Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Yerfdog71 adding unsourced articles and their complete refusal to communicate

For years, Yerfdog71 has been publishing unsourced and wildly under-sourced articles of undrafted free agent NFL players who played their college football at BYU with no evidence that the player passes WP:GNG. People have tried to communicate with Yerfdog71 on his talk page about notability standards and referencing (example here), however the editor refuses to interact with other editors and deletes any message posted on his talk page. I believe a block is probably necessary to, if anything, bring Yerfdog71 to acknowledge and communicate that they understand notability and referencing policies. I am going to ping @Eagles247: who has nominated many Yerfdog71's articles for deletion over the years. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The relevant WP:SNG is WP:NGRIDIRON. Players who don't meet that will have to pass WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The articles are of undrafted rookie players on training camp rosters, so WP:NGRIDIRON is not met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Gordon Ramsay and Rod Stewart had unsuccessful try-outs as professional footballers. Neither is notable because of that; WP:NFOOTY applies. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, the editor in question doesn't seem to care about either notability standard and deletes any attempt to explain and/or warn immediately off their talk page and then continues with the same editing habits. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed about a block, which is long overdue. Communication is required here, and Yerfdog71 seems to be only using Wikipedia as a sandbox for their BYU football fandom. The user has been here for 11 years, with 63 created pages, a third of which have been deleted (mainly through AfD), with other articles likely to be deleted in the future upon further inspection. Talk page warnings and AfD discussions have not deterred the creation of articles for non-notable subjects. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Yerfdog71 deleted the ANI notice off of their talk page this morning. They have made it abundantly clear that they are aware of community guidelines as this point given, they just do not care. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Peace is contagious

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

---

Peace is contagious (talk · contribs)

Can someone take a look at this editor's recent edits, particularly at Sammy Davis Jr.? The problem seems to be one of attitude, as well as competence, and they do not seem receptive to suggestions. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that some guidance is needed. Deb (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

He asked for admin intervention. I responded by undoing his bad edits with an explanation, and now he's reverting me, calling me a vandal. So yes, action is definitely needed. Deb (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Does anyone find it ironic that someone whose username is "Peace is contagious" is acting so aggressively and warlike? --MuZemike 18:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not everyone's username is necessarily an accurate reflection of their character, though some are... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually deciduous in real life EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

... and I'm really rather more a shadow of darkness than a gleam of light ... ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And I'm El Comandante, pleased to greet you. El_C 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I am both narky and a blert (and not, as one editor once suggested, a Belarusian named Наркиӥ Блерт).

Isn't there a WP:ESSAY somewhere which comments on the inferences which can be drawn from Wikipedians' usernames? Narky Blert (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to be an Andy, but I don't see anything in the username suggesting they think peace is a good thing. Perhaps they fear peace is contagious and so are trying to do best to fight this dreaded contagion before it infects the whole world. Nil Einne (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It's shocking but I'm not actually a wolf, a rose, or even a rose colored wolf. Have been known to howl on occasion. @Nil Einne, you just completely blew our minds. --ARoseWolf 16:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• One article that underlies my thinking on this matter is this [1]. At least to me it comes off as extremely rude to when someone tells you they view "M-----" as equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" to come back and tauntingly use the tem multiple times in the response. My claim that "M-----" is equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" is not just built on the fact that they are both deprecated terms, but that in both cases the term falsely implies theological allegiances that the people involved do not recognize. In the case of "Muhamedan" the term to some implies the people worship Muhammed, which they do not do. Some might point out that "Lutherans", "Calvinists" and several other groups do not worship the named groups, and pointing that out would probably be seen as rudely ignoring the desires of the people involved. Likewise members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints object to using "M-----" because it falsely implies they worship an ancient prophet, especially since in the Book of Mormon it states "if the Church is known by Jesus' name, it is Jesus's Church, if it is known by the name of a man it is the Church of a man". However beyond this, there is a more pertinent reason. The use of the name "M-----" to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implies that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uniquely hold the Book of Mormon to be the rvealed word of God, when in fact members hold the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to all be on par as revealed scripture and also hold the words of living prophets in high regard. Using the name is very misrepresentational in multiple ways. I wish I had explained this better before, but I have a suspicion based on other actions that the editor in question would have responded in the same clearly rude manner in doubling down on the use of the words in question. This often comes off as an unfair expecatation that I sit back and say nothing about the actions of others that are clearly rude and in this case arguably provocative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Okay, I hate bringing things to ANI. Not sure when the last time I did was. However, at this point I seem to have no other choice. Approximately 2-3 months ago, I had a disagreement with another editor, NemesisAT about something which I honestly do not remember what it was over. However, prior to that, I had very little, if any interaction with that editor. Since that time, there have been numerous interactions, the vast majority (if not all) of which are negative reactions to edits I made by this editor, see this report. I’ve asked them to desist in their obvious wikihounding, first in an AfD (which I actually can’t find the diff for), then on their talk page 2 weeks ago, User talk:NemesisAT#Wikihounding. I took their response there in good faith, however, since then, they have continued their behavior, although in a somewhat subdued fashion. The most recent interactions being, OKI Common Lisp, Patrick McDermott (Massachusetts politician), London Buses route 242, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld (2nd nomination), I Am a Lot Like You! Tour. Finally, there was Salem Local Planning Authority, which led me to send it to AfD, where I again asked him to desist. He refused to admit that what he was doing was wikihounding, which you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority. This was followed up by their interacting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RenderDoc (2nd nomination). Finally, there is the interaction at Changde railway station, where once again, the editor in question had nothing to do with the page until I edited it. And what makes it interesting is that they did not revert my edit, which would have alerted me that they had reverted me, instead doing it in a way to evade letting me know. Same thing with Koonendah railway station, Huaihua railway station, and Nanyang railway station, Even after that, I was hoping they would go away. However, there was this just today, again done in such a way as to not alert me unless it was on my watchlist. At this point I’d like the community to impose an interaction ban on this editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems the disagreement started from this - [2] [3]. The interaction timeline is indeed shows a large overlap with many edits being within hours or days of each other. A common pattern is Onel prodding an article and Nemesis removing the prod. Or Onel redirecting an article and Nemesis reverting it. However in Koonendah railway station, Onel redirected the article in 18 August and reverted by Nemesis 12 minutes later. Nemesis had edited the article before in June 30 [4]. Similarly Onel's redirection of Changde railway station in 14 August was reverted by Nemesis an hour later later, with that being their first edit to the article [5]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [6]. At least in these 2 cases it reasonable to believe Nemesis had watchlisted the articles. There are also several cases where Nemesis was the first to edit an article by reverting others' redirects and Onel tagging it for notability in the next edit - [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. This can be explained as Nemesis patrolling prods and new redirects, and Onel tagging for notability and redirecting while doing New page patrol. So I am wondering whether this overlap is simply because the two editors have opposite editing patterns? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, me and Onel did have a disagreement (again, I can't remember what it was over) but if I remember correctly it was a message on WikiProject Trains about deletion discussions regarding bus content that opened my eyes to the amount of content being redirected and deleted here.

I watch a large amount of articles, the railway station ones I was watching the article or watching the talk page of a user notified by Onel. The bus route article was also on my watchlist. I've also been using automated reports and categories to find new PRODs, deletion discussions, and redirects.

In response to Onel, I don't think it would be fair to impose an interaction ban due to the wide number of pages they edit. I am not picking on them, if anything, I feel I'm being bullied here. They asked me why I was editing pages on topics I wasn't interested in, so to see them bring up articles on buses and railway stations (my core interests) is incredibly frustrating. NemesisAT (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I also completely disagree with Onel's suggestions that I was trying to hide my edits, and find it rather hypocritical after they made accusations in an edit summary, and later at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salem Local Planning Authority, without pinging me. I did not realise using the undo button gave a notification, and am not aware of any guideline requiring reverts to be made using the undo button. To be clear, I do not wish for any action to be taken against Onel. I would simply like them to stop accusing me of wikihounding whenever I edit a page they happen to have edited previously. NemesisAT (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Onel5969 makes PROD nominations frequently – their log indicates that they do this more than once a day. Such activity will naturally attract attention from the same small pool of prod patrollers. And if you nominate a string of topics of the same type, such as railway stations, you will naturally attract attention from editors who watch that sort of topic. The same applies with AfD nominations and draftifications, which Onel5969 often does too. Such actions are not low profile – they are, per WP:BITE, hostile and high-stakes. The recent case of John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel5969 prodded and NemesisAT deprodded, is a good example as this generated a huge furore which attracted many editors. The outcome indicates that this was not an appropriate topic to prod as the process is just for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". If Onel5969 follows these PROD rules more carefully, this will tend to resolve the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew here. I also contribute to railroad related articles, as you might guess from my username (I have the WP Trains article alerts page watchlisted and frequently comment on the AfD notifications I see there). As two editors who frequently work in the same area, they will frequently encounter each other and that does not mean it is Wikihounding. I participated in several of the most recent AfD threads the filer mentions, not because I had any interest in Wikihounding but because I ran into them on AfD and felt I could comment on them. Editors have the right to object to PROD nominations. The few examples of Nemesis nearly immediately reverting actions other than PRODs that Onel takes are a bit concerning but do not justify an ANI thread. Nemesis should give Onel a bit of berth and should communicate via the talk page instead of reverting when appropriate. Onel should recognize that editors who are interested in a certain topic will likely be interested in PROD nominations on articles on said topic. If the two of you really can't resolve this, I would recommend another form of dispute resolution besides ANI. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think NemesisAT has a ways to go in their understanding of GNG, (see their vote here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I-Mockery (2nd nomination)) but they appear to be editing in good faith. Suggest maybe leaving One's PROD's for another user as a temporary solution? Star Mississippi 17:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly more generous than most when it comes to what should have an article. I'm just trying to save as much content as possible, using the guidelines available. I'm happy to give some time before declining Onel's PRODs to allow someone else to do so first. Am not really sure what else I can say or do here. I'm more concerned about reverting redirects, and that I'll be accused of wikihounding if I do so. I believe it is okay to contest the redirection of a page? Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached a point of sanctions being necessary, but it does look to me like there is a degree drive-by deprodding going on. Unlike Onel, I'm not terribly active when it comes to proposed deletions and yet have had all of my PROD's this month contested by NemesisAT. I can only echo Star Mississippi's comments about them adequately understanding applicable notability guidelines. The handful of de-PROD's of theirs that I've seen in subject areas I know well have been made without much regard as to what is and is not significant coverage in that subject area. Perhaps most striking is GiantSnowman's comment on their talk page earlier this month having to explain to them that the rational behind a prod they had contested was taken from the text of a notability guideline. All told I'd say NemesisAT would be well advised to slow down, not just with respect to Onel's PROD, with their deprods in general, and ensure they are aware of the relevant notability guidelines and how they apply to a given subject before involving themselves in the deletion process. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The article in question was Jed Abbey (now deleted, but I'll detail the history here) - a PROD was added by another user stating "Hasn't made a 1st team appearance for a team in the football league", NemesisAT removed the PROD stating "Decline prod, not sure why reason given is grounds for deletion", I took to AFD, the article was deleted. This shows a fundamental and concerning ignorance/misunderstanding of the applicable notability guidelines. GiantSnowman 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Another comment of concern is here - "If I'm reading it correctly, WP:GNG doesn't require coverage to be more than routine". That is, again, fundamentally incorrect - GNG requires "significant coverage", not routine coverage. GiantSnowman 21:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors have differing views over what is significant coverage Vs what is routine coverage. You're always welcome to nominate for deletion at WP:AFD if you disagree. I have declined PRODs for various people that have subsequently not been nominated for deletion, or have survived deletion, so I feel what I did was beneficial. I am happy to try and explain my actions better next time. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• NemesisAT, I imagine it's People's Choir of Oakland you're talking about. AfD will settle that as I disagreed that it was notable. If you're going to suggest AfD, I don't really see the point in reverting the redirect to Frederica von Stade. Neither you nor, Onel was wrong in your edits, but discussion is more helpful than reverting one another. Gwen Goldman is one really looking into as it's that and I-Mockery where I think you were incorrect in your argument, but we'll see where consensus shakes out on the former. If PRODs are clearly contentious, someone else will take care of it Star Mississippi 01:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've reverted redirection because I feel discussion should take place prior to a deletion. This is also why I generally dislike PROD for anything but the worst offending articles. There have been multiple times I have restored an article and it either hasn't been contested or survived an AfD. It is easiest to have a discussion by bringing to AfD, as it catches the attention of other editors. NemesisAT (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with discussion, but AfD is so backlogged I don't think we need to add more when the solution could be resolved otherwise. I think if you take your time in finding potential sources and leaving them on the Talk could also be a help. Star Mississippi 01:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• After going through the above, I almost inclined to support this interaction ban. It is frustrating for one editor's work be undermined with determination by another editor. I think NemesisAT has to assume good faith by respecting that One's edits and others' edits are as valid as anyone else's. NemesisAT actions seem to be invalidating others' work based on stringent general beliefs about Prods and redirects. I think NemesisAT should be aware that their judgement is not necessarily keener or better than other editors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have to say that AFD is seriously back logged and the contentious AFDs take more time and energy. AFD is not the golden destination for determining notability. Redirects are a very acceptable form of WP:ATD. PRODs help take the burden off of AFD. I think it is OK to trust an experienced editor's judgement most of the time, that a PRODDED or Redirected article may not fulfill the notability criteria.---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• If a fair %, say 40% or more, of the articles being deprodded aren't sent to AfD or are kept at AfD, I'd say the prods are the problem, not the deprodder. If it's more like 10%, well, it's the other way around. Do we have an easy way to get numbers? I'm not liking the "well, you should trust people to make good prods". The whole point of prodding is to have a lightweight way to delete clearly NN topics. If they aren't getting deleted after deprodding the vast majority of the time, well, the deprods are likely reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Continued disruptive COI editing at RPSI

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

---

• Diningcarriage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Diningcarriage has been reasonably identified one of a number of COI editor by admins at Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RSPI), some having a negative COI and possibly intending to simply to disruptive. Whether intentional or not that has certainly interferred with my update of that article. I believe I, and others, have issued almost every form of warning imaginable. Scrutinisers of this must consider whether I am issuing warnings to gain an editorial advantage, and must scrutinise my actions in totality. I would have likely to have got through the most of the update this weekend, RL, distractions and disruption to this article have all intervened; and my work on this is suspended. An option would be to stubify, work on a user page and then copy page over the top. I would like to collaberate in such as enterprise but realistically a collaberative effort in draft could equally be interfered with. The final edits questioning my improvements were at [13] which I am currently leaving in situ to de-escalate the edit war but leaves article in hiatus. Obviously risk of possible WP:BOOMERANG on myself but the minimum would be voluntary I-BANs/T-BANs as required. (Initially misposted to WP:AN by mistake) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay ... I may have a WP:BOOMERANG here. If there has been a campaign against the article it has won. Will WP:STUBIFY per admin advice on the page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

To confirm I have WP:STUBIFYed the article as originally suggested by an admin. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Reconstruction

While not mentioned here an admin has read this notice and responded on the article talk page and my talk page. The admin has indicated I am fit to proceed on a non-COI basis. The admin has supported the WP:STUBIFY and has notified WikiProject Trains in an assist of a reconstruction. Members there are likely to have access to resources I do not easily have access to, equally I have have access to resources they liikely do not. Some points: I very much wish to return to a Harvard style referencing. With very long citations it can be extremely hard to concentrate on seeing the prose from the citations at time; and I left a requested edit by a paid COI at Emer Cooke having spent over an hour longer than I needed to because it was not using Havard referencing. I'm meant to gain consensus for this. I one is looking for references/citations checking Old revision of Railway Preservation Society of Ireland is an invaluable place for a few easily easy resource pick up or pointers. In the final analysis if good faith challenged on this I accept I may have to, perhaps after a quick short discussed, back it out and raise a formal discussion or RFC. I can be arrogant and suggest I near top-link in some aspects wikipedia editing. I also need to be humble and state, that in addition to my grammar and spelling I make some real factual whoopers at time. When corrected the article usually ends up better. I intend to aim the structure of a Rolling stock section towards the structure, if not the exact words, of that at Old revision of Railway Preservation Society of Ireland; That is with locomotives grouped for comparison. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

(Self trout - this was meant for RSPI talk page) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark has made serious allegations about admins in an edit summary and needs to be blocked indefinitely. His alts Bigdelboy & Djm-mobile should also be blocked. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruption at RPSI, Part 2

As one of the admins mentioned in the "Reconstruction" section above, I feel I have a right express my feelings on this matter. At 08:44 today Djm-leighpark made this edit to the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland article, with the edit summary "Removing contributions and returning to stub. If the fecking admins are not going to deal properly with fecking properly with a fecking BLPCRIME/BLP1E or BLPTALK then I had better get myself fecking well blocked for a bit. I hope ye fecking admins on this site and fecking pleased and fecking proud of your fecking yourselves fecking selves. There are proper manners for dealing with safeguarding matters and it is not to bring it to this wikipediia sniping campaign. I may join the RPSI!" I get the distinct impression that this edit was in response to my comments made at 05:55 at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#Presumption to privacy and UNDUE. I don't consider that any comment I made then, or at any other time on that talk page has violated BLPTALK. It is obvious that Djm-leighpark wants no mention whatsoever of any scandals involving RPSI members in the article at all. Other editors apparently disagree, but seem to want too much detail included. My comments were aimed at seeing if a compromise could be reached. Some editors may feel that I'm now WP:INVOLVED, so I won't be taking any administrative action myself. However, it is obvious that something needs to be done here. At a minimum, I feel that all six editors named at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland as having a conflict of interest should be indefinitely PBLOCKED from editing the article. Whether or not Djm-leighpark should be further sanctioned for the edit summary I mentioned above I will leave to others to decide. Mjroots (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly: To be absolutely clear there is no question in my mind of Mjroots violating any BLP/BLPO in this matter. I have absolutely no question in his good faith in this matter, (and many, many others). There may be a question of competency: To put that question in context one might scrutinize his actions in this matter on a rating between 0 and 10; unquestionable on such a scale it is 6+; fairly obviously I would not rate it as 10, but I would not expect anyone to achieve 10. Where in-between is a matter of possible debate if one wants to go there. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I will unquestionable accept a PBLOCK on any article page to which I have now declared a COI. I assume this does not relate to the talk page or {{request edit}}. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mjroots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• wbm1058 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• It should be noted wbm1058 who closed part 1 was an involved administrator. [14] was an edit during an in-use session (to correct a trivial red-link). I nearly lost a 30 minute edit session because of it .... (I actually copy/past the existing version of the article ... wondered why my changes had not happened, they recovered my changed page. Understandably the air around me was blue. I took at at face value it was a genuine mistake, but there remains a tiny chance it was a deliberate, and it may have been simply obscured by the popups tool. Having has that involvement the closure above would have been inappropriate ... for an RFA candidate it would be genuine matter to be looked at. trivial maybe, but not good for my humor. 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• then we come to the Luas, the #Free Luas campaign: the vandalism from those implementing the campaign, as journalist misrepresented as "updates" per mention on talk page, and lack of speed getting page protection in place (no-ones fault in particular). (Excellent work by other reverters and the person who spotted the campaign). Then and admin comes along any plonks a bare url with which happens to be from from media outlet where the originator of the source was formerly a journalist. Bare URLs are to a degree associated with BHG due to her campaign to clean them up, so a poor time to dropping them, though there will be claimed no correlation. The interactions may be judged, but the response at [15] can be interpreted as a serious personal attack relating to masturbating, though that may not be what was intended and I had done in my knee at the time as it happens. I've no been following Stifle (I had their talk page time limited on my talk page) but need to mention them here. My relationship to Free Luas stuff is now .... complex. 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The state with regards to my membership of RPSI is complex. I has 3 refused transaction completions but the RPSI have acknowedged from 14:00pm that I am a member (Gives access to 5' 3" sources ... I think). Whether I have paid the membership fee once, thrice or not at all I have not clue. Whether I have lost good standing I have no clue (with the IRRS also). I do say any actions I have made on WikiPedia are not on behalf of the IRRS/RPSI. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• A key statement in this sage is admin's Drmies statement: [16]: I've scrubbed the history. There will be no more undue and unrelated talk of child porn convictions (that had nothing to do with the organization), of volunteers who were convicted, of other volunteers who [predacted], and of "girlie thingies" thrown down the toilet.. The incorrect part of this if I remember correctly ... and I might not that the person implicated in child porn was not convicted per WP:BLPCRIME but was deceased before the trial. (I think thats the Belfast Telegraph). However if there's stuff beyond that its into BLPTALK. 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am challenging Mjroots assertion: "It is obvious that Djm-leighpark wants no mention whatsoever of any scandals involving RPSI members in the article at all." Its reasonable to say that is my general perference. But: (1): Have I not put the Midleton Incident into the article. (2): Have I ot introduced the new build Class W / Class WT controversy. Have I not suggested formal Arbitration by an independent (Probably the right way to go in the spirit of a BLP issue?). [17] ? Quite frankly if there is systemic issue at the RPSI, or there not implementing safeguarding and managing risks with due dilligence then thats a mention. The rostering issue may or may not be an issues ... refering to Sunday World (2020) no page ... no title ... and there's 50 issues a year! Apart from that the RS source Guards would likely bin make it inadmissible ... it's not obvious to me if this was true investative journalism with the RPSI given a chance to make an official statement or a jump on a volunteer with probably zillion things to try to look after. In the end if you have sufficient men around you will likely have a proportion of bad eggs. As I say : Formal dispute resolution offered ... well suggested ... blp related slagged continues. Not really best practice. Hmmmm .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Mjroots, I have blocked the user for that edit summary. Djm-leighpark, I have to say, I have no idea what you are trying to do here, with this disjointed message, poorly formatted, addressed at a whole bunch of different people, bringing up all kinds of issues--though I appreciate your ping, though you might now wish you hadn't done that. That edit summary, it's weird. Nothing in the edit you made actually had anything to do with the BLP matters which I indeed scrubbed from the history, and since, given your contributions on the talk page, I can't see you are in any way a positive influence on the article, I am going to block you indefinitely from editing that particular article. You will still have access to the talk page, but if you continue with these weird over-the-top rants, I will block you from that as well. Oh my word, how excited people get over trains. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

THankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor Arbitrarily Removed Content and Source, Attempts to Discuss Reach Dead End

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is concerning the article Jeremiah Lisbo. The article contains the following statement: In February 2020, Lisbo was among thirteen young actors selected to be a part of the Rise Artists Studio, a new talent agency developed under Star Cinema, the Philippines' largest movie production company. The phrase "the Philippines' largest movie production company" was removed by an editor because it was not supported by the source. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040049761&oldid=1040018807 I then provided a source for the statement, undoing the deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040111360&oldid=1040094878 The source I provided is a journal article. Subsequently, a different editor removed the statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremiah_Lisbo&diff=1040209836&oldid=1040111360 I created a section on the article's Talk page and brought to this editor's attention that the reference they removed was a journal article. The editor then revealed that they did not bother reading the reference that they removed. They also seem pretty adamant in refusing to revert the statement back because they arbitrarily dislike the source and don't want to read it. So to summarize: an editor removed a statement and its reference (which they did not read). When it was brought to their attention that the source backed up the statement, they insisted that the source is not good enough because they can't be bothered to read the source. Since I do not think engaging in further discussion with this individual will be a fruitful endeavour, I am bringing this to an administrator's attention. Koikefan (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC) The source provided by him never mentioned: "Star Cinema is the largest Film production in the Philippines". Later he also revealed that the source is need to be downloaded before you read those sentences. MaccWiki (talk) Koikefan (and MaccWiki), this noticeboard isn't used to decide content disputes. If you feel like you've reached an impasse on the article talk page, follow the steps outlined in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (including by making use of specific Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests). Good luck. El_C 10:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Those mechanisms seem to be explicitly about content disputes and not the behaviour of other editors, which is one of my concerns here (is this really a content dispute when the other editor is refusing to read the content they have removed?) But, sure, I will send a request if you say so. Koikefan (talk) 10:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Koikefan, wouldn't hurt to just quote the relevant passage from that source on the article talk page and maybe get a 3rd opinion about it. Sorry, but I'm just not seeing anything actionable in your report right now. El_C 10:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC) User:El_C - The article Jeremiah Lisbo was nominated for deletion shortly before User:Koikefan filed this report. I think that means that the AFD is the appropriate content forum until the AFD is resolved. It also appears that this is the first place where User:Koikefan has taken this content dispute. It isn't the last. They have now filed a Request for Comments concerning the phrase. They also did file a request for a Third Opinion, which was declined because the RFC is running, and a request for discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which I declined because there is an AFD in progress, and a question at the Teahouse. I think that this report can be closed unless there are any boomerangs that have missed the kangaroo. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Once again, the question at the Teahouse has to do with process, so I'm not sure how you can characterize that as "taking the dispute" to the Teahouse (in fact, I was specific to use general language and not link to the article when I posted on the Teahouse). Thank you for your summary. I thought this was already closed, so please close it if it hasn't yet. Koikefan (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC) User:Koikefan - You are certainly using every possible forum either to ask about the removal of the phrase or to ask about the process for the removal of the phrase. I have a question and a suggestion. My suggestion is that you leave the matter alone for about 29 days while the RFC is running. My question is whether you have a conflict of interest with either Jeremiah Lisbo or Star Cinema. If not, you are creating a tempest in a teapot and should reread the guideline on due weight. If so, you should declare it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC) To answer your question, no, I do not have a conflict of interest with either. Perhaps you should look into this: WP:GF. Secondly, I'm pretty sure I have left the matter alone (after the third opinion request was closed). I thought the discussion here was pretty much over before you decided to restart it for some reason by writing a long summary. Once El_C's made his comment, I followed his advice and left this discussion completely. When the third opinion was closed and I was informed that a third opinion and RFC couldn't be requested simultaneously, I accepted it and did not protest. Read: I was not aware that there was a rule that they could not be requested at once. Again, WP:GF. Is that not leaving it alone? How can you suggest I leave this alone when this discussion was completely dormant before you decided to restart it? I maintain that the question at the Teahouse is about process and was not about litigating the dispute in another place. Your insistence on characterizing it that way when, once again, I used general language and did not link the article, is very strange. In fact, the only time I mention a dispute at the Teahouse section was in my opening sentence, to give context. If it would make you feel better, I can delete the first sentence. My question at the Teahouse did not have to do with the specific phrase; it was a general question about what happens when no consensus is reached in disputes, and whether original entries on articles are given precedence over additions. It sounds to me like you're just stirring the pot, to extend your metaphor. You seem to be animated overwhelming by an assumption of bad faith, from suggesting I have a conflict of interest (without any basis or evidence) to not accepting my reasoning for posting on the Teahouse. Let me walk you through the Kafka-esque journey so far: first I posted here. Then I was told I could not post here because it was not the proper forum (I was not told I should not post at all because of an ongoing deletion discussion). Instead, it was suggested I post on the dispute resolution notice board. So I accepted that and left this discussion completely. I went, as suggested, to the dispute resolution notice board. There, my post was closed because of an ongoing deletion discussion of the article. So I thought, alright, I guess that means I can't post there, and accepted it. I was not told or informed I should not try the other forums that exist, i.e. seeking a third opinion (which, by the way, was also suggested by El_C if you would just scroll above). So, since it was suggested by El_C, and I assume they know what they're talking about, I sought a third opinion. Again, keep in mind WP:GF. I was not aware I could not seek both a third opinion and a RfC. So I sought an RfC. Then the third opinion was closed, which I accepted. And now here we stand. So that's the timeline. I think the timeline is important when giving a summary of events. Your characterization of my actions is quite unfair (and not really backed up the events that have transpired), as if I just went to 5 different forums simultaneously and pestered people about this dispute. I went to these fora one by one as they were suggested to me, or when I was informed one was not the proper venue. Koikefan (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) I have closed the Rfc and accordingly will not be pursuing this matter further. Therefore, as this discussion is now moot it should now be closed. Thank you. Koikefan (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC}

User:The Supermind

The above user falsely accuses me creating "Website spoofing" by saying used for deception to official website in here Talk:Oromia § Original researches while I am trying to explain the issue he/she raised. After user Above deliberately removed sources and content here[18],[19] by replaced by irrelevant source that doesn't reflect Oromia capital at all here [20]. I requested admin to protect Oromia page from Vandalism. Admin protect for a week, expires 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)). Now user threatening to vandalize again after protection of page expires here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia. MfactDr (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Again personal attack by Supermind in here User talk:MfactDr § Oromia by calling me "you're are so fool" MfactDr (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I have to say while I don't think it belongs at ANI in isolation the website spoofing accusation seems clearly false not to mention silly. Supermind is claiming the website was created recently by MfactDr. Except that the link in question is is a 2008 Internet Achive archive of a website. It's clearly not recent and frankly even ignoring the lack of evidence, the suggestion that MfactDr created that website on or before 2008 and for some reason is trying to use it on Wikipedia now is IMO silly enough we can almost dismiss it out of hand. This doesn't mean it's a good source or an official government website. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The Supermind is so much Disrespectful and attack personally here [21] and other editor told supermind not accuse falsely here[22] after first accuse me creating sources that supermind have NO conclusive proof of my involvement with the web site coding[23]. After I let user aware of notice of incident the user response was discourteous here[24] This The archived Ethiopian Government website That Supermind claimed created by me and Newly designed Ethiopia Government portal website have same contents and both are Government Website. MfactDr (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and suspected personal attacks by User:96.19.71.229

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

---

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

This IP has a recent history of edit warring that has turned disruptive over time, and appears to be continuing this disruptive behavior despite multiple warnings. This comment seems to be the last straw here, and appears to be a personal attack. Note that when I warned about edit warring on Windows 93, the blind reason the IP gave in response was "it's fake," which we already know and the sources have acknowledged. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@JalenFolf: I've blocked the IP for 1 week, this has been going on for a while with no sign of stopping. It's just unacceptable behaviour ~TNT (she/they • talk) 17:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent WP:BLP issues at Jenelle Evans

Yes, this needs lengthier protection, but it also merits a look at the edit history for defamatory content. May need a bit of rev/deletion. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's even unsourced content that skates on thin WP:BLP ice. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• I've semi-protected the article for 1 month and stubified the article. I'd stumbled on it earlier through WP:AIV. Mz7 (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Mz7. And Firefly for the decision to redirect, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Pitzzaboy

Hello,

I'm not here to "report" anyone for anything that comes close to malevolence, but I would like to request assistance regarding an editor on the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election page: User:Pitzzaboy. I'm not aware of any improvements this editor has made on the page, or others. Clearly, not everyone here should be expected to be an advanced encyclopedia writer, and Wikipedia should be welcoming to editors of all levels, but this user seems to be "setting fires" in good faith, which have to be put out by other editors, ultimately consuming a lot of everyone's valuable time. I don't see the situation improving. Those are highly viewed pages, and the election is ongoing as we speak, and the editor has done things like misrepresent how the election is run (please see the editor's contribution history) so it's not really victimless (10,000+ people view the page per day).

2600:1012:B016:6506:31E1:F0D:B292:C5EB (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I have pageblocked this editor from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election for one month, which is past the election date. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Peaches Salinga's concerns about Paper9oll

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

---

Hello. I just got some really nasty messages from someone called Paper9oll. I was just trying to improve an article about Lisa from Blackpink and he wrote this nasty edit summary then sent me this nasty message on my talk page. He said something about how I should contact an administrator here if he is ever abusive. He is incredibly uncouth and not what I'm used to at all. I wonder if perhaps someone could have a word to him and get him to stop this abrasive attitude. It really makes people not want to contribute here. And it looks like he does it a lot. I'm not one to call for bans, but someone like that is not helpful at all. Thank you! Peaches Salinga (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the edit summary you find so offensive? I am having trouble finding it. All I see is perfectly civil communication about the manual of style, nothing even remotely offensive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also you are required to notify users when you bring them up here. I have done this for you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC I simply issued Template:Uw-MOS1 with optional message of quote "Please read WP:SENTENCECASE" to inform OP. In addition, this my revert [25] which has RedWarn generic rollback edit summary. Hence I'm not sure how is it rude message as per OP is stating. In addition, imo OP is not being WP:CIVIL here leaving messages with inappropriate headings and content which I find it as a form WP:PERSONALATTACKS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this was most definitely incredibly rude! If you are going to leave massive warnings over the changing of an s to an S, which I put with a friendly edit summary, then you are not civil at all! I'd hope that the administrators are not going to take his side on this nonsense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peaches Salinga (talk • contribs) 10:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Peaches, you are wrong. There is nothing rude about this message. If you are going to work in a collaborative environment then you need to be able to take constructive criticism better. Paper9oll has done nothing wrong and your reaction is not productive. It certainly does not require administrative attention. I suggest you read the linked information about the manual of style and try to stick to it in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Goodbye good sir! How dare you! I tried to put in your precious diffs and your encylopaedia deleted them! If you are going to abuse people for being helpful then you are a bad place. Good riddance to your abusive place. H2G2 is much better! Peaches Salinga (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The Manual of Style is a huge swathe of documents and it's easy to fall afoul of it as a new user; while no long-term editor would see a problem with Paper9oll's comments I think sometimes it's worth extending an extra hand to help ease someone into the project; if Peaches Salinga would like some additional pointers or assistance in getting used to things I would be happy to help, or to point towards WP:Tearoom for a dedicated newer-user experience. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ^ˣ 10:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Paul Brown43

Not sure if that is really a major incident but the user can't edit at this moment.

This user has been blocked for sock puppetry by one of your admins but most of these contributions appears to be good. Am I right in saying this user may have registered under the same network as at least one other person who has been blocked for vandalism? (See this user's talk page as to who the "master" is.) I don't have full knowledge on how the admin who blocked the user was able to identify that the latter was abusing multiple accounts. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: You should not have brought this here. If you have a problem with any block of another user, you should ask the blocking administrator, in this case Materialscientist. You appear to be familiar with the SPI, so I don't understand your concern. And for pete's sake, can't you make your sig bigger (it used to be)?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about all of this, I will now know not to discuss anything like this here. I can see this page is watched by a high number of watchers which tells me this public page has, what Oshwah calls it, the Streisand effect. And I have fixed my signature once again, hopefully you can see it better now.

I will steer clear of editing this page as I now see this falls into the sock-puppetry category. Again, sorry about that. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 14:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: Thanks for fixing your signature.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally I have seen the relevant text explaining why what's done is done. Nothing more to discuss here. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal threats from User:Ron.Tyler1995

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

---

Ron.Tyler1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Legal threat (indirect) at Special:Diff/1040589009/1040589722 — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DaxServer, it is rather indirect - they seem to be talking about you suing them, rather than the other way around. I wouldn't block for this in the first instance, but I will warn them. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Topic Ban for Johnpacklambert

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

---

Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a longtime editor who, unfortunately, has been at this noticeboard a number of times. This is a different issue and one that (I believe) might have a possible solution, although it's not exactly an ideal one. As you can see here (and specifically here, where he's concerned about attacks on theology and at Talk:Mormonism#"Mormon"_as_a_"depreciated"_term, JPL continues to struggle to edit topics and people related to Mormonism in an NPOV manner. While the notability issues are mostly resolved at AfD, the latest round re: the LDS/Mormon naming has gone beyond that and I believe it may be time to topic ban JPL from LDS/Mormon areas if he cannot respect established consensus. Courtesy pings to those involved in current discussion @C.Fred, FormalDude, and Rachel Helps (BYU): for their input. ANI notice forthcoming. Wanted to have a direct link to provide him. Star Mississippi 15:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I have respected the conssensus since my initial edits were reverted, and have instead tried to contribute to discussions to change consensus. I have a right to express my support for the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the use of its name, and outright banning me from editing any topic related to it is unjustified. I recognize that I went to far in trying to implement my views against consensus. This proposed ban ignored facts like that I am the initial creator of the articles on Gerrit W. Gong, Ulises Soares, Ronald A Rasband, Dale G. Renlund, Gary E. Stevenson and many more. This is a horrible idea, and ignores that I have tried to work within consensus forming mechinisms for the last few days.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is far too rash a response. Topic bans are a horrible approach to anything. I have made thousands of construtive edits related to topics connected to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I will admit my actions on Monday were rash. I will admit the wording of my edit including mention of the Be One Celbration of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was less than idea. However the proposal of a blanket topic ban of any kind is way too broad and too rash. It ignores things like the multiple fully needed updates I did recently to the article Black Mormons, and article essentially stuck in 2013, making both a false claim that there had never been a black general officer of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when in fact Ahmad Corbitt clearly is such, and listing the three black general authorities to that date, so I added mention of the four black general authroties called since then. I could go on and include many more contributions I have made. I am willing to admit that I was rash in my reactions. I am sorry I got really worked up about this. However such restrictions are not at all justified. I think it is much wiser to give me a chance to actually show that I can contribute in this manner is a measured way. I think restricting someone based on actions at most taken over two days is not justified. People should be given a chance to change their ways and show they can contribute in a more balanced way before blocks are imposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• JPL, would you agree to a voluntary ban on editing ARTICLES on the subject, or specifically to a voluntary ban on removing or modifying the words "Mormon" or "Mormonism" from those articles, while retaining unlimited ability to edit the TALK PAGES of such articles? Just tossing an idea out for consideration. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  • No. I will not agree to any ban on article editing. I will agree to not try to change articles names without consensus. That seems reasonable. I will also agree to not change the use of words such as "M-----" and related derivates in articles that have as their topic subjects that are as a concept related to this such as The Word of Wisdom etc. I will not agree to anything that could be used to limit my reasonable ability to edit biographical articles. Nor do I think a topic ban on all edits to any articles is justified, since it seems to be built on an attack on one edit I did and is very unreasonably broad. As a white husband of an African-American wife who is a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and who I married in the Detroit Temple I find the lack of some coverage disturbing. This includes feeling that The Be One Celebration should be covered. I will admit that my attempt to put it in was clumsy, but a tpoci ban over one clumpsy edit is not justified. I will also admit that my attempts to unilaterally rewrite mentions to Latter-day Saint were premature, but this topic ban proposal seems to be really a reaction to how I maybe over reacted to the clearly rude and calous way some other editors treated the sttements of Russell M. Nelson. If a prerequisite to edit articles on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is never voicing in any way a request to others to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as either members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Latter-day Saints, that seems extreme. I will admit my language may have been over reactive, but I have a right to my own views on the proper naming of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to try and ban my editing because I expressed these views on my talk page and in talk page discussions directly about naming, or to attack me for quoting and posting a link to the talk by Russell M. Nelson which clearly is a point of data that needs to be considered in a informed decision on what word to use in discussing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members currently is not justified. Words change over time, and to point to a document that defines very clearly one view of the current name usage issue is clearly needed. I may have been too forceful in presenting it as the most defining document, but it is a document that needs to be dealt with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Can you explain what the edits to Johnpacklambert talk page are supposed to show? It doesn't seem, Johnpacklambert did anything wrong from a superficial analysis. They simply removed comments to their talk page which they are entitled to do per WP:OWNTALK. In the first case, they removed comments in the middle of a discussion which may normally be a concern since this may mean people misunderstand what a respondent was trying to say. Except that the only person who replied is Johnpacklambert themselves and if Johnpacklambert is causing their own comments to be misunderstood, that's not our concern. And the second is clearly fine, the one in the wrong is FormalDude who reverted them once [26]. Johnpacklambert simply removed the latest reply. [27] [28] Johnpacklambert is entitled to end the discussion and remove any further replies if they so desire. If FormalDude wants a right to reply, they shouldn't be having the discussion on Johnpacklambert's talk page. They are free to copy the discussion to their talk page while complying with WP:Copying within Wikipedia and post their reply if they feel it needs to be recorded in a live page. Nil Einne (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • That was the only way I knew to link to show the discussion, since it's deleted, which I agree is within his right. But it's the substance of the conversation that (to me) shows the broader issue. Happy to present in a different way if that's better Nil Enne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs)
  • @Nil Einne: and apologies for typo Star Mississippi 17:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I want to draw attention to the harsh personal attacks that JPL has levied at me and another user regarding their sweeping LDS/Mormon renaming edits. See this diff at my talk page and this diff from the other editor's talk page. And most importantly this diff at JPL's talk page where they call me a bigot for simply pointing out their NPOV bias. Even without these diffs, JPL has consistently shown an inability to accept consensus or follow Wikipedia discussion processes, and their history of editing to LDS topics shows at the very least a pattern of disruption. ––FormalDude talk 17:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that section they posted to you talk page really entitled Stop your hateful ways? That is slightly less than subtle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is, and the second link FormalDude provided - the one to Jburlinson's talk page - is titled "Stop the hate mongering". -- MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, that is the editor who argued that because of past policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we should just plain ignore the desires and wishes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in choosing its own name. If trying to bring up a policy that has not existed in over 40 years to justify disrespecting an organization and its wishes is not a case of engaging in hate speech, than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that I was too quick in my languge there. I am sorry. Topic bans because someone got worked up are not justified. Especially when you consider that the people in question, especially FormalDude, insist on attacking sources as biased, which is clearly a work with strong negative connotations, in a discussion where bias is not a relavant consideration at all. Groups have a right to disporportionately control what they are called, and so the statements of leaders of groups are always relevant. To try to dismiss such a staement as "bias" is to invoke a word with very strong negative connotations and to delibertely pick a fight. I will admit I over reactied, however tpoci banning for over reaction is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is primarily a conversation about your NPOV bias; my comments were quite relevant, and I stand by them. The source you gave was completely biased to the topic at hand. ––FormalDude talk 18:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There you go again using the negative word. The talk by President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the correct name of the Church is not "biased" on a discussion of what name of the Church should be used. It is not NPOV to insist on using a name for a group of people that they reject. That is just plain ludicrous. In choosing what name a group of people is referred to by we give special consideration and value to the views of members of that group. Thus a source that shows us expliciatly what that group feels about what names should be used for it is always a useful source and is never biased.18:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have a right to cho[o]se how they are referred to. - link. Indeed they do, but they do not have the right to enforce it outside their church. We do not use terms like "kafir", "Mahometan", "Mussulman", "Papist" and "Prod" (among others) outside quotes because they are widely considered to be sectarian, archaic, and/or insulting. We do use "Mormon" because it is commonly used in modern reliable sources; for example, in media coverage of the Mitt Romney 2012 presidential campaign. We do not require "Bible" or "Quran" to be prefixed "Holy", nor for the name of the prophet Mohammed to have appended to it "(PBUH)", because one group or another says that they should. We follow the modern independent sources. Narky Blert (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Narky Blert, exactly. This is not dissimilar to concerned Muslim editors who want to impose the prohibition of pictorial depictions of Islamic figures on Wikipedia, because those pictorial depictions are prohibited within the faith. Grandpallama (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing actions in 2012 ignores the fact the major changes on the langscape of the usage of the word happend in 2018. The pictorial comparison is not at all relevant here, and none of the above comparisons are at all like using "Latter-day Saint" as a general reference to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Good point, a very close parallel. Narky Blert (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnpacklambert: Given what I see in those diffs posted by FormalDude a topic voluntary ban is probably the best you can possibly hope to come away with. I’d jump on that now before anyone proposes a stronger remedy for the PA, incivility, battleground, etc. I would also advise against using hyperbolic legalese (“cease and desist” etc) in the future as people may interpret such statements as a legal threat. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • What about the fact that they double down in using words in convesation with my that I have explicitly asked them not to use. I will admit my language was overly harsh. However banning someone from contributing from a topic especially when editors know this is what I care about editing the most is not only unfair, it comes off as an attempt to try and kill another editors ability to contribute at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Johnpacklambert: Please provide diffs to where you explicitly asked them [me] not to use any words. I recall no such point. ––FormalDude talk 17:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, I said that I found them as objectionable as "Muhamedan" and then was attacked for even holding that view. Muhammedan is considered a highly objectional word that people should not use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Mohammedan does not appear to be an offensive word any more than the word Mormon does. (I want to clarify I'm not at all as familiar with the word Mohammedan as I am with the word Mormon, having lived 5+ years in Utah.) And as others have repeatedly tried explaining, just because a term is offensive to you personally, does not mean it is also offensive in general. ––FormalDude talk 18:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
          • • Mohammedan is viewed as a highly offensive term because of its false connotation that Muslims worship Muhammad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              Echoing @Narky Blert's response above: the word Mohammedan is not comparable to the word Mormon in the way you're trying to say it is. ––FormalDude talk 18:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              I don't know whether or not it's true, but I remember once reading a suggestion that "Christian" was originally designed as an insult for that same reason. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • One article that underlies my thinking on this matter is this [29]. At least to me it comes off as extremely rude to when someone tells you they view "M-----" as equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" to come back and tauntingly use the tem multiple times in the response. My claim that "M-----" is equally objectionable to "Muhamedan" is not just built on the fact that they are both deprecated terms, but that in both cases the term falsely implies theological allegiances that the people involved do not recognize. In the case of "Muhamedan" the term to some implies the people worship Muhammed, which they do not do. Some might point out that "Lutherans", "Calvinists" and several other groups do not worship the named groups, and pointing that out would probably be seen as rudely ignoring the desires of the people involved. Likewise members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints object to using "M-----" because it falsely implies they worship an ancient prophet, especially since in the Book of Mormon it states "if the Church is known by Jesus' name, it is Jesus's Church, if it is known by the name of a man it is the Church of a man". However beyond this, there is a more pertinent reason. The use of the name "M-----" to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implies that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints uniquely hold the Book of Mormon to be the rvealed word of God, when in fact members hold the Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to all be on par as revealed scripture and also hold the words of living prophets in high regard. Using the name is very misrepresentational in multiple ways. I wish I had explained this better before, but I have a suspicion based on other actions that the editor in question would have responded in the same clearly rude manner in doubling down on the use of the words in question. This often comes off as an unfair expecatation that I sit back and say nothing about the actions of others that are clearly rude and in this case arguably provocative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that you, and perhaps some of your co-religionists, apparently now believe “the M word” to be objectionable, degrading, insulting, etc. - even though most non-“M”s do not use or intend it that way. When people speak of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, as it has been known and loved for 150 years, they are being respectful; they don’t know it was recently renamed. Landmark temples in Oakland, San Diego, and many other cities are still referred to by locals, without disrespect, as “the Mormon Temple”. This wholesale purging of the “M” name was decreed a mere three years ago, by direction of the leadership. And note that a press release at that time does not outlaw the “M” word; it merely “encourag(es) use of the full name of the Church”.[30] OK, so they had theological reasons for the change, as you have just explained. But your attempts to totally purge the original word seem to go way beyond what is necessary or required by the church. If you can’t accept that - if you are going to continue to insist that use of the “M” word (a word that was common and acceptable a mere three years ago) is hateful, bigoted, spiteful, etc. - then you may indeed need to have your editing privileges curtailed. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
      • MelanieN, my initial sense was that sanctions are called for here, which your explanation now further affirms. El_C 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
        • This is unfair. I have backed down from my previous edits. My personal views on the use of a word in personal matters should not be seen as ground to exclude me from making edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

          Actually, you are still engaging in the problematic behavior. You stated above that FormalDude's intentions were to "delibertely pick a fight". You continue to call Jburlinson's words "hate speech". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

          • • Well, the justifying of disregarding others wishes by attacking a policy that has not existed for 43 years is highly problematic to say the least.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

              My point was that you have not backed down. Your response further illustrates my point. If you continue to edit in this topic area, do you intend to respond to uses of the term 'Mormon' by accusing the editors of hate speech and/or fight-picking? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The scope of this topic ban is far too broad and ill defined. I will apologize for some of my intermepate actions. I do not think a topic ban is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John Pack Lambert, each of your responses here amounts to all other responses combined. Your gigantic paragraph-break-less, erm, paragraphs, even tower over the one by perennial long-winded Nil. If I were more cynical, I might think that this is a form of filibustering on your part, to drown the thread with text so as to make it impenetrable to an outside reviewer such as myself. El_C 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • How else is one supposed to react when one is attacked for expressing how they feel about the use of certain words, and people suggest they be banned for feeling that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought not be subjected to being named with a name they have publicly and proactively rejected.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Succinctly, that's how. El_C 18:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • JPL, I take exception to people suggest they be banned for feeling that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ought not be subjected to being named with a name they have publicly and proactively rejected I have not once suggested you should be banned for how you feel. It's how you're editing that appears problematic to me and to some others. I'm not continuing to weigh in, but could not leave that as represented as it's not remotely what I said. Star Mississippi 18:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Proposal I would agree to a ban that would limit my editing of references to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its members and related terms A-from article titles B-from articles that are explicitly about these topics (eg. God in Mormonism and Baptism in Mormonism. This would seem to cover the actual point where the actual debate has flared up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John Pack Lambert, honestly, I don't know that such a watered-down ban is enough. I'll tell you: when I fully and move protected the Mormonism article 2 days ago, I didn't really understand what was happening. But now that I sort of do, it's worse than I thought. From all this, I don't think you can be detached enough to be editing the LDS topic area. El_C 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• John, we have been here way too much, sweetness. I am probably one of the kindest people, but not the only, you could ever find and I do it intentionally. I am empathetic to the message you are trying to convey but I wholly am against the way you are presenting it. No one is saying that you can't have an opinion. I have not seen a single person at any AN/I discussion concerning you that has said you can't have an opinion or even express it, so long as you remain civil. The way you have expressed it is to attack other editors and it wasn't necessary. So many people are turned off by the abrasiveness of your approach that they can't even see, let alone digest, your concerns. I disagree with the way you have presented your case and I believe it was uncivil and unkind. I also believe, when compounded with past issues, it is actionable.

To your concerns, proper etiquette is to utilize the pronouns or specific terms that an editor requests for themselves when addressing them and when those terms are made known. I would hope my fellow editors are kind enough to not continue to insult other editors when these things are brought to their attention. There are no sides when it comes to kindness. When it comes to articles, we don't have individual power to alter consensus within the article, even with sources we feel are compelling. We share what we find, we make our arguments and we move on. There is NO excuse for incivility, even when provoked. --ARoseWolf 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am probably one of the kindest people, but not the only, you could ever find and I do it intentionally — kindness flex! ☻ El_C 18:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • I object to your rude and condescending referral to me as "sweetness". The thrust above is that if I believe that "M-----" is an objectionable word, I need to be banned from editing. This is clearly punishing me for my personal beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I called you that because, in our past dealings, you were genuinely sweet and kind to me and I wanted to interject some kindness and softness in my response. I'm sorry you feel it was condescending. I can assure you that was not the case but as it has caused offense I will not refer to you in this manner going forward. I continue to support you, a fellow editor, while not supporting your approach in this case. If you are banned it will not be because of your personal views. No one has suggested you be banned for believing that word to be offensive. It is your continued uncivil reactions that are actionable. Content, not the editor. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • • @Johnpacklambert: The thrust above is to try to prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia because of your minority belief that the M word is offensive. It would appear few are convinced you will stop your disruptive editing behavior that is based on your objection to the M word. ––FormalDude talk 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You have a serious WP:IDHT problem right now. Reread everyone's posts and actually think about what they are saying. Mlb96 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support sanction based on the overwhelming WP:IDHT on display here and the repeated mischaracterization of "hate speech" and claims about "Mormon" and variations of it being "deprecated" and offensive. I don't see evidence that JPL is capable of editing this subject in a neutral manner--quite the opposite, in fact. Grandpallama (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment would a non-involved editor please weight in on JPL's edit on my Talk. I'm disappointed that a proposal based on his edits is turning into perceived discrimination, which it is not, but recognize I'm involved. Star Mississippi 18:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (ec) I've added my take on this as an uninvolved editor at each user talk page. I support the proposal, but honestly don't think a topic ban would go far enough and is just a matter of rope. The issues here are much more fundamental than a single topic area, which is evidenced by multiple previous editing restrictions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

User indeffed

• Note: El C has indefinitely blocked JPL. Is this section ready to be closed, or are there further matters to discuss? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've indeffed JPL, Star Mississippi, in light of that, which is really a last straw for me. As I mention on JPL's talk page, major assurances will need to be provided if this block is to be lifted. El_C 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh I apologize to the community if anyone else felt my comment was condescending. I am no better than anyone else here. I was trying to support the editor, JPL, while also pointing out my disagreement with their actions. I just wanted to offer some kindness. --ARoseWolf 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, don't despair. You are beloved. El_C 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Thank you! I never despair for long. I enjoy spreading the love too much. --ARoseWolf 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Thank you El_C for your action and the heads up. Sorry it had to end this way, but it didn't seem this was going to be a productive conversation unfortunately. Firefangledfeathers no objection to closure here but I assume I shouldn't as I'm involved, and I'm also not sure how to close an ANI section so double defer to others. Star Mississippi 19:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the "too much" sentiment for the indef, but don't think the indef needs to be infinite (hopefully the autism comments were a one-time mistake). I think a topic ban relating to the intersection of WP:Manual of Style issues and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is necessary for an unblock, I'm not sure how broad it has to be beyond that to be understandable and enforceable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have made extended remarks on the content-related topic on my talk page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (assuming the indef is lifted at some point) as it's clear JPL can't edit neutrally in this area.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indef Oh no :( I feel compelled to comment here because I saw the indef and because I had some weird run-ins with JPL the last couple of days. I feel like this is an extremely productive editor outside the topic of religion, who maybe needs to take a minute to reflect before commenting. I feel the indef prevents too much and I hope it will be lifted. And I hope, JPL, if you're reading this you can show in an unblock request that you can productive in other areas but maybe take a step back from editing topics so close to home as religion and/or LDS-releated topics. --Mvbaron (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Can you provide any diffs that show that this editor is extremely productive? In my experience he has simply been extremely disruptive for many years, but maybe I haven't intersected with him in the right areas. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: Take a look at some of the articles they've created. They have over 400k+ edits, I've seen several examples of productive editing from them. ––FormalDude talk 21:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment for simplicitly, linking to my comment on JPL's talk. I accept his apology, but remain in favor of the topic ban with which he also seems to concur. Neutral on the unblock and leave it for an uninvolved editor. Star Mississippi 20:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Commenting as an involved editor. I'm clearly against the wholesale changes Johnpacklambert has been trying to make over the past couple of days. I spent a good hour the other day manually rolling back most of his changes and moving back the 20-whatever pages that he boldly renamed. That said, I've worked in the same topic area alongside JPL for years, and this isn't normal behavior for him. Like any editor here he has his quirks, but he's generally a helpful and productive editor. It's clear to me that he got really really worked up about the Mormon naming issue, and then reacted poorly when everybody jumped on him. Clearly admin intervention was needed, and I think El_C's block was a good wake up call. But I think it would be tragic if we were to end someone's nearly half-a-million-edit Wikipedia career over this. I hope admins will consider JPL's unblock requests and give him a chance to show that he can do better. I also oppose a broad topic ban for the LDS (Mormonism) topic area. As I said, his edits are generally constructive, and he knows a lot about the topic. I'm fully satisfied with JPL's commitment to not move any more pages in the topic area without prior consensus. I would like to see an acknowledgement that he let his bias get the better of him and a plan for how he's going to avoid that in the future. That, in my opinion, is the root of the problem, and a more serious issue than namecalling or whatever was the last straw here. ~Awilley (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeff. JPL is an editor of 15 years standing, who while maybe a little too Deletionist, has made a huge number of useful contributions. It's a reasonable position to view the M word as offensive. LDS ran a massive awareness raising campaign against the M word back in 2018. That said, the M word may still be the WP:COMMONNAME, JPL seems to have been too tenacious in arguing against consensus, and he did allow his annoyance to cause a few NPA violations. In my view at least the thing to do when a prolific contributor gets worked up like that is just to give them a short block, perhaps even taking away TP access if they keep arguing about it. No dramas. Only if they need several of these blocks in any one year is there any need to give them a distressing Indeff. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, obviously, I'd rather no one gets distressed, but "annoyance to cause a few NPA violations" — I don't like that. I think phrasing it this way diminishes from the distress felt by those whom JPL falsely accused of "hate speech" and of being connected to discrimination against neurodiverse persons.

Anyway, the reason why I did not set the block to expire was because I wanted the basis for JPL's assurances to not be weighed down by knowing that, in either case, they could just wait out the block. I haven't had a chance to review the text that was written below my block notice at JPL's talk page, and there's a lot of it. I just got home and am about to turn in early. If another admin, who did review all that text, feels that the threshold for an unblock has been met, they have my blessing to go ahead and unblock with immediate effect. El_C 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've a different view on indeffs, but I should save that for the Village pump. Sorry my wording was imperfect, essential for us to have caring admins still willing to block when the downside is outweighed by distress/disruption for the wider community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I added my view on the indef here at JPL's talk page. TL;DR: At present I support an unblock & a minimum six month topic ban from all LDS-related articles. My mind could be changed if new info is presented. ––FormalDude talk 23:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: On one hand, JPL's conduct has clearly been unreasonable, and it seems like he may be unable to constructively engage others on the topic of the appropriate name of the church. On the other hand, I don't know if I can I support him never editing Wikipedia again over this (or even support a topic ban on a subject he's clearly knowledgeable and passionate about). Someone above has said that a ban on page moves in the topic area may be warranted, and this seems like it'd be more helpful than an indef. jp×g 00:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• JPL is one of the more difficult editors to deal with and I always thought they would get blocked per DS in the AP topic area, for their right-wing bias combined with their obstinacy. I did see a bunch of their LDS edits go by (on Monday?) and was wondering about that--but since I have no interest in that area I didn't check on it, and now I wish that I did. Maybe some of this could have been staved off, I don't know. I did not know they were on the spectrum, and I don't know how much it matters. I do know that JPL has, on the whole, been a net positive; as with some other editors, I think they get in trouble in an area they care too much about; Lord knows I stay clear of Alabama football articles for that very reason.

  I think El_C's block was absolutely correct, and the comments that JPL directed at Star Mississippi were absolutely wrong, and I also think that we should consider unblocking JPL with a topic ban or two in place. I've not looked at the actual disputes in article space; those who have might could propose an 1R restriction or something like that, if that was the kind of thing that led to it. I fear, though, that it should simply be the entire LDS area that's off-limits, at least for now. On the whole, though, I do believe an unblock is warranted and I'd do it right now, but it is prudent to slow down and make sure that we get the right restrictions in place, and that JPL understands them and can agree to abiding by them. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am taking on this unblock request. I am so far not involved in this dispute. I have read through this thread and the user's talk page. I am taking into account the various opinions given here. I will not unblock without the agreement of the blocking admin, though nothing in the unblock review process will prevent the community from reaching its own conclusions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• El_C and others, at some point we'll need to talk about revoking TPA. Given the socking (confirmed by two CUs), the unblock request is much less likely to be granted; if that is indeed denied, then I believe we should revoke TPA, because the comments there are disruptive and serve only to dig the hole deeper. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Drmies, you're probably right. But I am wary of doing so myself, tbh (for reasons which are my own). El_C 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  I support TPA revocation. I like JPL, I've defended him several times before at ANI, I hope he resumes editing, but right now it's clear he is having a very difficult time and having TPA is counterproductive. I know it's paternalistic of me but I really think revoking TPA (and probably courtesy blanking everything on the talk page other than well wishes) is the merciful thing to do in this situation, for JPL's own sake, given what he is writing. JPL should continue the conversation about unblocking conditions, with admins, in private, on UTRS, after taking a little break and recollecting his composure and thoughts. Levivich 15:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference

• Question - Does anyone know if there is a list anywhere of the various things that JPL has promised to not do from the various times he has come before AN/I? I ask this merely because it might be helpful to him to have it as a concrete list that he can refer to, than to just rely upon memory, which may be forgotten in the heat of a discussion. - jc37 23:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

From personal experience. I find that editors who are fixated on one topic, constantly or on & off. Tend to be the most troublesome. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Like several other editors above, I'm most familiar with JPL from WP:AFD discussions. Given that JPL has over four hundred thousand edits across a wide span of the project, it's not fair to suggest he is a single-purpose account. Certainly the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an area of interest (potentially to the degree of a conflict of interest), but not the only one. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I did state "on and off", not just constantly. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone put together a list of times John has been brought to ANI over the past 8-10 years since this is a pretty serious discussion of repercussions from the latest spate of bad moves and disagreements with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz:, here's a quick summary searching for his username in the archives:

• Ban request, May 2013
• Johnpacklambert continuing the Group of 88 thing, July 2014. This also includes half-a-dozen links to previous ANI discussions about JPL.
• Edit warring, October 2015
• JPL, September 2016
• AfD ban, March 2017
• Block review, February 2019
• Prods, August 2020
• AfDs, February 2021
• Disruptive POINTy AfD !votes and racist comparisons, April 2021
• Emptying categories, July 2021

There are others, and for transparency, I was the OP in one of the above issues. I've not made any attempt to make any summaries of these ANI threads. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

See my comment below. The thing is, you go into half those discussions and you get more links to earlier discussions etc. JPL's issues go back nearly a decade. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A long-term pattern that needs to be examined and taken into account before unblocking should be considered

(Note: WP:OUTING does not bar discussion of off-wiki postings, and the Arbitration Committee has made clear in matters as recent as last year's Lightbreather ban appeal that off-wiki activity germane to an editor's on-wiki actions may be raised and often enough should be acted on.)

John Pack Lambert is engaged in a personal jihad on Wikipedia against the Roman Catholic Church. He claims upset because he believes diocesan bishops are treated cas sufficiently notable for articles, while LDS figures who he deems equally important are found less notable. And he engages in disruptive deletion campaigns (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Zimmerman (bishop), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Zimmerman (bishop); in the latter, JPL astonishly claims that coverage in newspapers like the Orlando Sentinel cannot count toward the GNG because it is "hyper local". It is impossible to take JPL's arguments as good faith. And when you realize that John Pack Lambert, off Wikipedia, has posted virulent hate speech against the Catholic Church, calling it "the false religion", denouncing Pope Francis for ordering "idol worship", and saying "The Catholics in Rome have now bowed to false God's. Any Catholic who believes in Jesus Christ should find a new church". (links will be provided privately on request; there are some pages that should not be promoted publicly. There are even more hateful things there, not just anti-Catholic fervor.)

The moderate face he presents on-wiki (not terribly steadily) is belied by the raw hatred he expresses elsewhere, and that hatred makes it all but impossible the justifications he provides here for his attacks are advanced in good faith. If he is to be unblocked, an idea I find appalling, the unblock must be accompanied by a broad topic ban on all pages concerning religion, religious figures, and religious institutions, as well as all edits to pages involving religion-related content, construed broadly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, while surveys suggest an overwhelming majority of the world's population is +ve about religion, and >95% of the thousands of social science studies find religion is at least slightly pro-social, if we looked at some of the groups most likely to edit here, e.g. middle class Londoners, we could easily find a majority against religion. And taking that to the level of a virulently -ve view on the Catholic church isn't that uncommon. IMO having a strong off wiki view against Catholicism or other religions ought not in any way count against editing here. That said, agree JPL's editing has been problematic in this area. Personally I'd support a one year religion topic ban, but with an exception for LDS, where I think JPL's edits have been mostly good. (Maybe he could have a separate 3 month LDS topic ban though, just to give the editors he's recently been insulting a break.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Disagree, from my experience he is *extremely* disruptive in the LDS space and should never be allowed to edit within it again at the very minimum. I would agree with “mostly good” but we can’t ignore the 2-3% which are abusive, PA, or batshit crazy. Note that he blamed his most recent tirade on still being all worked up over page deletions that happened in 2019[31]... Thats a long time to be that angry or in his exact words “seething.” How many years are we expecting them to seethe about something much more serious like a TBAN? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Re to Hullaballoo's points, some of that landed obliquely on Wiki here: User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Wikipedians_are_so_rude. I don't know his off wiki edits and don't want to, but I think an LDS topic ban, if implemented, might still solve much of this here. Star Mississippi 11:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Banning from religion will hardly address Johnpacklambert's problems. They extend beyond religion and go back years. I am just going to repost my comment from earlier this year and say community ban Johnpacklambert - he is a drain on the community and his victims over the years deserve more consideration than him.

• 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)

The above I posted in April and contains links going back years. Just show him the door already. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't the category thing a whole decade ago? If that's how far back we have to reach to find a single incident, I don't think it is very relevant (and one of the articles linked even has the headline sexism-on-wikipedia-is-not-the-work-of-a-single-misguided-editor). jp×g 21:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

*He's done a lot of good, he's done a lot of harm. He really wants to edit. I think he should have a block long enough for him to take stock, and some serious restrictions, such as some broad topic bans (including AfD and LDS). But a permanent ban is likely to lead to dealing with an infinite number of socks and more difficulties down the road. Let's try to be constructive, but let's be very, very serious about the many, recurring problems we have encountered over a long period. Jacona (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I apologize, I reconsidered my comment and find it ill-considered. It's early in the morning, sorry. Please ignore. Jacona (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - JPL is an ultra-inclusionist at AFD on any topic touching upon Mormonism and an ultra-deletionist, to the point of disruption, on every other topic. To my way of thinking an indef improves the encyclopedia, but maybe that is just the bitter moderate inclusionist in me talking... Carrite (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I was just looking over the links to the dramaboards supplied by Lugnuts, above, and while there's some improvement from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#Johnpacklambert_continuing_the_Group_of_88_thing to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Disruptive_POINTy_AfD_!votes_and_racist_comparisons_by_Johnpacklambert, I see that older pattern repeated on the very talk page: attack the critic, retaliate, point elsewhere, pull in unrelated matters, apologize, attack again and blame others, apologize again... Looking over those half dozen or more threads, it's actually surprising that they are still here: I did not know that there has been this much discussion/disruption. I reiterate that serious restrictions need to be in place before we unblock--if we unblock. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not as surprised, wikipedians as a group respond well to emotional blackmail. For all the nasty things we say about each other we are profoundly empathetic, even when it clouds our collective judgement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah so this and this happened. That must be a new record for either socking or joe jobbing. I will leave it to a Checkuser to see which. Given they seem to want to accuse me of hatred of people with autism, something anyone who has had to deal with JPL's routine excuses for their bad behaviour will recognise, I personally lean towards the former rather than the latter. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Gotta be honest, with how his mood was affecting his spelling I'm more likely to lean joe job. Also this is a little on the nose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to see two editors are being harassed, but it's a CU matter now; there's little to be gained by non-CUs discussing the likelihoods of who's behind it. I think this thread should be re-closed, let the CUs handle it from here. Levivich 18:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

       Unrelated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Now that this unpleasantness has been resolved can this discussion be re-closed? Don't see the purpose in keeping the discussion open and I think Floquenbeam summed it up correctly the first time. --ARoseWolf 20:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I support re-closing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Why was JPL blocked?

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

---

Sorry to add to this, but I read the closing statement, and most of the discussion, and as an uninvolved party I don't understand why was JPL indeffed. Can the closing statement be adjusted to say not that 'he has been blocked', but also 'why he has been blocked', in a way that uninvolved editors can understand? (Note: I did notice some diffs of incivility presented, but I don't see which ones were considered sufficient for indeffing, neither am I seeing a consensus for a community block, and all of that happened in a about 24h?! Isn't this a bit too fast for an editor who has been here for 15 years? What am I missing?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose adding the reason. We don't want to risk encouraging further repeats of such unnecessary Indeffs. JPL was blocked for this diff along with his previous recent disruption. The diff was arguably not blockworthy on its own, but clearly is as a "last straw". It was an indeff as the admin wanted "the basis for JPL's assurances to not be weighed down by knowing that, in either case, they could just wait out the block". A short block was fully warranted, making it an indeff was a mistake in my view, though obviously impossible for active admins not to make a few of those.

At least this debacle demonstrates the vacuity of the statement made by admin Llywrch at the recent Arb request involving yourself: blocks for a fixed period are no longer effective to protect the Wiki: the only recourse, I regret to say, is an indefinite block. Faced with a block for a few days or a few months, an experienced Wikipedia will simply wait it out, & return just as convinced they have been wronged & less likely to change their ways. But an indefinite block -- which by definition can last anywhere from say 10 minutes to 10 years -- this puts the burden on the sanctioned Wikipedian to admit they need to change their behaviour before they return.

I laughed when I read that, as it seemed Llywrch was intentionally echoing the nonsense "Short blocks won't work" play from WP:UNBLOCKABLE , for humorous effect. Surely any fool would see the "logic" in Llywrch's satement only make sense in a near ideal world. Issues with it include:

1) Many associate an Indeff with a Permanban, the two often turn out to be functionally identical. It can cause panic.

2) It's exactly our most valuable editors, who devout much of their lifes energy to improving the project, who are most susceptible to such panic.(Per the hobby possibly being the main thing that gives their life meaning)

3) The logic seems to assume reviewing admins are consistently good & wise actors (in fact even the decisions of professional judges have been found to vary significantly depending on time since last meal.)

4) It seems to assume that people cant type out an "I was wrong - I'll do this better" unblock request without having a sincere change of heart.

5) It seems to ignore the fact that people from certain cultures, or with certain personality types, find it very hard to admit they are wrong. etc etc.

If we're going to switch to handing out indeffs for long term editors instead of escalating blocks first, there's going to be a lot more of this drama. (The horror of which may sometimes be experienced only by the blocked long term editor, as lower profile types can be indeffed without it being brought to a notice board). The very least we should do is change "The free encyclopaedia that anyone can Edit" to "... any elite graduate can edit" FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable I agree with a lot of you wrote (except subpoint 5, but that's probably OT, and I'd love to see a ref for subpoint 3), but I don't understand why you oppose adding the reason? As I said, I don't have a cow in this issue, and looking at the diff, which is indeed problematic, as you say, a short block might have been warranted. But a block, short or long, should be clearly justified with a proper reason. You talk about how 'indef block' idea may panic experienced editors, but IMHO blocks without rationales are even more scary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion I guess, perhaps you're right. A good ref for 3) is Chpt. 3 of the very influential Thinking, Fast and Slow. If you go to our Injustice article, ref 18 is for an individual study on the issue. There were about 10 other studies when I looked into this a few years back, there may be even more now. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The lack of self awareness and the lack of sensitivity on the parts of both of you is a little shocking to me, tbh. El_C 10:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a delicate matter to be sure. I don't like to be that guy, and have the self awareness to know saying things like the above will make me seem like an arse to some, increases the odds of sanctions for me if I get into a future dispute, plus slightly reduces the chance of my views being taken seriously on other matters. But there arent too many editors remaining with a willingness to speak up directly for prolific contributors, so I thought it was my turn. There's quite a few who like to encourage harsh sanctions & even try to discourage editors from defending others with talk of "enabling" and what have you. Those types don't let their sensitivity hold them back from supporting permabans.

More important than the self awareness thing, Im sensitive to the fact implied criticism can be painful to admins and possibly even could discourage them from their essential work. Especially in a case like this with all the special JPL circumstances. Sometimes it seems worth taking a risk though, as otherwise what's to stop the trend to more unchallenged indeffs? Depriving us of valuable prolific editors and the distress that entails for those blocked from their fave hobby. In your case, I'd guess you'd almost certainly have seen the downside yourself without me saying anything. Doesnt mean the anti indeff remarks wern't worth saying. I've seen you around for a long time, you strike me as a most high calibre individual, it would be unexpected if me criticising the indeff has any long term effect. ( On you I mean, possibly theres an admin or two reading this with one hand on the ban hammer, thinking "Ahh Feyd, you're so going to get it the next time you take another of your risks." ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeydHuxtable (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) FeydHuxtable, I'm just dissapointed more than anything. Re-opening and/or contributing to this thread, after it's been closed twice already, is not a good look. Most especially due the serious nature of this matter. Doesnt mean the anti indeff remarks wern't worth saying — no, it means now's not the time. Once JPL's TPA is restored, it'll probably be revisited. Finally: it would be unexpected if me criticising the indeff has any long term effect — indeed, it would be unexpected. Sorry I've given you that impression. El_C 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I for one am damn thankful that the attitude of Wikipedia has shifted away from defending toxic contributors on the grounds that they are prolific. And no, I don't think you're risking a ban on the grounds of you stating your opinion. That said, is JPL really the poster child you want to use to make your ill-advised point (if you can even call it a point, I'm not sure exactly what the grounds for your argument are)? Seems to me there are better candidates out there. --WaltCip-(talk) 11:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable: see, this comment above is exactly why re-opening this was a bad idea. El_C 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fine. Duly struck.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Sheijiashaojun disruptive editing

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

Regarding bludgeoning: On this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Asian History (journal), this user replies to every post that disagrees with their position.

• An editor comments: [32], Sheijiashaojun responds [33]. This is early in the AFD and Sheijiashaojun becomes argumentative discounting WP:NOTINHERITED which is based on guidelines and policy.
• An editor ivotes [34], Sheijiashaojun responds [35]
• The same editor comments again [36], Sheijiashaojun responds[37].
• An editor comments/replies [38], Sheijiashaojun responds [39].
• An editor comments saying: [40] "This has been hopelessly bludgeoned by the article creator, for which I've given them a slight admonishment..." The admonishment was posted on Sheijiashaojun talk page first consisting of instructions for managing COI [41]. This was followed by noting "...bludgeoning a debate..."[42].
• The article under discussion has been created by Sheijiashaojun. An editor says it "...has been WP:REFBOMBed to the point of making notability difficult to discern... [43].
• Another editor notes bludgeoning [44]. Sheijiashaojun responds [45]. In a second post the same editor writes "badger" for the edit history, and says, "...discussions are about forming a consensus, not convincing everyone to agree with you. Not every rationale has to be explained in excruciating detail, on-demand..."[46].

And there is much more in between. The page is 78.6 kilobytes. The page has 177 distinct edits [47]. The result is Sheijiashaojun leads the discussion all over the place in a serpentine manner. In this way, productive editors get worn down and leave the discussion. See WP:DISRUPTSIGNS number 4 and number 6. Also please see WP:CIR.

In agreement with two one of the above posts, this user seems to have a strong COI. In fact, it is as if a loss will be incurred if the page is not kept.

Note Sheijiashaojun's account was opened in September 2005. There were only two or four more edits that year -- during the next month, October 2005. Then the next edit was in March 2020. [48], [49] (pls scroll down). So this account was dormant for 15 years. Then, the account was again dormant from between April 2020 and July 2021. It seems to be active now up to the present moment. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Steve Quinn's assessment of the situation. I am the editor referred to in the final bullet point and truly do not think Sheijiashaojun understands how consensus works and that they don't need to rebut every single point made to "win" the argument. I'm not sure whether the article will be kept as there are solid points made by established editors as to keep/delete, but I don't think this issue is going to end with this long-running AfD. AGFing that the lack of COI is a true statement, but likely a topic ban might come in to play Star Mississippi 16:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Same here. In fact, I have stopped communicating with this particular editor. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I've issued a block for that page (first time I've ever used the partial block feature!), that should help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, a partial block should be helpful.---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I also want to mention that Sheijiashaojun apologized during the AFD [50], and then decided to "...renew apologies..." [51]. However, they did not modify their editing behavior and kept on bludgeoning - after the apologies. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Hello, thanks for the notification. I'd like to suggest that Steve Quinn and Randykitty also be partially blocked, since they also respond to everyone who disagrees with them. Yes, I present new information when I found it to the AfD, and I also try to convince people with direct evidence, but they ignore it. If they say, for instance, that the journal is not in WoS, then I assume good faith and give the evidence or the navigation information so that they can convince themselves that it historically was. Their stance, that they know better than Clarivate what Clarivate does and does not index, despite direct evidence https://paste.pics/850a40e81eb771f06cb9d001d9abaaa6 https://paste.pics/57aa0d9d0c797ec2b03b405f788b9754 is incoherent. It's a pretty grim result for Wikipedia when editors blatantly disregard the same standards for notability they insist upon earlier in the AfD. I don't know how it should be proved, but it is the case that I have no COI. I also work in Asian studies, and don't like to see either my work or useful pages for Asian Studies being deleted. I should add finally that I often make small edits because of typos or afterthoughts, so I don't think sheer number is a fair indicator. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I endorse the partial block against Sheijiashaojun for this AfD. They have certainly had their say and at this point their constant posting there has become disruptive. I would have done it myself if not already done. Regarding the request that Steve Quinn and Randykitty also be blocked, I do not see how that is justified at this moment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• OK. I would encourage people to look at the actual arguments of the AfD. It seems absurd to me that the indexing which so clearly meets WP:NJOURNALS (but can only be checked through Web of Science) is simply ignored. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Your carrying on about this at such length here is only making me more convinced I made the right call. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps. I'm worked up because the principles and guidelines of notability are being ignored, not because I have a COI (I haven't). I'm trying to deal with incredulity that evidence and notability guidelines made no difference to the discussion. If some are not amenable to either, then how is consensus supposed to eventuate? If erroneous statements are repeatedly given, does one just let them stand? Some questions are matters of opinion (is an index selective? is a source "more than trivial") but others are matters of fact, and I don't think the latter should stand when they're gotten wrong. The above editors make several errors of fact (the claim that the journal is not published by the ANU; the claim that it is not historically indexed in the A&HCI and therefore the Web of Science) and use them to support deletion. In good faith, I would think one provides the evidence to show them they are mistaken. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• It does take two (or three) to bludgeon to this extent. I'm sympathetic to the argument that other editors (with more long-standing wiki experience) should have also been blocked, but the partial block for Sheijiashaojun on its own is justified. If those other editors continue bludgeoning, surely (maybe?) they shall also be P-blocked. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• When I suggested that User:Steve Quinn and User: randykitty also be partially blocked for the AfD, and tried to follow "you must notify them on their user talk page," the former characterises it as an act of disruption, and the latter writes "do not post here again". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steve_Quinn&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Randykitty&action=history Surely it's clear that I was trying to follow the rules, and aren't I obliged to post on the talk page according to the big golden banner on the pre-publication edit screen here? Instead what appears is more claims that I disrupt. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• The above is an apt illustration of the problem. You keep seeing the world as you'd like it to be, not the way it actually is. What I said was "Please do not post on my talk page any more, you are hereby released from any obligation to notify me about anything. Thanks." I did not admonish you for that particular post, I just told you to refrain from any further posts. Not the same thing at all. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, it is an illustration of my being relatively new here and seeing only the summary ("do not post here again"), and reading that as a claim of disruption (a claim Steve Quinn certainly made), not realising there would be more if I clicked through. Sorry for misinterpreting, and sorry for not knowing that. But it is not an "apt illustration of the problem." This might be an example of your unwillingness to assume good faith, though. Not pinging, as per request. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but this is bordering on the disingenuous. You have almost a thousand edits. In addition, when I comment in the above-mentioned AfD, often the only edit summary that I use is "cmt". You didn't have any problem then to see that I wrote more than just "cmt" (by plastering another wall of text), so don't come now playing the newbie who doesn't know what an edit summary is for. --Randykitty (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is what I mean by unwillingness to assume good faith. I could see your edits in the AfD because they remained there, and I can see them on that page just by navigating to the AfD...but on your Talk page you had already deleted them by the time I visited, and I only saw the summary. I should perhaps figured it out how to do the page-comparisons to see the already-deleted text, but didn't realise that was an option, and that's all there is to it. I assume good faith about your errors, so I would appreciate if you would do the same, which if I'm not mistaken is a WP rule anyway. As for the walls of text, they were attempts in good faith to provide evidence. AfD is a particular genre, and I didn't know the conventions, not all of which are the ones that are written down. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

“Rope to hang yourself with”…

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

---

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

---

I am a victim of childhood sexual abuse and due to that I recently attempted to kill myself at the age of 43. I survived and now I am an advocate for children who were sexually abused. It was brought to my attention that an article on wiki was sugar coating the excessive sexual abuse of a minor, by her sister. I am a long-standing contributor of Wikipedia as well as a donor and I adhere to citation and reference rules when I edit, as I did in this case. Upon attempting to edit the admitted childhood sexual predators page to more correctly demonstrate that the sex abuse shouldn’t be characterized as “exploration” or that it only happened one time (but happened for 11years, per Lena Dunham), editor NorthBySouthBaronof decided to write that they were giving me “Rope to hang myself with.[52] Is this the behavior we want the admins of Wikipedia to be exhibiting? That was the most callous thing anyone has ever said to me about my abused childhood, and literally without any regard for personal feelings or past situations. I was only, continually, asking how to report an admin who I felt was violating my rights to edit when this editor said this to me. How do I escalate this so that I can get some leadership in here to deal with this before I go public with it?MainEditoreditoreditor (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The line itself is a reference to a common Wikipedia essay, WP:ROPE, which is frequently used in internal discussions; the community has a lot of its own jargon. I certainly don't think NorthBySouthBaranof intended to be callous at all, it wouldn't come off that way to most editors, although I can understand why you would have such a visceral reaction. On the other hand, you need to carefully read what the people on your talkpage have written to you, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)MainEditoreditoreditor, the link to WP:ROPE is commonly used. It is perhaps an unfortunate analogy, and I am sorry that you have been hurt by the choice of words, but I do not see any reason to think that NorthBySouthBaranof (who is not, FWIW, an administrator) meant it as reference to your own life experiences. I'm looking into what you have been doing at that article recently - I'm not familiar with the case, but on the face of it, it looks like you have been edit warring, and I see that people have accused you of violations of our WP:BLP policies. Please don't edit the article again for the meantime, while I take a look to see what has been going on. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor in question. I have done so for you this time. —El Millo (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The context which is needed: The above user's edits to Lena Dunham amount to false and defamatory statements which are clear and unambiguous BLP violations - describing a person who has neither been charged nor convicted of any crime as a "childhood sexual predator" or as a perpetrator of "sexual abuse" is simply right out. The issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page, sourced statements regarding it appear in this article and Not That Kind of Girl (the book in which the controversial passages are published), and the insertions they are making are unacceptable. With myself and User:Paul Erik having extensively attempted to explain this to the above user, they responded by demanding to be able to "report" the issue. I simply provided them with the link to this page, and with a link to a commonly-read essay exploring what would predictably happen after they reported the issue. No offense was intended.

OP's edit-warring and BLP violations are worthy of administrative attention, as the OP has refused to listen to multiple editors patiently explaining why their edits do not comply with policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Having acknowledged both here and at your talkpage that you had a previous account, which you aren't using because of a forgotten password, please consider identifying it. Grandpallama (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

MainEditoreditoreditor I've reviewed the material in detail, and I agree that your editing at that article was in violation of our BLP policy - your edits were not supported by the cited sources, and was based upon your own interpretation of things described in the subject's autobiography. Again, I am very sorry if your encounters with other editors here have caused you pain, but they have been correctly enforcing our policies. If you are interested in contributing to this project, you need to be much more careful about how write about living people. I'm going to put a notice on your talk page about the discretionary sanctions in place in that topic area. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s incorrect as I had already admitted to being a childhood sex victim when the editor said these unbelievable and callous statements towards me. The editor knew they were being hurtful and did it without regard for people or feelings.

    I would like to know how to escalate this aspect of my situation to a higher leadership so that we can get eyes on this situation from those who are paid to handle conflicts such as the demeaning of suicide survivors and childhood sex victims. Please let me know how to proceed with my escalation. Thanks.

• A word of advice: Any escalation will end poorly for yourself. Rather than continue to push what will ultimately be a fruitless endeavor, I'd suggest studying Wikipedia policies instead so that you can become a productive editor. Mlb96 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note: OP was indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE by GeneralNotability. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I am not commenting on the specific issue above but I think it may be time for the community to abandon this "rope to hang yourself with" terminology, which I find really creepy and I do not think that I have ever used it myself. Many people find it very cruel. It was commonplace in the earlier days of Wikipedia to admonish people to "don't be a dick" but we have mostly abandoned comparing people to genitalia, and the sexualized adolescent female Wikipe-tan character used to be trotted out much more commonly than it is today. It is time (it has always been that time) for Wikipedia editors to grow up and abandon hurtful and childish memes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as the primary author of that essay, this is not how it is intended to be used. See Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope#Citing this essay. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I've always disliked the use of this violent metaphor. Compare the Optimist's guide to Wikipedia, bullet point 7. Bishonen | tålk 13:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC).

What's a better metaphor? Give em enough runway to crash? It's about allowing people to make choices so we can see if they make bad choices (really the sentiment kind of sucks tho I agree with it) but I struggle to think of a nonviolent/non-entrapment-ish way to express the thought. Levivich 13:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As an expression it may seem insensitive to some, but it is a common phrase used outside wikipedia too, to mean the same thing. I had never considered it insensitive until reading this discussion, and frankly have not changed my mind. "Dont be a richard" is also not considered insensitive, just a well considered description, hereabouts. Please people, dont all be dicks, give us some rope to use. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

People are commonly vulgar and insensitive, it's true, but we can choose better metaphors. Levivich 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favour of marking it historical. Even if you can overlook the violent metaphor, this is a bad essay. It advises us that rather than dealing with a problem editor at an early stage when gentle correction might suffice, we should instead not bother trying to fix things and instead wait for the problem to get so bad that kicking them out is the only option left. The fact that the essay likens this to giving an unstable person the tools to kill themselves so that we don't have to get messy ourselves is really just window dressing. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as we can reword manned to crewed, we can reword "rope to hang yourself" to many other phrases that would transmit the same meaning. Why traumatize anyone if we have a choice? Just because we are DICKs who have a tradition of using an archaic phrase? Jacona (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't like the phrase, I agree with Cullen that it's unnecessarily graphic and an alternative would be preferable, but I do think the principle itself is a sound one. It is basically akin to giving someone either a last chance (if they're on the verge of a lengthy block) or a fresh chance (if they've already had a lengthy block). The gist being that if someone promises to rectify problematic behaviour, we AGF and give them an opportunity to prove it to us, with the proviso that they'll be blocked immediately if they revert back to the old habits. That's a positive thing IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

It will probably not be a popular move, but I've nominated the "rope" essay for deletion. Jacona (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As for alternative metaphors, someone did try to write Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes a few years back. It was kind of doomed from the start (creator was an admin with sockpuppets) but its deletion discussion also has links to some other metaphors you could try. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Along the same lines, I was going to propose WP:Let their actions speak as a violent metaphor-less, more optimistic and AGF-y take. I'm no wordsmith, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Back when all the world and love were new, I was friends with a wise old accordion player who used to say, "if you let people talk, they always tell on themselves." Not sure that's lively or pithy enough, but I thought I'd toss it in the mix. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reminds me of the celebrated (and often paraphrased) quote by Maya Angelou: "My dear, when people show you who they are, why don't you believe them? Why must you be shown 29 times before you can see who they really are? Why can't you get it the first time?" Rather contrary to the second-chanciness of WP:ROPE, but could easily be given a catchy shortcut like WP:BELIEVE. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we're missing a great opportunity to come up with a new metaphor here. Give them enough water to let them pee their pants? WP:PEEPANTS Or maybe Give them enough gummy bears to let them develop an upset stomach. WP:GUMMYSTOMACH If enough wikipedians start saying it, it could leak into the real world, and you just might hear someone say Give them enough toilet paper to clog their plumbing. WP:TPCLOG ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Two of those are still problematic (for people affected by real chronic medical conditions of which those things are symptoms) but I'm interested in being able to cite WP:FATBERG. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

So more of a Give them enough baby wipes to ruin their neighborhood's sanitation system. There's also something somewhat related to the original essay, Give them enough snake to run into their own tail. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the issue with all the proposed metaphors is that they all imply that the desired end is for the user to screw up again and be blocked. Yes, some editors are doomed to run afoul, but the messaging shouldn't be implying that they're being set up to fail. Besides the toxicity, WP:ROPE runs counter to the spirit of WP:AGF, because we're giving users the "rope" in bad faith. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That is a good point, Ytoyoda! Robby.is.on (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The first mention of suicide in Special:Contributions/MainEditoreditoreditor comes after the rope metaphor was used. I have trouble seeing the whole episode as anything other than M3ed trying to add weight to their threatened complaint.

Wiktionary doesn't offer any alternatives. Cabayi (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

..."give them their own petard" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Just bears mentioning that this is also a violent metaphor, even if cloaked in the Bard's lovely language. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

True, but more "let their carelessness be their undoing" than "let them kill themselves so we don't have to". Also, cloaking an unsavoury process in iambic pentameter would be very Wikipedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi is correct that the M3ed's assertion that they were an attempted suicide survivor came after NBSB's allusions to rope. I have no way of knowing whether anything they said about themselves is true, but in their fourth edit the admitted they weren't new here, and in their seventh, having been reverted twice (by different users), they were already asking about how to make a complaint to administrators. It might be genuine, but the whole thing strikes me as being consistent with how someone might behave if they were attempting to manufacture a complaint, and attempting to make it as weighty as possible.

None of which, of course, really speaks to Cullen's point about whether the metaphor is appropriate - while I'm not afraid of colourful language, I tend to agree that we can do better than this, it's probably not helpful to use a violent metaphor, particularly when it's an essay that is often referenced in fraught situations. I think the 'petard' one is quite stylish, but it's not much better from a 'violence' perspective. We might not actually need a metaphor - we can just argue that someone should be 'given a last chance to prove themselves, under close scrutiny'. Write that up as an essay, call it WP:LASTCHANCE (which currently points to WP:ROPE), and we're good. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Something akin to Barnum's "egress" ? Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I vote someone write this up as Double Secret Probation! Dumuzid (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I always thought the message to be communicated was, "instead of trying to predict what a user will do after being unblocked, just unblock them and let them prove it one way or another, because the risk of doing so is low and actual data is better than predictions". Levivich 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's like a test at school, "let them re-take the exam"? Because what's happened is someone faced a tricky situation (an edit-war, a bad reversion, a criticism) and they messed up in how they handled it. So we want to see if they've learned from the mistake, or whether they continue to do the same thing. All of us do stupid things from time to time. A willingness to say "oops, my bad, won't do that again" goes a long way. Elemimele (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Mulligan? —valereee (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that the common operative meaning is: "give them the freedom to be good or bad, and we'll see what they do and they will be treated accordingly" North8000 (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No. There’s a presumption that they’ll take the “bad” option, thereby self-harming. That’s why the message in the essay never quite tallied with the saying. DeCausa (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

My previous post plus: Probably often accompanied by "I'm concerned that it may look like I'm being too easy on them by unblocking/not blocking them, and so I'm including a reminder that they will lead themselves to tough consequences if they blow it". North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Using a phrase like "self-harming" is really not helpful here. Also, the essay makes it very clear that the intent is to give blocked users a chance to succeed, or to fail, it does not presume either outcome. The actual goal of this essay is, and always has been, to actually give blocked users a chance. And again, it is not intended to be directed at blocked users at all, as it unfortunately was in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Offer them one last windmill — Ched (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are some excellent ideas for alternative metaphors above (I laughed out loud at the plumbing one). But, I don't think this is going to address the problem – whatever realistically happens, there is still going to be the WP:ROPE shortcut hanging around, and it will necessarily continue to lead to a page where some sort of rope metaphor is used. The one chance to make a meaningful difference is to change that one rope metaphor. Surely, hanging yourself isn't the only way you can cock it up with a rope. You can tie yourself to some object using a nasty knot you can't untie, or you can get hopelessly entangled, or – if it's a skipping rope – trip yourself up. There must be other ways, too? – Uanfala (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest we just let the MfD resolve this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with HighInBC: the OP has been appropriately blocked and the "Incident" aspect of this thread is resolved. The discussion on ongoing use of the "rope" terminology is best resolved at the MfD page, where the current viable options are "keep" or "mark historical." Unless anyone has a further current incident to add, suggest closing this thread to centralise conversation over there. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BillBoyd2017

• User: BillBoyd2017 (talk · contribs)

• Article: Jeff Spangenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BillBoyd2017 has been removing sourced content from the Jeff Spangenberg article. Edits are being reverted without proper explanation or rationale on the basis "they are not accurate", despite the fact there are four sources that back-up the content. I have attempted to open a discussion . I have also issued two other warnings.[53][54]. The user has failed to reply to request for a discussion and instead continued to remove the sourced content with the same edit summary. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

pblocked for edit-warring, also left them a note asking for them to comment on their pretty obvious COI. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy response. I will give it a day or two for them to comment before updating the Spangenberg main page. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I started the talk page discussion, but no response from BillBoyd2017 yet (partially blocked from the article, but not from the talk page). I cleaned up a few small issues with the content in question. Meters (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Redirects by Misspelling Wizard

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

---

Misspelling Wizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor, despite the feedback of a lot of RfD discussions filed against them and a polite note from an admin, continues to create many misspelling redirects per day. Is this behavior appropriate, and if not, are administrative sanctions necessary to prevent it? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This is bringing back bad memories of Neelix, if not on that scale. Misspelling Wizard, this has to stop now. You have been warned about this, and your redirects are consistently being deleted at RfD. Consider this a final warning, if you continue to mass create redirects I will block you from editing. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block if behavior continues. Warned them directly on their talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd support a restriction that they can only create redirects by proposing them at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories, as was attempted with User:Soumya-8974 awhile back. Not sure how much good it would do, though, as they've had stuff like Albony rejected there and then created it anyway. They've got a few possibly useful ones, but the signal to noise ratio is bad. Hog Farm _Talk 19:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I just need them to stop creating these for now and given the signal/noise ratio, I think they need to do something other than waste people's time at Requests for redirects. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

As the reviewer for roughly 150 redirects at WP:AFCRC
for Misspelling Wizard, I agree with @Deepfriedokra. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Frostyhelmet25

• Frostyhelmet25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user initial appeared constructive for a short period of time, but they have been getting increasingly problematic, including vandalism and BLP violations:

• 25 June 2021 [55]: vandalism at Evo Morales, received 1st warning.
• 3 July 2021 [56]: vandalism at Min Aung Hlaing, received 2nd warning.
• 20 July 2021 [57]: vandalism at Pedro Castillo.
• 23 July 2021 [58]: vandalism at Rodrigo Duterte.
• 27 July 2021 [59]: repeated vandalism at Min Aung Hlaing, received 3rd warning.
• 2 August 2021 [60]: vandalism at Hugo Chávez, received 4th warning (probably because of a different edit with NPOV issue [61].

Other edits had problems related to NPOV, lack of sourcing, BLP violations, and introduction of evident factual errors. The user failed to communicate at all, and did not adjust their behavior after any of the warnings. MarioGom (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

While they have not edited in about a week there are multiple serious BLP violations including others not listed here. I don't think it is a good idea to wait for them to make more serious BLP violations. I have indefinitely blocked them for multiple serious BLP violations. They can have their behavior reviewed if and when they come back and ask for a block review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page

Zefr edited improperly and violated Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines when three times he edited to deleted parts of a discussion and an entire section from an article’s talk page: [62], [63], and [64]. I attempted to restore at least part of the missing content to the talk page, but that was deleted. The talk page as it stands now (Talk:An apple a day keeps the doctor away) has been edited by Zefr to delete comments of another editor (me) and to retain his own comments. This misrepresents the discussion. - Bitwixen (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bitwixen. Are you familiar with WP:NOTAFORUM? Did you really cite Larry Sanger in support of your point of view? Are you aware that Sanger has been consistently incorrect on every aspect of online encyclopedias for the past 19 years? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen, yes, of course, and thanks for noticing my wondering about Sanger, which certainly was not meant to support my point-of-view here, it actually has to do with a different topic, and I think an important topic worth discussing sometime. You may know more about Sanger than I do. - Bitwixen (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't noticed about 19 years. Is there any event or observance planned for next year, to commemorate Sanger being wrong for 20 years? More srsly, it's generally counterproductive to delete other people's talkpage comments unless they're way over the top. If they're just slightly inappropriate (i.e. drifting towards FORUM, which is quite common and usually innocent) and persist, it's better to leave the comments intact but maybe hat or archive the section, and ask the commenters to cut it out. If they don't persist then don't worry about it. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, User talk:2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99, I see you’re a very new editor, and only began editing in late July. Welcome. (If you don't mind, I’ll refer to you as “2601”?) You’re very tolerant on this particular issue, 2601, when you suggest that there are couple of ways an editor can “delete other people's talkpage comments”, first: If they’re “way over the top”, then it’s okay — just delete. The second way to delete content (according to you) is to weather the objections from other editors, but to “persist”, and if you’re persistent the others should not be bothered. That advice would certainly give editors another tool they can use. However, it doesn’t accord with the policy (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), which is not so tolerant. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually Bitwixen, I see contributions from this user on their /64 range going back to May, and if you widen it out to the /48 you'll see they've been active since at least January 2020 (I stopped looking at that point). Now, more importantly, what do you want to happen here? Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do - there was no need for you to clutter up an article talk page with warning templates, for example. Was there anything that was directly related to the content of the article and its sourcing that was removed? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Girth Summit — I think the policy question is whether or not deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page is acceptable. Perhaps we need a consensus here on that question? It’s been suggested [above] by fellow editor 2601 that it’s okay to delete the comments of another editor if those comments are “way over the top”, and you, Girth, suggest that it might be sensible to delete comments by others if they’re not “on topic”. I personally think the policy that I linked to above should be followed, and the content should be restored, but I’ve restored the content, and it’s been deleted each time. If there’s not a word spoken here to stop it from being deleted again, it’s not just a question of restoring, but of voicing support for the Wikipedia policy. If on this notice board, we support disregarding the Wikipedia policy, and we accept that deleting others’ comments is a useful tool (in order to win consensus, for example), that makes a very strong statement. To respond specifically, Girth, to your point, when you said, “Zefr explained that they were removing content that they believed was not on-topic for the subject of the article. On the face of it, that seems like a sensible thing to do.” In fact, Zefr deleted comments that were on-topic, but claimed they were off-topic. Here’s one example: Zefr deleted this comment: “It is not a bad idea to ask if there is any truth to the saying ‘an apple a day keeps the doctor away,’ the article could then point out what various reliable sources say, whether it’s good or bad or whatever. There are a number of reliable sources out there that weigh in on the topic.” And this regarding a source that Zefr deleted from the article: “In removing contentious, unsourced, unverifiable, derogatory comments (in the section just above this one) about Bahram H. Arjmandi — comments made by fellow editor Zefr, I believe I am following the policy found in the article Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons” - Bitwixen (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC allows for off-topic content to be moved to a more appropriate location, which I imagine is what Zefr was attempting to do. If a few on-topic comments got moved at the same time, you could just add them back on their own, it's not so big a deal that it needs reporting here. I've just read through the history of that talk page more thoroughly however, and I see you edit warring to remove part of Zefr's statement before any of that happened. You shouldn't have done that. If you have a concern that a statement by another editor is in violation of BLP policies, you should ask them to strike it themselves; if they refuse to do so, your recourse is to report it to WP:BLPN and ask someone else to review.

I also see you edit warring to add content to the article. You added material, based on what appear to be highly dubious sources (do I really see a 'wellness' blog there supporting content covered by MEDRS?); Zefr removed it and explained their concerns about the sourcing. You reinstated it, despite Zefr's explanation on the talk page, and you both then went back and forth a few times. If I'm honest, having read through the whole thing, I think you were the one whose editing led to the problems there.

The disruption has stopped, and I don't think there's anything that admins need to do here, but you should read back through the whole thing and reflect on what you could have done better. You're pretty new here, and you need to learn the ropes - you could learn a lot from an experienced editor like Zefr, if you were willing to listen to them. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Whatever the policies say about it being permissible to clerk other users' comments, Zefr is quite significantly in the wrong here. First, Bitwixen edited a portion of a comment by Zefr as a BLP violation, which they were not (BLP allows discussion of what may be contentious material when it is in the interest of article improvement, within reason) and Zefr reverted, but did so claiming that BLP doesn't apply to talk pages (it does). Bitwixen then tried to start a discussion about that issue, which was definitely related to that page (the incident occurred on that page, and started with a question about the article associated with that talk page), and Zefr just blanked the whole thing, declaring that it didn't belong there, right after having warned Bitwixen (on the talk page, again) not to edit other users' comments. After restoring Bitwixen's discussion on Bitwixen's user talk, Zefr replied to that discussion on the article talk page. Bitwixen tried again to start a discussion and Zefr did the same thing a second time. For one thing, Zefr needs to decide whether users are allowed to modify or relocate other users' comments or not; they can't get upset about a user modifying their comment and then turn around and modify someone else's comment. For what it's worth, I would treat this as BRD: Zefr attempted to redirect a discussion to Bitwixen's talk page, Bitwixen reverted and tried to start a discussion, and everything that happened from that point on very much should not have. I don't think either user behaved spectacularly here but it was Zefr throwing fuel on the fire. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Girth Summit: the way I read the history, Bitwixen's initial query was about whether or not to include specific information on medical plausibility to the article on the "apple a day" proverb, and that is certainly on-topic. There was no reason to move that off the talk page and Zefr shouldn't have tried. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  PEIsquirrel, fair enough - I came away with the impression that Bitwixen was being the more disruptive, but maybe I got lost in the back-and-forth editing of one another's posts. Edit warring is bad on both sides though, so you're right, Zefr wasn't blameless here. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Accusations

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

---

User:Zqzkqzq‎ is apparently unable to handle WP:BRD, throwing around accusations of "disruptive editing" instead as an alternative. See Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#Outrageously false accusation - what can be done?, User talk:Kleuske#Disruptive editing, here, here. Kleuske (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's a CU around who could take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP, that might be informative. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

1. I made an edit which I explained *very* clearly in an edit summary. That summary was:

   removed text from lead that alleged "historical reasons" without specifying any reasons, offered opinions ("misleadingly"), promoted the POV of a source ("in the words of"), did not logically fit in the text, and did not summarise anything from the body of the article)

2. A single-purpose account devoted to reverting edits and templating users reverted my edit and templated me. They falsely accused me of not explaining my edit, even while not explaining their own revert. I find that to be disruptive.
3. Soon afterwards, User:Kleuske followed that disruptive template, undoing my edit without explaining why, and falsely accusing me of not explaining my edit. I find that also to be disruptive.

If the user has any genuine interest in the article, and in the merits of this text in particular, I am sure we could have a good-faith discussion about it. I see no evidence of a genuine interest. Zqzkqzq (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You do not start good faith discussions by accusing others of malice. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for a short time. The edit-warring and accusations of malice are completely uncalled for and they have continued after the discussion started at WT:AIV. And yes, a CU would be useful here. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've now  Confirmed Zqzkqzq (talk · contribs) to Wtqf (talk · contribs) and blocked them indef under WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Best known for IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User: RogueShanghai

The user RogueShanghai has been making disruptive editing changes to Wild Side (Normani song). In the article the user keeps removing the mention of the song being critically acclaimed because they believe the sources used aren’t reliable, despite them being notable sources that have been used on Wikipedia multiple times. I also believe that even if they weren’t reliable the better alternative would be to request a better citation versus overall removal. They also remove mention of the song being the top selling r&b song of the week from the commercial performance section without explanation, despite this information being mentioned in a Billboard article. They then add that the song fell thirty something spots down in its second week. I believe the focus should be on the peak and it’s overall performance in that section. Also the cited source doesn’t mention this drop which makes it original resource. I also noticed this user seems to make almost biased edits against recording artist Cardi B and positive edits in favor of Recording artist Nicki Minaj, who have notably feuded. I have no bias towards the matter of towards either artist but it seems like the user does. Especially considering I haven’t seen them make edits about a position drop on any other song pages, including for the recording artist Nicki Minaj. In fact if you check the user's talk page you will notice they have gotten into confrontation with other noted users over the two recording artist. I’m seeking help in the matter because it seems like the user wants to insight an editing war. Kanyfug (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh, not this again (see also [65] and other ANI discussions). I also noticed this morning that Rogue Shanghai has been edit-warring on Nicki Minaj against a consensus lede which had support on the talkpage. I have suggested this before, but I think it is time this user had a rest from the range of BLPs that they are frankly now being disruptive on; partial blocking could be used so that they can still contribute on talk pages. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Just like Black Kite said. The agenda on this user's contributions is: delete any negative info about Minaj in her article, add puffery, remove the most about artists the user openly dislikes, disruptive editing, go against consensus... I remember this month the user received a last warning (cc: Mlb96). Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh? If your accusations of me only deleting any negative info about Minaj in her article, then almost 50% of the entire personal life section would be wiped out. I don't wipe out the facts about her husband's past or her brother since, while negative info, it is true. (I was actually the one to add the sentence about the recent lawsuit by her victim when the news broke.) I recently expanded the Influences section and am working on expanding the Controversies section, so the accusation from you that all I do is delete negative info about Nicki is absolutely false. You cannot just call well-sourced facts "puffery", adding that the New York Times *did* call Nicki the "world's biggest hip-hop star" isn't puffery because it is literally a fact that they did so- whether or not it belongs in the lead is a different topic, but the defintion of puffery is "the addition of praise-filled adjectives and claims." Saying "The New York Times called Nicki the biggest female hip hop star in 2015" is not a claim, it is a well sourced fact.

And as I've said, I've never openly disliked Cardi B or said any horribly negative things about her, like wishing she should die or whatever, on a talk page- my opinions, like the political affiliations of editors, are not relevant to be brought up in an encyclopedic space. I already showed my proof that the reason why I was reverting the stuff about Wild Side was because they were being undone with no edit summary, and removed with sockpuppet IPs most likely belonging to Kanyfug, NOT because Kanyfug actually tried to show proof that thatgrapejuice.net is a reliable source, or that the well-sourced fact that the next week, Wild Side dropped 31 spots on the Hot 100 doesn't belong in the commercial performance section. If it was done that way I wouldn't have reverted it and instead discussed it on the talk page. In the past, you've been accused of disruptive biased edits towards other female artists as well by multiple editors, and removing well-sourced facts in articles, especially to articles about other female artists as well.[1][2][3]shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Actually, a very important fact you're leaving out is that I recently called out Kanyfug for his obvious sockpuppetry, detailed here. This user reporting me has been removing my edits with NO edit summary whatsoever.[1] and again, in the linked sockpuppetry investigation above, I have very convincing proof that him and the 2601:4a:c184:bf0:fcc7:8583:2401:b1db ip are the same person. Before the revolt.tv source was added, the only source for the "critical acclaim" claim was thatgrapejuice.net, which, and I will repeat this again, is not an encyclopedic reliable source. And I haven't been edit warring on the Nicki Minaj article at all; I have been using the talk page to suggest improvements, such as specificity of accolades and a debate on whether or not Minaj is notable for her usage of double entendres in her songwriting. Kanyfug, from the proof I've seen, has been abusing IPs to revert edits w/o an edit summary. I try my best to consistently source all of my edits with proper sources. My writing of the drop of Wild Side, in my opinion, isn't biased at all. It simply says, "The next week, the song fell down 31 spots on the Hot 100." And links the Hot 100 source to back it up. The sentence wasn't written to be either anti-Cardi nor pro-Nicki. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Additionally, to refute Kanyfug's claim, if you're making such a bold claim such as "critical acclaim," you need to have a source to back it up. You cannot just leave it at "This song has received critical acclaim, (citation needed)" because that is not how critical reception sections on Wikipedia works. For other sections citation needed IS useful, but for a "critical acclaim" claim you need to have sources to back it up. I removed the "top selling R&B release" because in the linked Billboard article there is no usage of the phrase "top selling R&B release". At all. And how is sourcing that the song dropped -31 spots the week after it debuted irrelevant? Seemingly negative information is not always irrelevant information, as long as it stays neutral. And again, this could have been avoided if you discussed it with me on the talk page rather than seemingly using IPs to revert my changes w/o an edit summary. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• And the fact that you're persistently rewriting a consensus lede paragraph on Nicki Minaj? What's the reason for that? Black Kite (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a misunderstanding- I thought RfC meant only about stuff that was being disputed in the lede, I was mistaken. I am still a noob when it comes to RfCs and the like, and I apologize. shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa

Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps adding copy pasted (without any attribution) battles into articles where they have no relevancy and don't make much sense either (making it seem kinda random). He has been reverted and told times why it's not a good idea, yet he continues with the same stuff (perhaps a lack of WP:COMPENTENCE).

[66] [67] [68] [69] [70]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I did given them a final warning a while back but haven't had a chance to look at subsequent contributions. The problem here is more of "polite disruption" with a complete failure to either understand or acknowledge any feedback as seen from this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I took a look and this refusal to take in feedback and/or correct behavior is just causing a waste of other editors' time. I've blocked indefinitely, they could be unblocked if they display an understanding of the problems and show what they will avoid going forward. —SpacemanSpiff 17:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I came here after reverting[71] Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa's edits[72] to Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani. They made an utter mess of the refs, and after spending a few minutes trying to sort them out, I realised that it was way too messy to unravel. So I reverted BP's edits, and went to User talk:Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa and saw the link to this ANI thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  PS I have no knowledge of the topic, and encountered the page only when i was cleaning up ;Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter. So I can't judge the substantive merits of whatever BP was trying to do; I can only note that they messed up the refs badly.

  I know that en.wp's referencing systems are complex, and hard for a new editor to learn. However, BP left the page with lot of errors displaying in the reference section, so they had no excuse for not knowing that their changes had caused problems. A responsible editor would seek assistance to clean that up, and possibly self-revert pending help, but BP just left the page in a mess.

  The last of the four definitions of WP:COMPETENCE is the ability to understand their own abilities and competencies, and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up. That self-awareness criterion does not seem to be met here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dynamic IP introducing errors, copyvio and unsourced edits in Brazil footy-related articles

I'm not sure if this is the right forum and what can be done, but there's a user editing from a range of IP addresses making unconstructive edits on Brazil football-related articles. Here are some of the IP addresses, though I'm sure there are more:

• 2409:4073:4E1E:6EBF:0:0:B549:F913 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:296:4AF5:0:0:29F8:8AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2E94:915D:0:0:B5C9:2B04 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:28F:D0:0:0:8B7:A8A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2006:C08E:0:0:1243:80A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2082:6B:0:0:2691:70AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:19A:E58C:0:0:25E7:8A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:2193:EF8F:0:0:15D:78A4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4D9F:A246:0:0:B549:9601 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4073:4E04:F7E:0:0:B549:6B13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They almost exclusively edit the following articles:

• Brazil national football team
• Argentina–Brazil football rivalry
• List of international goals scored by Neymar

And they're blocked on Commons for uploading copyvio photos: Commons:Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tittto.

Since they're not editing any other articles, I don't think there's any serious harm done by a range block. Ytoyoda (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

2409:4073::/33 looks to be the appropriate range. It looks quite busy, perhaps partial rangeblocks from these articles would be better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, that is pretty busy and I guess article blocks would make sense, though they might be expanding their edits to other footy-related articles (see [73] and [74]). Ytoyoda (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Editing to add one more address from this range, used to vandalize Argentina national football team:
  • 2409:4073:4E80:A9F0:0:0:B509:A703 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Ytoyoda (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Request IP block for part of United Kingdom regarding article Batman: The Adventures Continue

Hi, I would like to request an IP block for part of the United Kingdom for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue

I know an IP block for a large geographical location may seem drastic, but there is an editor who persists on making bad edits to the page. This person appears to have a dynamic IP, all coming out of a general location in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&action=history

A mix of registered users and IP editors have edited the page, but only the UK IPs are causing problems.

Please help! Thanks! Posters5 (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Diffs please of the problematic edits. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The UK IPs keep trying to add text about DC Comics characters being "introduced" into the continuity started by Batman The Animated Series, despite repeated reversions and information added to the Talk page. However, the UK IPs have ignored the edit reversion summaries and do not participate on the Talk page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue ). This is a problem going back several months now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767244&oldid=1040763591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1039479309&oldid=1039445257

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1037931437&oldid=1037931225

The one time that the UK IPs provided an "explanation", they claimed that the previous comics were not part of "canon", but this is refuted by both relevant Wikipedia articles as well as the fact that in the introduction to one of the previous comics series, there's an editorial note which explicitly states that the comics are stories that take part in the same timeline as the Animated Series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1027431995&oldid=1027407481

https://i.postimg.cc/GLFCDYjj/Continuity.jpg

More recently, they decided to just copy-and-paste (plagiarize) advertising copy from DC Comics instead of helping write actual plot summaries of the comic book issues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman%3A_The_Adventures_Continue&type=revision&diff=1040767296&oldid=1040767244

Thank you. Posters5 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the dispute, but I think I can translate the IP addresses for you. There are only two ranges: 2A00:23C5:5311:FE01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2A00:23C8:5D00:ED01::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), and they appear to be in completely different parts of the country. I'm going to just ping TheresNoTime as they blocked another IP prominent in the article's history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Not really concerned about the American IP address as again, the problems are being caused by UK IPs (probably one person making edits while commuting or traveling). Posters5 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

If the geolocation is correct this is unlikely to be one person as the addresses locate to Penarth in south Wales and Grimsby on the east coast of England. A journey between these places takes at least four hours so no-one is likely to be doing this as a commute. Neiltonks (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I dunno which IP trackers you guys are using, but I've seen any combination from both IP sets being located in Essex to both in the Greater London area. Either way, a UK IP ban isn't going to affect the article's quality. UK editors who are serious about improving Wikipedia will have a registered account already and won't be affected by an IP ban. Posters5 (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't going to be any sort of "UK IP ban", because (a) the IP range of the UK is utterly massive and not even technically possible to block, and (b) it's much easier to semi-protect the article, which is what I have done. By the way, the quality of that article is utterly terrible and most of it is unsourced, so now that IPs are barred from it, that would be the perfect time to fix that problem. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suggesting banning the entire country, just the two IP ranges that are consistently used. Thank you for the semi-protection.Posters5 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Geolocation in the UK is a crapshoot, the best conclusion you can reasonably derive from UK geolocation is that an address is "in the UK" or that it is "not in the UK". Anything more precise than that is a wild guess and should be taken as a wild guess. We don't have the technical means to block the entire IP space of an entire country (except Nigeria, it has weird allocations) and we would not do so anyway. Semiprotection is a good approach, but did you say there's a copyright violation there? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the UK IP editor copied and pasted advertising blurb from DC Connect in an attempt to replace legit plot summary. Posters5 (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's what the UK IP editor did, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Batman:_The_Adventures_Continue&oldid=1040763124 :

UK IP editor's summaries for Issues 3 and 4 (notice how he even copied and pasted the curly quotes): "The Hunter or the Hunted" (Issue 3): Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father (in the BTAS episode "I Am the Night"), even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante; the Huntress hitting the scene? Peake played the piano while the Bertinelli family was being murdered, which is why Huntress wants to kill him.

Issue 4: After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya?

DC Connect #13, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-13 Batgirl sets off on the warpath after she learns Jimmy “The Jazzman” Peake is free and back out on the streets. She’ll do anything to capture him again especially after what Jazzman did to her father, even if it means disobeying Batman. But can she capture the criminal before he’s taken by another mysterious vigilante hitting the scene?

DC Connect #14, https://www.dccomics.com/comics/dc-connect-2020/dc-connect-14 After a body washes ashore at the Gotham docks, Batman hunts for a mysterious mercenary known simply as the Muscle. But can the Dark Knight protect the assassin’s next target: Detective Renee Montoya? Posters5 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Userboxes?

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

---

As someone that has had relatives murdered by this vile ideology known as Communism I am much dismayed to discover that this place seemingly permits users to endorse and support such ideologies of mass murder. I can't help but notice a definite double standard at play here. It bans support for ISIS, Nazism and Al Qaeda among others which is what you would expect but strangely it permits visible support for the ideologies also responsible for tens of millions of murderers - Communism and Maoism?

Why does Wikipedia permit people to visibly endorse such murderous ideologies via userboxes? I thought the policy on user boxes were they were not meant to be divisive? So how is visible support for an ideology of mass murder in which 100 million were slaughtered last century "not divisive". The co founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has recently claimed that Wikipedia has a distinct left wing bias and with bullcrap like this allowed to go on who can blame him?

Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content_restrictions states: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.

Surely users putting on their user pages their love of Communism, Maoism and other extremist ideologies is a direct contradiction of these rules?

Here are some of the highly offensive user boxes:

This user is a Communist.

This user identifies as a Maoist.

This user identifies as a Titoist

This user is a Communist.

This user is a Communist.
Workers of the world, unite!

This user is NOT communist, but instead supports communism.

I suggest those user boxes be removed as they promote nothing but division and revulsion among many users and clearly do not belong on an encyclopedia that is meant to be welcoming to all. Also I noticed no one has ever complained about my username despite it obviously lending support to a political party responsible for millions of murders. I chose it deliberately as a test to see if anyone would care, but apparently not. Its fine to name yourself after a political responsible for millions of deaths on here. Says a lot about bias on here...

OldBolshevik (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Does it really need to be pointed out that support for an economic system is not the same as support for authoritarianism? Number 57 18:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hint: quoting Larry Sanger is guaranteed not to advance your cause, even if you're not taking the piss. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic starter is best blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Probably connected to Leroy08. Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed; OldBolshevik (talk · contribs) indeffed, and Leroy08 (talk · contribs) tagged as a sock of OB (given that the OB account is older). GiantSnowman 18:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, GS. Aside from the socking, summarizing OP's 13 contribs, in order: #1 questions whether Gender pay gap is real; #2 PRODs WP:NONAZIS; #3-4 objects to calling it Migration Period instead of "Barbarian Invasions"; #5: calls Wikipedia biased; #6-7: complains of left-wing bias at Gab (social network); #8: corrects the color of the Nazi SD (Sicherheitsdienst) uniforms from "green" to "toxic green"; #9: creates user page with anti-communist userboxes; #10-13: this ANI. Good block. Levivich 18:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)OldBolshevik, as an interesting thought experiment, imagine someone had posted this exact comment, but instead linked to these user boxes: 1, 2, 3, 4. One might say that any number of individuals from certain groups (1 2 3 4 5) would be equally upset about mass murders (1 2 3 4 5 6 7) perpetrated by various people (1 2 3 4) associated with the words in those userboxes throughout history. However, many on this wiki recognize that the ideas involved in the aforementioned userboxes are not inherently linked to the aforementioned massacres. This is, however, not true of Nazism or white nationalism, which are inherently linked to and necessitate atrocities against others (1 2 3 4). Do you, perhaps, see the difference?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As a bystander, I do agree that userboxes declaring the support of Communism (the economic system) are allowed under the current userbox system. However, I do agree with OldBolshevik on one thing, and that's my concern with the maoist userbox. unlike the other boxes, this one specifically espouses support for a brutal dictator's ideology, economic or otherwise. in my opinion this box is more deserving of deletion. Feel free to respond or disagree. Sanix (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Mao has a controversial legacy at worst. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

At best. At worst he has a very dark legacy that goes beyond "controversial". — Czello 14:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but there others that are weirdly fetishising totalitarian regimes. There's some that paint a rewriting of history, 123 or outright opposing democratic movements and calling for the restoration of dictatorships, 4. There's also this one, which I'm guessing is trying to paint over the more reprehensible parts of Guevara's legacy. — Czello 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I predicted it & now it's coming to pass. Currently there's an attempt to delete some pride infoboxes (that MoD was closed, but a few editors who disagreed with the closure judgement, had the MoD re-opened) & now this. I'm hoping, monarchists don't begin an MoD, to demand 'pro-republic' messages be deleted from user pages. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Report regarding the RfC Talk:Persecution of Christians#RFC:Should the following be included

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

---

I report a situation that occurred at this RFC. I don't name anyone, because things seem to go smoothly now. I am reporting it, because I promised to the editors that was participating in the RfC that I will move it to a dispute resolution and because the problem might still be there, just silent for now. After spending some thought on it, I don't want to move it to a dispute resolution, because in my opinion it will be a waste of time for those people at this notice board. It will be way better if every body goes with the almost perfect consensus that exists. So, at this stage, I do not request any action, only your attention on this matter. I hope it's a good approach. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

As the person not being named, I am unsure what this is for. This is not the place to seek a close of an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

[75]. this after 9 days of discussion about the subject.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And this [[76]] dismissal of my opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Category adder

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

---

Category adder (talk · contribs · count)

CA has been running amuck with adding genres he preferers. No sources, no discussions. Countless warnings/discussions on his talk. Someone with some time to look through his 'tribs. He causing a lot of work for editors cleaning up behind him. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 02:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked, which in this case does not mean "infinite"; simply acknowledging and explaining how to address the numerous concerns people have raised will suffice. The flippant comment in response to the last warning is what pushed me over the edge. If that happens, I have no problem with a unilateral unblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights Can his contributions be massed rolled back, please. Thanx - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 03:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Since mass rollback is a rather blunt tool, no objection to anyone restoring any individual category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Visnelma allegedly violating WP:HARASSMENT

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

---

I was accused of harassment with this single edit. I want to know opinions of other editors on whether it violated WP:HARASSMENT. If you share your opinion, please explain how it violated the policy and why; feedback without reasoning is unuseful for me as I won't learn anything out of it. If you think there is another problem with this edit other than harassment, please share you opinion on my talk page instead of ANI. Thank you.

My thought on why it doesn't violate: Harassment policy clearly states that behaviour needs to be repetitive, including in "What harassment is not". I strongly think it needs to fit in the definition in the policy, as otherwise it would possibly cause users being false accused of harassment.--V. E. (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

P. S. If you say don't dispute issues related to other projects on English Wikipedia, I absolutely get that and don't object to that. My concern is to learn whether it violates harassment, and if yes, why. Because if it is a harrasment, and there is a reason for that, I don't want to repeat a similar thing in the future. Thank you.--V. E. (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Don't drag disputes from other projects onto this one. Whether it meets the policy definition of harassment or not is irrelevant, it's simply not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Notified Dr. Coal on your behalf, as while they are not the direct subject of this notice, they are very closely related to it. Incidentally, I will say as an uninvolved and inexperienced editor, that I cannot see any positive resulting for you from bringing this matter here; less formal forums may be better suited for future discussions of this nature. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• I'll say it explicitly, since the message does not seem to be getting through: yes, your edit was harassment. Note in the policy where it says "appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person" and "the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated". There is no constructive reason whatsoever for you to have followed the admin to an entirely different website and posted a diatribe against that user in an entirely different language, to advertise your dissatisfaction with that user to an audience who can do nothing about your issue. If you had any interest at all in a constructive resolution to a problem you're having on the Turkish Wikipedia, you would have attempted a resolution on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you keep this up, you will quickly find yourself with a problem on all of the Wikipedias. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User RepublicanJones1952 WP:NOTHERE

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

---

RepublicanJones1952 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account's history consists entirely of rants about Wikipedia's supposed bias [77][78][79], nonviable edit proposals [80] [81][82] and removal of well-sourced content [83]. Their most recent comment [84] again complains about "leftist propaganda" and "DemocRATS", citing the NY Post even after being warned not to. Several editors including myself have reached out on their talk page with no response. Even if they do have a legitimate grievance, they're either unwilling or unable to work within our policies and guidelines. I think a block is in order here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that "DemocRATS" line was enough for me. Indef'd. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

YeshuaAdoni is NOTHERE and promoting fringe content

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

On Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, they are insisting on promoting various "magnet" conspiracies [85]. They also appear to be promoting some Russian who claims to be creating anti-gravity devices [86]. The username also has clear religious themes. I think the user clearly is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was not promoting magnet conspiracy theories. I posted recent news to the talk page and asked if it was relevant to the Wikipedia page. I made no edits to the page.

On Podkletnov's page, I posted peer a reviewed paper as a reference for content that had been on Wikipedia for decades. The peer reviewed paper was later cited by 21 other papers from different authors. The page in question is the author of the paper (and not a specific topic).

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni (talk • contribs)

I have not made any edits regarding religion, or made any edits to Wikipedia religious pages. [87] doesn't count? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I forgot I edited that page. Although a moderation thanked me for the edit.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Here is another diff re: magnetism pseudoscience [88]. Just to add to this, the user has also been combative on their talk page, perceiving all DS/alerts and welcome templates as warnings/accusations about their conduct, even when carefully explained [89][90]. They firmly believe anti-gravity devices are not fringe. They have also introduced weasel wording into other antigravity articles to insert their POV [91]. I think this user needs a warning/clarification about what wikipedia is for.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I second the complaint regarding Eugene Podkletnov. The user seems to have no undertsanding of Wikipedia rules about our article content. The fact that a piece of pseudoscience based on primary sources sat in wikipedia unnoticed for decades does not mean it must be kept forever. However at the first glance the user made some reasonable edits as well. In any case, his edit history must be thoroughly reviewed because of what I said. The user is strongly recommended to review our policies about WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY , WP:FRINGE. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This all started after I pointing out new information on a Covid talk page (ie: Bell's palsy now listed as a warning in Canada) . After that it was like shaking a wasp nest. I did not even make a change to the page, it was just talk discussion.

I will stop editing Wikipedia, and spend my time and energy elsewhere.unsigned comment added by YeshuaAdoni

Legal threat at Talk:Bulgars

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

---

A new account has made a legal threat, because of your apparent refusal to accept other scientific data and opinions and to present them fairly in this site an official signal to the Prosecutor's office of Republic of Bulgaria has been made.[92] They are also being generally disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Clear legal threat, but I wonder what the Bulgarian Prosecutor's signal looks like? Does it light up the skies of Sofia? Dumuzid (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what Брус Уейн would make of that? Anyway, blocked for the threat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was probably a wicked sick drum line that carries over the Balkan mountains. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Valor Christian High School

Page protection and blocks requested--persistent attempts to remove sourced content, whitewashing. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Faster than Thunder and WP:CIR

I have some competency concerns about the user Faster than Thunder.

• Cartoon Network and CBS - - pretty obviously unlikely that the two entities would be confused with each other
• Sitar - [93] - this is the most common use of "sitar"
• Glossary of Carnatic music - [94] - unnecessary pronunciation guides; Wiktionary serves this purpose just fine

User has also created Template:Inappropriate and added it to Double penetration dildo ([95]) in violation of WP:NODISCLAIMERS.

I get that this user is trying to help, but sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. Does this user's activity fall under WP:CIR? The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 01:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They've been here for 2 days, and have only made 15 edits. WP:Bite seems to apply here - I can't see anyone discussing these issues with the editor on their talk page but they've been dragged to ANI for a block? New editors are expected to make the occasional bad edit, it's when they don't listen to advice that it becomes problematic. As an aside their edit to Sitar looks completely correct to me, I don't understand why that was reverted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Grand Delusion, did I miss where you discussed this with the editor? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by 2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546

2601:C8:281:8BB0:98:6E19:E26E:D546 (talk · contribs)

Keep adding unsourced content [96] [97] and also edit warring in the article Michigan Boy Boat [98] [99]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I just find out that the editor has a history of editing warring using range 2601:C8:281:8BB0:0:0:0:0/64, which was blocked six months ago. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

User:The Banner mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism

User:The Banner has reverted several of my edits, falsely describing them as vandalism. I have found that I am not the only person they have attacked in this way; here are some illustrations of their behaviour, two relating to my edits, the third to someone else's:

1. List of countries named after people
   1. [100] I removed an entry which incorrectly suggested that an actual historical person was a legendary figure
   2. [101] The Banner undid the edit without leaving an informative edit summary
   3. [102] The Banner accused me of vandalism
2. Aidy Boothroyd
   1. [103], [104], [105] I removed some recently-added unencyclopaedic text, changed a word to reflect a neutral point of view, and rewrote some ungrammatical text which lacked an encyclopaedic tone.
   2. [106] The Banner undid the edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [107] The Banner further accused me of vandalism
3. Steaua București
   1. [108] User:8Dodo8 added some text to a disambiguation page.
   2. [109] The Banner undid their edit with the summary "Revert vandalism"
   3. [110] 8Dodo8 left a message for The Banner asking why they had been accused of vandalism
   4. [111] The Banner replied "Because it was"

I left the template {{uw-notvand}} on their talk page; they responded by saying "Hope you overcome your grief shortly". I commented on their incorrect claim of vandalism against User:8Dodo8 and said I would report any further instances that I saw of false claims of vandalism; they removed that message, and then shortly afterwards re-reverted several of my edits with further false claims of vandalism. So, as it seems to be a pattern of behaviour that they are doubling down on, I think it's necessary to report it here. Could the user please be strongly reminded that describing good-faith edits as vandalism is not acceptable? Thank you. 46.208.152.48 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)