List of centenarians (authors, editors, poets and journalists). A quick look at the history shows that I have removed content for the reasons stated in the various edit summaries, which I believe are perfectly sound. Each edit has been reverted by the named IP without adequate reason. I note that the IP has no previous history in editing either the article in question or the subject of the edit and suspect the only reason for the reverts are the disagreement between us here (the IP claims no connection to the subject of the Afd, but I have my doubts). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)