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

Wikihounding (Proposal:IBAN)

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 - [1] [2]. 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 [3]. 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 [4]. But Nemesis had edited the talk page in 26 June [5]. 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 - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. 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)

Clarifying that I Oppose an interaction ban at this point. Nobody needs to get sanctioned here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 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)

Sorry, GiantSnowman, but you're quite wrong on this point. For the GNG, "significant" is generally synonymous with "non-trivial", not "non-routine". Otherwise most of the many, many biographies of athletes you've created should be deleted, because they're sourced/sourceable only to routine statistical reports, transaction notices, etc. The "non-routine" standard pretty much applies to only two types of articles: under WP:CORP, a variety of routine business-related announcements/reports don't count toward notability; and for some events, like sporting events, coverage of individual competitions doesn't establish individual notability. For the latter, a simple example is that individual NFL games are very, very rarely individually notable, despite widespread detailed coverage. Most notable people live unexceptional personal lives and we base our bios on routine coverage. For most US state judges, for example, our bios are based on routine coverage of their selection and the occasionally newsworthy case they preside over. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 06:42, 30 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)

  I don't have any numbers to hand, but the page John Raymond Evelyn Stansfeld which Onel mentioned above is an example of a PROD that proved controversial, and the page was eventually kept. Though I appreciate that (while not necessary) it is good to justify the removal of a PROD in the edit summary, and I will try to explain my intentions better in the future. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I remain a little confused as to why the discussion is tilting towards methods of deletions or ATD's when Onel5969's entry is expressly stating they want an IBAN(I presume a one way IBAN preventing the other editor from interacting with them). The diffs does show a pattern that I’m uncomfortable with. Hounding or any form of Wp:Revenge / stalking is unacceptable and within my capacity I try to put a stop to it whenever I encounter editors seemingly doing so. I believe the editors involved can continue to edit and co-exist in peace if the IBAN is implemented. So yes, I’m supporting One1's proposal. He possesses a track record of productivity and (for lack of a more proper term) disturbing high volume productive editors is a disservice to this project. Celestina007 (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it would be fair to implement a one way ban, or any ban at all. Pages that Onel mentioned above, like the bus route and railway station articles, appeared in my watchlist which I usually check frequently. Having to check every page to see if Onel previously edited it would cause me additional stress when editing. Onel can simply ignore my edits, or nominate said pages for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  We've seen evidence that they edit in the same area. We've seen evidence that sometimes one is the first to a given article, sometimes the other. And I'm not sure PRODing articles is something that counts as "productive" any more than dePRODing them is. Hobit (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal is nonsensical. If anyone has earned an interaction ban, it's Onel5969. Their accuracy rate in AfD nominations lately, per their XFD log, is about 50%, and appears to have been falling over months. For a highly experienced user, a supposedly "high volume productive editor", this is appallingly bad. This is God-awful quality, and it would justify singling out Onel's nominations for particular scrutiny. It is extremely inappropriate for Onel's wikifriends to come here in his defense and smear NemesisAT as a vengeful "stalker" without providing a shred of substantive evidence.It's disgraceful. AFD has become a cesspool of internal politics, and is increasingly dominated by nominators who don't care about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, treating it as a notability game.
  

Short version: Onel's nominations fail at a rough 50% rate. NemesisAT argues effectively against Onel's bad nominations. So Onel wants us to forcibly silence NemesisAT. That is crap. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Hmm... That is correct. Their track record for AfD !votes is a bit better — their total accuracy is about 70% when no consensus closures are included, but they also tend to nominate multiple pages in one day (up to 7 on 3 July 2021). NemesisAT has a so-so !vote record as well (about 60% including no consensus), although they overwhelmingly !vote keep, and from a brief spot-check most of these are not on articles nominated by Onel, unlike with PROD. The evidence presented by Andrew Davidson shows that Onel's recent PROD nominations are hit-and-miss, which is largely consistent with their AfD stats regardless of whether most of the deprods were by Nemesis. Which suggests that the solution is not an interaction ban, but to ban Onel5969 from initiating deletion processes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Utterly ridiculous. I am not one of One's "wikifriends" although I have interacted with them in AfDs and random other ideas. There is zero evidence here for banning anyone from a deletion process. If that was even under consideration, we'd need more than a "hit-and-miss" record, which I'd say most long term editors have since discussion brings new info to light. Star Mississippi 17:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe using the phrase “wiki friends” was also directed at me. If or not is rather immaterial to this discussion and bringing that up is a digression and a major disservice to us all. To bring peace and probably close this discussion altogether, @NemesisAT, From current consensus it is unlikely any IBAN would be implemented. Am I right to say that in summary you want to exist in peace and edit productively with all your co-editors here? If yes, then it is quite easy, moving forward try as much as possible not to overlap with One1 and of course there’s no telling where and when they’d edit but you might find removing them from your watchlist helpful and until some sort of mutual understanding is present avoid de-prodding articles that they prod. It is hard but there’s always a compromise to be made. Furthermore @LaundryPizza03, I believe One1 to be a prolific new page reviewer but as with anything you do quite often you tend to make mistakes and the perfection bar is next to impossible to reach. Lastly @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, calling Onel’s proposal “nonsensical” is impolite, furthermore Wikipedia isn’t a competition, you see, Stats and whatnot distort reality and make Wikipedia appear as though it is black or white, whereas it isn’t so. For example an editor may nominate a non notable entity for deletion and they are correct as the subject of the aforementioned hypothetical AFD fails to meet GNG or the relevant SNG. If the creator of the article strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki, the article may end up being “kept” even when the reviewer who made the nomination was correct. I hope this analogy helps, really, the bickering isn’t worth it, it is unfair enough that multiple websites, blogs, podcasts other entities consider us (genuine editors) to be “losers” , we don’t need to wrestle against one another we are on a big mission here, let’s not forget or keep our sight from what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. This back and forth isn’t part of the mission. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow, what a display of bad faith. NemesisAT, says Celestina007, if you don't want to be hassled and having your editing disrupted, then stop disputing Onel's dubious edits. Do you work for Tony Soprano or Michael Corleone? Because that's that's, metaphorically, the kind of threar they make. "Polite" threats are still threats, after all. As for the suggestion that somehow article creators systematically "strategically campaigns/canvases for !votes off-wiki [so that] the article[s] may end up being “kept” -- the absence of evidence in suppot of your silly claim is thunderous. You're claiming that actual evidence like statistics "distort reality" and your fantasized narrative is what matters. Attitudes like this demonstrate why so much of AFD these days is a cesspool; we have a cadre of self-ordained arbiters of notability standards who deny the legitimacy of disagreeing with them and reject the participation of those who do. As for the "true purpose of Wikipedia," it's clear you're one of those editors who reject the "sum of all human knowledge" aspirational principle, and want to limit it, in practice, as much as possible tp "stuff otaku care about". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, hello once again, I’m not particularly sure I understand what the phrase “polite threats” mean because no threats have been made by me, I merely trying to offer a solution here and see that all editors here edit and co-exist in peace, if you don’t understand this which is quite easy to comprehend then I guess I’m short of words, once again you have just called my attempt at mitigation/mediation “silly” which I believe I corrected you when you called One1's proposal “nonsensical” by telling you it’s impolite of you. At this juncture I’m recusing myself from this discussion. Thank you for your input thus far, do have a wonderful week ahead. Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - There seem to be some fundamental points being missed here. Onel's redirects/PRODs/AfDs are of articles that have significant problems. The majority of these are from the back end of the NPP queue, and in all probability have been passed over by other NP patrollers, including myself, who have been unsure of the best way of dealing with them. Nemesis seems to be trying to save as many articles as possible from deletion or redirection. I actually have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint; somebody has put a lot of effort into some of those articles (but in other cases the minimum effort to create an article). However, rescuing a crap article still leaves us with a crap article that may or may not be improved by others. WP is an encyclopaedia with a set of minimum standards, rescuing everything often conflicts with the minimum standard requirements. Restoring articles from redirects can be problematical: WP:BURDEN, and in the case of BLPs, WP:BLP, are applicable to restored content, so just restoring the article isn't acceptable in many cases. In other cases there seems to be lack distinction between something existing and it being notable.

Obviously if you send articles to AfD because you think they don't meet notability guidelines then you should expect a high percentage to result in delete. Where notability is marginal then it's not unreasonable to send to AfD to gain a community consensus. In these cases where notability is 50/50, a 50% delete rate shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.

NP patrollers seem to constantly come under attack, usually over individual articles. I'm sure mistakes have been made (anybody here who claims not to have made mistakes are either deluded or a liar), but I don't think that is applicable in the majority of cases. Id like to issue an invitation to those who think NP patrollers are doing such a poor job to take over the role and show us how it should be done. --John B123 (talk) 11:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think where we are seeing disagreement is pretty much the classic inclusionist/exclusionist split. As someone on the inclusionist side, I think that PRODs are fine thing in moderation, but I expect to only see PRODs on things that really need to go. If a large percent of your PRODs are making it through AfD, you're doing it wrong IMO. Others argue that there are a lot of "crap articles" and so trying to get rid of them is an important and good part of the ecosystem. I agree with that, but they'd better really be crap. If the AfDs aren't resulting in deletion, maybe they weren't as crap as they seemed.

My suggestion would be that Onel5969 try to get a better hit rate on their PRODs--only prodding things they are sure the community would support getting rid of (which is inline with WP:PROD and NemesisAT only dePROD articles from Onel5969 that they feel really have a chance at AfD. If Onel5969 is finding more than 20 or 30% of their PRODs are ending in no deletion, they probably should at least continue to refine their decision making process. If NemesisAT is finding that they are dePRODing articles that are getting deleted more than 60-70% of the time, they should also reevaluate. Yes, I'd expect PRODs to have a higher "correct" rate than dePRODs because PRODS are supposed to be for clear cases.

Finally, to Celestina007, I think HW's point (which could frankly have been expressed a bit less confrontationally) has some grain of truth--I'm seeing what looks like a fairly high error rate being kept in check by NemesisAT--that's not something to stop doing because it offends. At the same time, NemesisAT should realize that others are likely to catch the problems if they are real and it's fair for Onel5969 to feel like they are being stalked. So there is no great way forward, but I don't think asking Nemesis to commit to doing less of something that isn't wrong is ideal. Pointing out to them that it might be best for for everyone if they do less of it is a lot more helpful IMO. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hobit, thank you, I literally didn’t understand the aggression from them but I see reason with your rationale.Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• To expatiate on the final note of John B123 which is similar to a comment I made several months back, to an editor in defense of an editor with the NPR perm whom I can’t remember, I’d say it once more; please if any genuine editor sincerely believes or is of the opinion that new page reviewers aren’t “holding their own” or “pulling their weight” you are more than welcome to request for the perm and help out. Celestina007 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• I want to endorse what John B123 says. The rate of agreement at AfD depends on the type of articles one sends there or discusses, I like many of he more experienced editors tend to send there or comment on the really dubious or difficult cases, and will therefore have a low rate of agreement. It's rational to l bring things where one knows that the consensus is unclear, in the hope of clarifying it., The more bvious stuff is for people learning, or building up a record for RfA. As long as what they're doing is rational, anyone may reasonably bring an article they're unsure about to AfD; anyone may reasonably express a minority view at an afd discussion. Only the community makes the final decision. (Of course it's possible to make irrational or abusive nominations or comments, but the afd/Deletion review process can generally deal with this very effectively). DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment sorry for my slow response here, I have been working and on holiday so spending less time on Wikipedia. I want to be clear that I have no problems with the work that new page patrollers do, you're doing a good job. I have already reduced the number of PRODs removed and haven't reverted any redirects lately, and will take on the advice from users here. That being said, I think it's clear, and others agree, that my interactions with Onel do not count as wikihounding. As they haven't even commented on here (as far as I can see), I think this conversation may as well be closed. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  Further comment After checking my watchlist I discovered this and am not sure what to make of it. Clearly Celestina007 is unhappy with the comments made here and is suggesting Onel5969 files an "official report" (what is this?), bypassing the Wikipedia community. It really feels like they are trying to scare me away from editing. NemesisAT (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  I interpret her comment as saying that it was good that Onel filed this report because if further problems occur, this discussion can be linked to as additional background. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, thanks as that is exactly what I meant. @NemesisAT, how is that you misinterpreted this; “From current consensus it appears the community is somewhat sympathetic towards NT. Frustrating I know, but if this ends with no action, I honestly think that bringing/filing an official report was a good move on your part, there is awareness to this, so next time if they hound you, you could always link to this report and propose immediate action be taken”? and take it to mean any-other thing than it espreslly literally states/means? Furthermore, if you were sincerely confused and needed me to explain something to you, then leaving me a message on my talk-page to expatiate on this would have worked just fine. I do not also like that you have twisted my words and cast aspersions that anyone is trying to “scare you” please what diffs substantiate this? Celestina007 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

"From current consensus it appears the community is somewhat sympathetic towards NT. Frustrating I know," - you appear to be frustrated (or unhappy) with the comments made here. " if this ends with no action, I honestly think that bringing/filing an official report was a good move" I think I misread "was" for "is" in this part. Sorry, I'm partially sighted, I see now and assume you are referring to this report. Sorry, that is my fault, I misread that word which changed the meaning of your comment. "so next time if they hound you" does suggest to me that you think I've already done something wrong. Sorry, it felt threatening, and worse that you'd make the comment on a separate page when this discussion was already ongoing. I'm also unsure what good linking to this report would be, as clearly there is no consensus that any wikihounding has taken place. NemesisAT (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As for diffs, I provided one above. Please note though as I already said, I misread your comment. I thought you were asking Onel to file another report because you were "frustrated" with the comments here. NemesisAT (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I accept your apology and yes I saw “the diff” you referenced and proceeded to ask you for “diffs” that substantiates your claim that imply I or other group of people were trying to “scare you away” as “that diff” didn’t substantiate the assertion in any manner, but it’s okay, Text is subjective and interpreting it can be somewhat tricky. In the end I guess we can all figure something out that would “work things out” for all editors here to see that all parties involved here directly or indirectly can enjoy contributing their own quota here and do so in peace, One1 has said they’d give NPP a break for now. Celestina007 (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

• Onel5969 does a lot of work at NPP and, I guess, they should be commended for a lot of it. However, my impression from previous years was that they tend to move fast, have a very low bar with respect to things like draftification (with the net result that they tend to draftify or redirect a large number of adequate articles on notable topics), and generally ignore feedback from editors in the respective topic areas. A large error rate at AfD isn't a big deal in my opinion, as that process by definition involves the community. If anything needs attention, it is the bold unilateral actions (like draftifying), as these generally tend to fall through the cracks. – Uanfala (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed on AfD, I would say the same about turning articles into redirects too with no prior discussion. NemesisAT (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ATD-R, no prior discussion is required before redirection. The articles being referred to here are generally the dross that accumulates at the back of the NPP queue. Often they have been tagged for months with no improvement. How would you suggest these sub-standard articles are dealt with? --John B123 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@John B123: If the articles meet our inclusion guidelines? Then they stay in article space where they are most likely to be improved. It really isn't that unusual for really short and/or poor article to see significant improvement much later. "Redirect because the article isn't great" isn't part of the Wikipedia way. WP:IMPERFECT is. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Hobit:'s point is quite well taken. Far too many editors involved in the NPP process, and deletion processes more generally, view smothering sickly babies in their cribs as an essential, laudable part of their work. The (admittedly unreachable) goal oi assembling and organizing the sum of all human knowledge has been supplanted by the policy-baseless goal of deciding which parts of human knowledge really aren't worth presenting, starting with the presumption that knowledge doesn't matter. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• I feel the discussion at the moment has gone off course and in my honest opinion I do not see why this hasn’t been closed yet. Elongating this does us a big disservice. Celestina007 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose request for interaction ban and I second the rationales provided by Hobit and Uanfala in their responding comments. Haleth (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Good advice from B. Kliban
One apple every 8 hours will keep 3 doctors away -EEng

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: [12], [13], and [14]. 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)

Girth Summit — you misrepresent the policy found on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which in truth does not allow editors to move content that is pertinent to the article being discussed. You mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours. In your recent post you invent guidelines about how to handle a violation of WP:BLP, which do not agree with the actually guidelines–which in fact say "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." [The bold letters are from the WP:BLP guidelines.] Why have we gone so far off topic, anyway? (I ask that and include your free-ranging and uncalled for personal comments about myself, Girth.) This notification is about policy regarding editors deleting comments from an article's talk page, a practice that appears to have considerable support in this discussion–though not in the actual guidelines or WP policy. Your suggestion that anyone would follow the example of the particular editor you mentioned is, forgive me, way off. If you only knew. Girth, you are mistaken too often. To load up this discussion with a lot of extraneous issues has the effect of bloating and expanding potentially endlessly, and those editors who want to wander off in that way, have the advantage over anyone who would prefer to confine the discussion to the topic at hand. Giving support to rogue practices by editors, and mischaracterizing WP policy, does not support Wikipedia itself. - Bitwixen (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you surely don't deny that some of the material was off-topic? Like a user page warning template? And commentary about Billy Goat Gruff? I have acknowledged that some of it may have been on-topic, and suggested that that could simply have been reinstated (without needing to come here).

Regarding the BLP policy, you are overlooking this part: Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. In other words - you need to be careful if you're going to get into an edit war citing BLP as an exemption. In my opinion, and that of Ivanvector above, that was not a BLP violation - Zefr was not writing defamatory material about the author of the source, he was criticising the source itself, and explaining why he felt it wasn't reliable. That's allowed. In borderline cases, you should get other opinions at BLPN, rather than refactoring other people's comments and edit warring about it. You were in the wrong there, and I can understand why Zefr appears to have become exasperated with you (while I do not think that entirely excuses their own edit warring afterwards).

I have made no personal comments about you yourself. I have criticised what you have done, and given you advice on how to do better. You were edit warring, and you were using unsuitable sources for the content you were adding, both of which you should not do.

So, if you want to get the discussion back on topic, I'll ask again: what is it that you want to happen here? What outcome are you looking for? You and Zefr engaged in a brief edit war, in which you both improperly refactored one another's talk page comments. It was over nearly two weeks ago. Neither of you are blocked, the talk page isn't protected from editing. What would you like us to do about it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic here is stated by the section heading: “Deleting comments by another editor from an article’s talk page”. The examples I offered include repeated deletions of material that contains comments that are very pertinent to the topic of that article. (No one’s denied that.) I’ve said that I thought it might be good to get some consensus on that practice (of “deleting…” etc) . It appears that some editors here are in favor of the practice and some are not. And no one else seems to want to join in to tip the balance. So, I would say that we’ve gone as far as we can go. Unfortunately this discussion has become so filled with comments that are off-topic and that meander every which way, I think it has the unfortunate effect of discourage a proper discussion. Because it would be reasonable for an editor that might have something to say to look at this mountain of off-topic stuff and say: I’d rather not. It also might be discouraging for an editor to find that this Administrators' Noticeboard has become such a personal back-and-forth. I would not blame anyone for not wanting to step into the middle of something like that. The prior post is been nothing but off-topic rehashing. I know I have been very critical of Girth, and to specifically answer his latest question (which has already been asked and answered), I would say: Let it go — please don’t expect me to encourage any more. Anyone who wants to go off-topic, or have a personal, one-on-one, is welcome to do so on my talk page. - Bitwixen (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I think that we can all agree that removing on-topic stuff is bad, and that removing off-topic stuff is sometimes permissible, but that people shouldn't edit war about it. I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal, but that it hasn't risen to the level of needing any administrative intervention, particularly since it was two weeks ago. So yes, I think that letting it go and moving on is the best thing to do.

I'm sorry if you think I derailed whatever you were hoping would happen when you started this thread. As I read back through the discussion, I see myself attempting to answer your question by directing you to TALKOFFTOPIC, and advising you that if any on-topic material was removed, it could be reinstated. I then pointed out to you that edit warring over content in the article and stuff on the talk page was bad, commented on the sourcing you were using, and gave you some advice on how to handle borderline BLP issues better. All of that, while perhaps not directly addressing the question you asked, is relevant in the context of what happened. When users come to ANI with a complaint about another editor (which is what you seemed to be doing), we don't just look at the reported editor - we look at the whole situation. I then see you criticising me for saying what I did, which you're entitled to do, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect me not to respond to that criticism.

So, yeah - happy to let this go. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth, you have said said [above]: that you understood that Zefr was deleting and moving what was [in his view] off-topic content, and you thought that was a “sensible thing to do”. It was pointed out [above more than once] that he in fact deleted on-topic content. [As I said above: “You [Girth] mischaracterize certain comments as "off-topic" — even though the "on-topic" comments were directly quoted in the post just above yours.”]. Here’s only one example: This comment was deleted and moved: “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.” You have had many opportunities to correct your opinion, and it sounds as if you are finally trying to walk it back with your last post. I also cannot agree with you when you say: “I hope that we can all agree that you both did some things that weren't ideal.” etc. If I may speak on behalf of Zefr, you are wrong [again, Garth] to be disparaging a person, when you have not had the opportunity to hear what Zefr has to say in his own defense. It is especially egregious on this particular page, which is a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It is not only disparaging, but it is off-topic. Girth you are “Mr. Off-Topic” — trying to keep you on-topic is like pulling teeth. You are goofy in that way. You degrade this page with your random poorly thought out rehashings and misunderstandings. Let it go. Take a hint. We [you and me] are both trashing this poor section. It could be so much better. Instead it’s become a mountain of repetitive verbiage, disparagement, personal comments, Girth. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I feel that we're going over the same ground again. Yes - I said that removing off-topic stuff like user warning templates from an article's talk page was sensible, and a good idea - that stuff had no business being on the page. You are repeatedly ignoring the fact that I have also said that there was nothing stopping on-topic material being reinstated. So, I don't know why you're bringing that up again instead of just reinstating it (if that's what you want), or moving on if you no longer care.

I don't think that you can speak on behalf of Zefr, since you are the one who brought this here to complain about Zefr's actions. Zefr thanked for me the post above in which I said that edit warring is bad and that they weren't blameless, which tells me that they are aware the I've said that, and I interpret it as meaning that they accept the point I made there. Zefr is at liberty to speak up if I have misinterpreted them.

Now, above you have accused me of making personal comments about you - if you can identify any comment in which I am making personal commentary about you (as opposed to commenting on occasions where your conduct has not been compliant with policy), I would be grateful for you pointing it out. You, on the other hand, have directed two childish insults at me in your last post. I have a reasonably thick skin and do not plan on making a big deal of this, but you should be aware that calling people names will lead to your account being blocked. You are not allowed to call people 'goofy' or 'Mr. Off-Topic' any more than you are allowed to call them a 'fucking asshole'. You need to be a lot more careful in how you address people.

Here's some advice for future reference: you don't get to define what the topic should be here. If you come here complaining about someone else's conduct, you need to be prepared for your own conduct to be scrutinised. I strongly suggest that you move on to something productive before anyone starts talking about boomerangs. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth, I’m sorry for the things I said that bothered you. I don’t know what got into me. And I’m very glad you and Zefr have your ex parte communications. You didn’t reveal exactly what he said, but if you honestly feel he gave all that support to your side in all this, I’m glad — I’m sure a little appreciation must feel good, especially on a day when I was giving you grief. To respond to your comment about what topic we should be discussing: this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and the topic of a section here should be determined by the section heading, and though editors are of course free to discuss whatever comes to their minds, the Administrator’s Notice Board itself pays a price in terms of diminished purpose and diluting whatever good might be accomplished by not being sharp and on-point. Editors here are welcome to go into anybody’s past, everyone has access to everything anybody’s contributed, you can always find fault if that’s what you’re looking for. You can bring all kinds of things into this wide-ranging conversation, but it gives the impression that the Administrator’s Notice Board is not a place inhabited by policy wonks. Also (responding to you): I don’t think it’s right — especially on this page — to criticize an editor (Zefr, me or anybody) for doing “things”, when the mysterious “things” are not even named. I brought here an example of what I thought was a violation of policy. You and others (not everybody) in this section then justified (under certain vague circumstances) the deleting of talk page content. Girth, you say I accuse you of “making personal comments” about me. It’s not an accusation — it’s the only thing you and I do here. You make comments about me, and I make comments about you. If you want specific examples, as you say you do, consider the last sentence you posted, and the one before that (etc). Instead of personal comments, it would be better to stay “on topic” and talk policy, and not address each other directly at all. It can be done. Girth, you say I can restore the deleted content, and of course it can then be deleted again and again. But regarding why we’re all here: I saw editing that I thought was unacceptable (though that’s not for me to determine), I brought it here as an example. I appreciate all the discussion — which is causing me to reconsider. Perhaps Zefr is right. He's a strong, assertive, two-fisted, warrior-editor, having a big impact on Wikipedia and the articles he edits. And if he steps on a few toes, or bends a few guidelines — he gets the job done. He throws fireballs. Perhaps we should all aspire to be more like him. He seems not to give a darn about the fretting that’s going on in this section — no, he stands apart from the fray and lets the dogs bark. (I’m a bit disappointed though that he stooped to weigh in on your side — though I’m not sure he wanted to be outed for doing that. But never mind.) He may have a few unconventional editorial tools he likes to use. (I actually saw his latest weapon battle-tested, and by coming here — it seems I got it the Administrators' noticeboard’s seal of approval. Sort of.) Zefr, you go girl. Girth, you say that I shouldn’t speak for another editor, but any discussion of policy is an attempt to speak not only for other editors, but for all editors. We should consider the primary business of the Administrator’s Notice Board is to consider policy with a view for how it affects one and all of us. I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. And again, I’m sincerely sorry for the things I said that bothered you. - Bitwixen (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, briefly: There were no ex parte conversations, the 'thank' log is a public record. You haven't said anything that bothered me, you just need to be aware that addressing people like that is prohibited. No, the topic is not determined by the title, admins looking at an issue have broad latitude to comment on whatever problematic conduct they see. I have already been specific about what I think you did wrong, and what I think Zefr did wrong, I shouldn't have to repeat it in every post.

It seems that you still think that Zefr was the one edit warring and throwing fireballs, and you somehow weren't? I do not think that you will succeed here as an editor if you persist in your apparent belief that the problems in that thread were all down to Zefr, and the problems in this one are all down to me, and your own attitude, which strikes me as belligerent in this discussion, has nothing to do with it. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

No, no, no, Girth, I’m afraid you’ve completely misunderstood. I do not in any way consider that Zefr “did wrong” or was “edit warring”. In fact, it’s just the opposite, I think he may have been right about all this all along. And I was wrong to be concerned. Zefr is a good strong and active editor, and I only want to encourage him. I wasn’t sure of all this at first, but my experience here has helped me “see the light” so to speak. That’s what I was trying to tell you before. Plus — I had a prof. of English lit. not that long ago, and his way of complimenting people who made a comment in class was to say: I like the fireballs you’re throwing. He didn’t say it often, but it was always a compliment. And I didn’t mean anything awful when I used it. I don’t think Zefr would be bothered by it. Please don’t think I’m being “belligerent”, I thought I was very civil with my last post. I’m not sure why you said that. I’m being sincere. I would like to withdraw this whole post if I could. Because I see things like the deletions we were talking about in a new light. I’ve gone over to the other side. I don’t consider such things unacceptable anymore. All the very best, and thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. - Bitwixen (talk) 03:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"...And I didn’t mean anything awful when I used it. I don’t think Zefr would be bothered by it." Should Zefr be bothered with someone saying he steps on toes, "bends a few guidelines", but he gets the job done? I don't think Girth misunderstood at all. Antagonizing people is not thought of as an effective editing skill. In fact, it becomes detrimental to the editor that employs it ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The Administrator’s Notice board functions like the comments sections of other social media platforms. Misunderstandings tend to seem intentional, and administrators are free to use the foulest possible language ("f**ing a**hole"). Whether using that kind of language is meant to ratchet up the drama in a troll-like manner, or meant to trash the dialogue — it does demonstrate that Wikipedia policy is not going to get much respect. The topic in the heading of this section is largely ignored, while relationships between editors are discussed (ironically by the same foul-mouthed administrator) — as though this board is a couples therapy session.— Bitwixen (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, you know perfectly well that I used the phrase 'fucking asshole' as an example of an extreme personal attack, which is prohibited. I did it to highlight the fact that, while your insults were not profane, they were no more permitted than calling someone a 'fucking asshole'. You are again coming very close to being insulting in your language above, and need to be more careful in how you speak about people. It is insulting someone, rather than profanity, which is forbidden by policy Girth Summit _(blether) 17:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you use gutter language, even after it has been objected to, perhaps because you can’t help yourself, and you have some kind of incontinence problem. Or perhaps you deliberately befoul here because you want to. Perhaps you want to goad or provoke. Your use of such language is a violation of Wikipedia policy, it’s a violation of the five pillars. Editors who come here to make an appeal on this page care about how things are done, and hope that they might find others who also care. You’re an administrator. People make an effort to become an administrator. Some people campaign for it, and try to demonstrate that they’re worthy. Cease and desist. - Bitwixen (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I have violated no policy. I have directed no abusive language towards anyone. All of your edits for the last week have been to this thread, despite your assertion that you think we should move on. Go and do something useful. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit: WP:Vulgarity Bitwixen (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no verbiage in that policy that prohibits the use of rude words as illustrative examples, as I did. It prohibits the direction of such language towards other editors, which I have not done. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen, I highly suggest you drop this. The initial issue you raised has been resolved, and Girth has not violated any policies here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But is the initial issue resolved, HandThatFeeds? No editor here has answered the question posed by the section heading and by the examples, which is: Is it acceptable to delete pertinent content from the talk page of articles? This is not being asked of all editors, but specifically to editors who happen by this Administrators notice board. So “acceptability” is limited to those here. “Acceptance” is not very a high-bar, so if the question goes unanswered and there’s no objection, that’s a degree of acceptance. Editors here have had thoughtful things to say, but to say the practice is not a “good idea” but that it’s “okay under certain circumstances” — when the circumstances don’t fit the examples — is appreciated, but it’s not responding specifically to the examples. Based on the comments here, including I suppose even your own “not weighing in on the particular question”, HandThatFeeds, it appears that deleting content in such a way is in fact acceptable, at least here. It’s still not acceptable to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. But guidelines are made to be broken, apparently. That’s the resolution? - Bitwixen (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Bitwixen my goodness, teh question *has* been resolved: reading WP:TPO (the page you linked) explains everything: nowhere in that guideline does it say that deleting other people's comments is forbidden. In other words: removing talk page posts is allowed *under certain circumstances*. e.g. I quote Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed or It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject (as opposed to the treatment of the subject in the article). or Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban. So, the guideline in fact says that deleting content in such a way is in fact acceptable under certain circumstances - you should re-read WP:TPO. Mvbaron (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is resolved. As Mvbaron points out, the issue has been explained to you. Zefr was removing off-topic commentary, and may have accidentally taken some on-topic commentary out at the same time, which was fixed. I get that it wasn't the response you wanted, but the matter has been handled. The guidelines are not broken, you simply dispute that your posts were "pertinent," when no one else agrees. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk page suggestions about what reliable sources may be used is not the kind of content that should be deleted according to WP:TPO, and it is certainly not “gibberish or a test edit” as Mvbaron seems to suggest. A discussion about using contentious material about living persons (per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) should not be deleted, it should be discussed. In fact, such discussions are recommend on WP:BLP. Bitwixen (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Egregious personal attacks

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

---

Status:     Done

81.64.12.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) wrote nasty and egregious personal attacks in French at User talk:193.137.135.2: [15] Please see the translation from Google Translate: "Learn to write and speak French before you write s*** English-speaking dirty s***. […] English, Americans = stupid race" Robby.is.on (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is the IP actually FC Porto6185? 193.137.135.2 seemed to think so based on their language on 81.64.12.21's talk page. Also left the same message on the user's talk page. I'm adding the notification to their talk page just in case they should be notified. It could be different editors but they like to both leave very nasty messages on talk pages in which they attack what they view as "Anglo-Saxon", "American" and "English racism" with uncivil remarks. It's almost as if they claim that European law mandates we state the players nationality, not sources, law or its a crime and therefore by Wikipedia not stating a players nationality it is some form of "English" racism. Both the user and the IP seem to feel this way.

Diffs for FC Porto6185

• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

Diffs for 81.64.12.21

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

It appears to have been happening for a couple of years at various times. Is it enough to take action? I would say so but that's for the community or admins to decide. It think it goes against the very core values of our community. We can criticize each others edits but we are never to make it personal or attack another editors nationality as has been done repeatedly by both editors above. You may find other examples. I just picked the three from each I felt were the most egregious.--ARoseWolf 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Thanks for input. With those diffs you presented, IP and user really feel like the same person. For the moment both "parties" have stopped editing, that's something at least ;) --193.137.135.2 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, is someone at home? These attacks certainly warrant some kind of sanction? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

… Robby.is.on (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

First, you're asking for WP:OUTING, which is not going to happen. Second, the anon seems to write almost exclusively in French, which makes sense as the IP is from rural Quebec while FC Porto6185 claims to be a Portuguese citizen born in France, which is a continent away. The focus of the subjects is different as well. FC Porto6185 focuses on Portuguese citizens who are footballers while the Quebec anon focuses on French citizens Raphaël Guerreiro (soccer) and Timothée Chalamet (acting). This is the wrong forum. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Walter, I did not ask for outing, I only reported personal attacks from 81.64.12.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I did not make the connection to FC Porto6185.

And no, this not the wrong forum. The personal attacks from both 81.64.12.21 and FC Porto6185 are sanctionable in themselves. These are the "chronic, intractable behavioural problems" mentioned at the top of this very page.

Today, 81.64.12.21 served more battleground attitude and personal attacks at User talk:Govvy ([22]): "You are ridiculous the British and Americans." and in an edit summary: "You are stupid and ridiculous the English and Americans". Robby.is.on (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Hi, I'm sorry no one responded sooner to this - I have blocked 81.64.12.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for personal attacks. We can review escalating blocks if and when the behaviour restarts ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @TheresNoTime:. Better late than never. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Subtle vandalism

Bravefencer365 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing for a while, having gotten extended-confirmed just yesterday, but still contains to engage in subtle vandalism. He's gotten multiple final warnings, but paid no attention to them, nor has he used edit summaries/talk pages to explain his edits, or corroborate them with references.

Diffs:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

Loafiewa (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I posted on the user's talk to ask about their edit at Maxim gun which changed the date of invention from 1884 to 1883. Please let me know if edits like that continue without an explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree this is the sort of behavior that merits escalating blocks, especially if occurring after many final warnings. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding that this user is quite likely a sockpuppet of Legaiaflame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another Android user who was unable to read their multiple final warnings due to problems with the app. I think the overlap is quite apparent, with both users mostly sticking to firearm/ammunition articles, gnoming in small increments, and never bothering to use an edit summary/talk page. Not sure if it'd be better to take it to SPI instead, but I think there's very little ambiguity, considering on 15 July, Legaiaflame was banned, and the very next day, Bravefencer365 created his account and started editing. Loafiewa (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing to Cinderella (2021 film)

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

---

An anonymous editor across multiple IP (both IPv4 and IPv6) is persistently making unhelpful edits to the article Cinderella (2021 film) and has been doing so for days.

It is a fairly mundane and trivial edit, pointing out that there was another film based on Cinderella made in 2015, but it has been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors. I think the first was Bovineboy2008 (talk · contribs) who reverted it on August 29[29] and also started a talk page discussion inviting the anon editor to explain why they thought this edit was important or necessary. Talk Multiple other editors have reverted it since.

Diffs:

• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]
• ... several more ...
• latest [34] with the edit summary "Please refrain from edit warring, please."

Warnings: [35]
[36]
[37]

I would prefer if this disruptive IP editor could be blocked but the more practical option might be to lock the article, even if that does prevent me from editing the article too. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk)

I realise belatedly that Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring would have been the better place to post this. -- 109.78.204.92 (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

After days of disruptive edits the anon finally stopped and I didn't need to bring it here. Oh well, thanks anyhow. -- 109.76.129.242 (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Peter Williams 2001

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

---

• Peter Williams 2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. Despite multiple requests on this user's talkpage not to update infobox stats of cricketers until the source is updated, they continue to do so. Often this has also been incorrect, with them using WP:OR to calculate the figures. I've asked this user to reply, but they have failed to acknowledge the issue. Maybe a block to the article space would prompt them to communicate? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

And now continues to add unsourced content. All their recent edits have been reverted too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

User now appears to be communicating ~TNT (she/they • talk) 14:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TNT. I'm happy with their response, so this can be closed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by 188.149.107.101

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

IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as he attempts in to Kurdify various articles, by adding randomly 'Kurdish' or its language into it. Some examples;

added 'Kurdish', falsely claiming that the source supported it by saying 'References'

added 'Kurdish', falsely claiming that the source supported it by saying 'References'

added 'Kurdish', falsely claiming that the source supported it by saying 'References'

added 'Kurdish'

added 'Kurdish' in an article about a people that lived in the 3rd millennium BC

added 'Kurdish' in an article about a people that lived in the 3rd millennium BC

added the Kurdish language

added the Kurdish language

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say this is a clear case for WP:AIV, which typically moves much faster than ANI.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

AIV almost always requires bureaucratic procedures such as patiently explaining to the IP why adding "Kurdish" in as many places as possible is undesirable. From AIV's point of view, it is a content issue, not vandalism. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since this report. Let me know if problems resume. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism, WP:BLP violations at Slayyyter

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

---

Mass attack, defamatory content. Requesting page protection, user blocks, and substantial rev/deletion of recent edit history. The usual. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• This has been going on for four hours. Can someone take care of this? 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you Ohnoitsjamie. There remains the matter of rev/deletion for the coordinated attack of the last few days, if any admin is up for it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't want to keep pinging you, Onij. Thank you for the rev/deletion. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:AlexandraVoicu2020

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

---

User:AlexandraVoicu2018, User:AlexandraVoicu2019, and User:AlexandraVoicu2020 was evidenced within sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveRest (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Tom.Reding's use of an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to do contested mass-editing tasks (again)

• Previous ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072 § User Tom.Reding operating an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to perform useless tasks.
• Discussion with editor

I think Only in death's summary at the previous ANI, and my comments there, are quite comprehensive so I'll avoid repeating too much, but here is the issue in a nutshell:

1. We have a Wikipedia:Bot policy. It has a few purposes, one of which is to ensure the appropriate level of consensus exists for mass editing tasks so they don't cause widespread disruption and frustration.
2. There exists one widespread RfC for the use of {{Authority control}} and that was Wikipedia:Authority control integration proposal in 2012; it authorised mass-addition only to biographical articles. This was carried out using bot accounts (eg User:VIAFbot), and one of which was Tom's Tom.Bot, showing that he's aware of the approval process and its necessity for this kind of editing.
3. Since 2018, Tom.Reding has added {{Authority control}} through his account to at least ~400,000 articles at a rate of several per minute. These are mostly outside the scope of the above approval. His current unapproved task purports to add this template to every single English Wikipedia article. The previous ANI involved redirects, and there have been disputes over other types of articles as well. There exists no community consensus for this MEATBOT. There is no WP:BAG approval.
4. At the previous ANI, editors raised concerns and detailed the breadth of the issue, and SoWhy added comments on the user's talk[38][39]. Though Tom.Reding's initial comments left a lot to be desired, he did commit to stopping, and did so for several weeks after the ANI was archived.[40]. After the scrutiny died down he resumed, and now seems to refuse to acknowledge the issue at all.

Summary: Tom.Reding is currently operating an unapproved large-scale WP:MEATBOT task. This is a task objected to by several editors. After the dust settled from the previous ANI, he has resumed making those exact edits in the exact same editing manner. Tom is doing an end run around the consensus that must be obtained before an editor decides to make a change to every article on this project. Template documentation pages and template talk pages are not appropriate for this kind of change, and have no more status than an essay.

Noting the large-scale and exhausting disruption caused by bot operators who don't adhere to the bot policy and don't seek consensus, the fact that similar cases seem to only be resolved at ArbCom, and noting an informal resolution was tried at the previous ANI, I really believe this issue needs to be dealt with conclusively in some way here. If the determination is that this kind of editing is inappropriate, then I think something needs to be done about the edits that have already been made, not least to avoid sending a message that fait accomplis are allowed to stand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the damage Tom is doing, exactly? WP:MEATBOT isn't just about any widescale use of AWB; it's about those that "sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity", whether that sacrifice as to do with edits that "are contrary to consensus or ... cause errors...". As a positive consensus is not required to run AWB, even at a quick clip, which an awful lot of editors do from time to time, we would need to see a problem or an extant consensus that Tom is going "contrary to", not just evidence that he is using AWB to make a lot of edits. I don't see that consensus at the previous ANI thread. Is this an extension of the fight over authority control? Is the fact that Tom is adding that template why these edits are considered damaging? Is there consensus against adding it to these articles somewhere (there may well be)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to create {{ProcrastinatingReader's Template}} and then run a bot on my own account and add it to every English Wikipedia article until an affirmative consensus says "No, this template can't be added to 6 million articles?" We might as well just delete Wikipedia:Bot policy if that were reasonable. MEATBOT is about the fact that an editor saying "but it's semi-automated" doesn't mean anything, partly because it is technically impossible for anyone to prove whether someone is running an automated bot or not. I for one don't believe that Tom.Reding pressed "Submit" in AWB 400,000 times & counting just to add {{Authority control}} at the bottom of a page when the task is trivially automatable, which Tom knows because he's made a similar bot before. This is very likely a fully automated bot, and it would not be difficult to disguise it as not being such (random delays, only run for X hours per day at a randomised time, etc.). If you assume it is actually semi-automated, the imperative question is why he would waste maybe hundreds of hours pressing "Submit" 400,000 times when he already has the code and could submit a BRFA for approval to formally run it in automated mode for more articles. (Unless he felt BAG wouldn't approve it?)

Fixing typos is not comparable for several reasons, the most simple reason is because the idea that we shouldn't have actual spelling or grammar errors in articles is universally accepted by everyone except vandals. This is an example of 'fixing errors', not 'implementing novel contested ideas at scale'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I'm wrong about the "hundreds of hours" bit. 400,000 edits, divided by 6 edits per minute, is 66,666 minutes spent pressing "Submit". That's 1111 hours. Are we really saying that Tom.Reding spent over a thousand hours of his life repeatedly pressing "Submit" for a task he knows he can fully automate (because he's done it before)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not the same as fixing a spelling error, but it's also not the same as mass adding a template you just created. Before getting further into it, two straightforward questions for Tom: is the aim to add it to every article, and if not, what's the method? and why not a bot? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Links: Tom.Reding (talk · contribs). Sorry I haven't studied the issue but is there an RfC more recent than 2012? I take it that examining Tom.Reding's contributions would show mass addition of {{Authority control}} to articles. It's hard to see that at the moment because they are doing other mass edits per WT:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 48#Mass cleanup edits? (WP:TOL). Assuming the problem is a disagreement about whether that template should mass-added to articles, and assuming there is no clear consensus saying it should not occur, I think a widely notified RfC should be held focusing on the issue rather than an editor. Meanwhile, Tom.Reding should be asked to not continue while that RfC is held. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• The main issue is that WP:BOTPOL is very clear about it covering semi-automated tool editing at a high rate but quite a few editors (and this isnt limited to Tom.Reding, they are just the latest annoyance) seem to think this can be ignored. They dont need to submit a BAG request, they dont need to follow WP:BOTREQUIRE etc. Even *approved* bots by BAG dont always follow WP:BOTREQUIRE which is another issue, as making an editor who wants to make mass edits to thousands of articles submit a bot request which is then waved through by a group of like-minded bot operators who only really care about the technical aspect, rather makes the policy redundant. Very little checking, if any, checking is done to see if a task has consensus amongst the community to enact.

RE Tom.Reding specifically, he has indicated that yes he is checking his edits, which means yes he fully intended to add the AC template to redirect pages where it will do absolutely fuck all (which is why it showed up on my watchlist, as I have a number of problematic - as in prone to vandalism redirect pages on there), as general readers will never see the redirect page, and the template itself is designed specifically to direct readers to external linked identifiers. The issues with the AC template is that in many cases there may be only one or two identifiers/links which are crap. (The discussion about adding AC templates where musicbrainz is the only link has been had elsewhere for example) So any editor who tells me they are checking 7 times a minute that both the template belongs on the article AND the content linked to in the template is *appropriate in context* for that article, they are having a giraffe.

In short there needs to be at least two discussions (beyond this one about Tom.Reding): 1. BOTPOL needs clarification that yes, it needs to be satisfied (or not) as written, and that BAG need to enforce its requirements in full when they recieve a BOT request. Many of the problem BOT editing/editors who ended up sanctioned would have had a much easier time if BAG had, instead of enabling them, actually acted as it is supposed to. Automated editing has moved on from strictly fully automated bot-tasks to editors making many high speed content additions and it needs to be clear BOTPOL applies. 2. There needs to be another discussion on the use of the AC template in general. Its essentially a data template with limited use for readers, when it has lots of arguably pointless identifiers (Fram can probably chime in here as they have written some wrappers to cut it down) it clutters up the article. Its often added as a result of automated editing where the task is 'add AC template' not 'review if AC template is appropriate and add accordingly' - the default position of the AC template automaters is that it is always appropriate on every article. In much the same way the userbox crowd regularly argue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• My additions of AC since the AC-on-#REDIRECTs-ANI have either been on 1) vital articles, or 2) articles with Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID (P4613), and never on #REDIRECTs.

1. Vital article additions were done per request by Hyperbolick @ ​User talk:Tom.Reding#Authority control + Vital articles?, which I restricted to pages with at least 1 ID (as I always have), and restricting further by excluding a soon-to-be-abandoned source.
2. Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID (P4613) additions were done per request by Mzajac @ Template talk:Authority control#Add support for P4613 Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine ID.

Anything else I've said related to the matter here can be found at the above links or @

• User talk:Tom.Reding#Authority control on redirects (addresses MEATBOT concerns)
• User talk:Tom.Reding#Authority control again

@Rhododendrites: thanks; to answer your questions: no, the aim isn't to add it to every article, just articles on which it displays an ID, and a bot would be suitable if all it did (or most of what it did) was add the template. I'm performing a large # of cleanup & WP:MOS fixes alongside it, some cosmetic, some non-cosmetic, with each edit, which require inspection & are not 'safe' to let a bot run due to the many exceptions that arise. This slows down the process anyway, so it's win-win for everyone (well, almost everyone, apparently).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"just articles on which it displays an ID" which is functionally everything given the way AC ID's are proliferating. And you are not checking if those ID's are a)useful, b)appropriate, c)pass even our basic tests for reliability. The extent of your criteria for adding the template is 'does an ID exist'. Which is precisely not how adding things to articles is meant to be done. Which is why BOTPOL requires consensus before doing mass automated editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

But these issues of determining appropriateness, usefulness, reliability, etc., are more about AC and disagreements over its use than about Tom.Reding. Our bot policy needs more clarity. You say that it's clear that it applies to semi-automated edits at a high speed, but isn't clear how/when it applies. If there's no consensus against the edits, no errors being made, and the edits aren't fully automated, it's not clear there's anything to be done based on the current language. And if there is, there's nothing Tom's doing that loads of other users at the top of WP:4000 don't do on a regular basis. Granted "other semiautomated editors exist" isn't a great reason, but this really does seem like a matter to be sorted out re: bot policy and authority control rather than at ANI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That isn’t a correct interpretation of the bot policy, and if it were it would lead to disastrous disruptive consequences, and the issue here is very much about Tom.Reding’s editing. There is a separate discussion to be had about the usage of AC, but most editors do this editing completely manually and thus are taking responsibility for their addition and it’s compliance with WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. In contrast, Tom.Reding’s unauthorised task, as admitted above, is entirely indiscriminate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think it may be more illuminating to look at this through the lens of WP:FAIT rather than bot policy: Editors who are collectively or individually making large numbers of similar edits, and are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. Tom's edits have been disputed, so I think it falls on him to hit pause until consensus can be ascertained on criteria under which the addition of AC templates is uncontroversial. Colin M (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• As Colin M already pointed out, rather than WP:MEATBOT, I think the real issue here is WP:FAITACCOMPLI (though they're related.) Tom is aware that their edits are controversial, so they need to stop making so many of them and obtain an affirmative consensus; it's not appropriate to (effectively) push through a contested change just by making it to a huge number of articles very rapidly. What is someone who objects supposed to do - go through and manually revert each one? Is that sort of massive edit-war across so many articles something we want to encourage? If not, then we need to discourage clearly-controversial mass edits; obviously WP:BRD can't be applied to thousands of articles at once. --Aquillion (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

"What is someone who objects supposed to do - go through and manually revert each one?" I did that for about 50 mid-July-ish. Tom.Reding just used automation to re-run/revert them. So the answer to your question is 'Fuck all'. Part of the purpose of BOTPOL requiring consensus *before* mass automated edits are run is to prevent Fait Accompli situations where its clear there isnt consensus to do it. The issue is that the person who makes mass automated edits will almost never then clear up their contested edits, and those with the required skillset are usually other bot operators who are uninterested in doing so. Much like incidences of mass copyright issues, the will to clean up large amounts of edits after others is just not widely present amongst the admin pool (and why would it, its tedious), but neither is the willingness to block editors and keep them blocked until they agree to do it themselves. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not related to AC, but if you see here, Tom.Reding has edited at a speed of over 20 edits per minute. I have no opinion over the edits themselves, but it is better to do such edits with a bot flagged account to avoid flooding the recent changes. Routing these edits through a bot account will make WP:RCP easier. BAG usually speedy approves small scale tasks like this (example). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Restoring my comment which was mysteriously reverted: * Just wanted to add that I did ask Tom to add AC templates to Vital Articles, a project I’ve worked on for some time, as it makes sense that VAs would have ACs. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• It seems we are at an impasse again. Not necessarily due to disagreement, but (by my read) we've basically reached the same conclusion we did in the previous ANI (that these edits shouldn't happen without approval). Except we already tried that and we ended up right back here in two months anyway. So, what now? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert

close withdrawn.

(non-admin closure) WP:BOLD partial close as no consensus. This part of the discussion (whether or not El_C's unblock should be undone) is a sticky situation, indeed. El_C's original block was for Johnpatricklambert's personal attacks and disruptive editing. It was not an interpretation of consensus of the community, but rather a regular admin action. The unblock, likewise, was done after a direct appeal to El_C by JPL. None of the above requires community input, as it was not done or undone based on any community consensus. However, as always, the community may decide that the editor should be blocked or TBAN'd. It is within our purview to form such consensus, and admins are sometimes tasked with acting upon that consensus. One such proposal is directly below this close! (A TBAN) I encourage everyone read and consider that TBAN proposal carefully. Likewise, I urge the closer of that proposal to review any votes in this discussion re: possible TBANs. Even ignoring procedural irregularities, we have sped towards No consensus. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed. On first glance, the nays have it, right? However, it is not so simple. To overturn an admin action like this would require a much more robust consensus. Surely not such a slim margin! Or we would be reinstating blocks and unblocking all over the place! The difference between a forced reversal of an unblock and a novel block is a small one, but an important one. Overall, we should focus on new proposals which are framed on specific actions (e.g. "Proposal: Block JPL") And such a proposal would still be in order. That is the magic of the no consensus close. Given what has transpired below, the confusion surrounding all of this, the muddying of proposals, etc. etc., we should probably all ignore this part and instead focus on some concrete policy-based proposals.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I have reversed User:Shibbolethink's inappropriate, unilateral close of a very active, pngoing discussion. Nothing in policy justifies such a close. It was simply a unilateral supervote. Significantly, Shibbolethink grossly misread the trend of the discussion. He said "we have sped towards No consensus. 13 votes in favor of the unblock, 16 votes opposed"; butr what has in fact happened is that after an early batch of !votes breaking narrowly (9-7) in favor of unblocking, subsequent discussion and !voting swung in the opposite direction (4-9); if the current trend continues, there will soon be a solid consensus opposing unblocking. But that's hardly a sure thing. This is a community decision, and no single editor or admin should act unilaterally to throttle discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Shibbolethink: I don’t like a straight numeric assessment but if we must I think your numbers are off. I count much closer to 20 opposed. Not necessarily opposing the close, just asking you to check your work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @Horse Eye's Back:,@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Close withdrawn, that's WP:BOLD-revert-discuss for you. I might add that all closes are unilateral by their very nature. And that, regardless, I still think this is a malformed discussion that should be about imposing a new block, not undoing an old unblock that was done completely independent of any ANI thread. I don't feel strongly enough about this to do anything, though. Enjoy the mess this has become...Collapsing as off-topic and withdrawing close.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert unblock conditions

• Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

There was a discussion about User:Johnpacklambert here a little over a week ago (archived). During the discussion, JPL was blocked by User:El C. The discussions, both here at ANI and on JPL's talk page, continued after the block and deteriorated, and it seemed unlikely that something productive would come from continuing at that time. I removed talk page access for a week, and closed the ANI thread, as a cool down period. In the close of the ANI tread, I said "When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment".

El C has reversed his block, with a condition (forged on JPL's talk page by several editors and admins). The unblock request reads "I recognize that my over reactions, over defensiveness, and general attacks on others were disruptive and would like to apologize for it. As detailed above I am requesting an unblock authorization. The plan is that I will work on articles in Category:1922 births, adding sources, adding categories, adding text, and doing general improvments to the articles. For the time being I will only edit articles that are in that category when I began editing them. The plan is in the short term to when I complete that category move back to Category:1921 births, but I will wait until I get through the 1922 births to do that. For now I will only do edits on those pages that are in the category when I find them. Again I would like to sincerely apologize for the disruption I have caused. I want to be an editor who improves the project and does not cause problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)"

So, I guess the question is, is this unblock condition acceptable to the community, and does it address the problems that led to the ANI thread in the first place? FWIW, I think it is worth a shot to try this. Discussion about these unblock conditions is on JPL's talk page. I'm hoping the ANI community accepts it. But I promised a discussion when I closed the ANI thread, and so here it is. After the fact, but what else can I do? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ugh, I'll tell you what you can do. You could take all of your belongings and go live in a shoe! El_C 03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but you're being a douche when you make nonsensical comments like this. You're doing it a lot lately. Please stop it. It's frustrating, and if you keep doing it, you'll likely disrupt this thread and make it harder to settle this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

A douche, you say? That's refreshing. El_C 04:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• This situation needs to be handled sensitively and with minimal drama. Starting a thread at ANI strikes me as the opposite of that. – bradv^🍁 04:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well that's me, a fucking drama monger. I promised people could comment, and kept my promise. I'm out. If you close this, it's on you, not me. I tried to do the right thing. To everyone in the previous ANI thread: sorry I lied to you. It was unintentional, and to some extent, in retrospect, out of my control. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

    First I would like to remind everyone including myself that the existence of this thread does not require anyone except El C, Floquenbeam, and JPL and perhaps if there's someone else involved to respond and even then only if questions are specifically raised about their behaviour, actions and plans that definitely need a response (a lot of the time no response is needed). If the community appears to be proposing a plan then of course you might want to help shape that decision if necessary. (Remembering if the outcome seems clear and your feedback is unlikely to change things then as always consider if it's necessary.) Anyway I would prefer no ANI thread but IMO this thread is the best solution.

extended explanation of my comments

It's clear the previous thread and discussion was closed partially under the reasoning that JPL was indeffed with no chance of any action of responses on them for ~7 days. That period has now elapsed and indeed JPL has been unblocked. For those of us with long experience of Wikipedia, we know that a good way to get people here riled up is to prematurely shut down or prevent discussion about something they're not happy with and there seems a strong risk this would be one such case. This may not even be about a different outcome, but simply that people feel the issues haven't been properly explorer. Even if a thread with way more anger than was needed doesn't eventually result from such an attempt to prevent discussion, it can lead to long simmering tensions that keep coming out. Further AFAIS, the previous closures were mostly accepted with perhaps some minor silliness. There's a good chance that if instead of allowing a discussion in the future like was promised we shut it down, this makes it far harder to have relatively clean cut-offs like that in the future. (The pending changes mess and other cases I can't recall offhand resulted at least partially from a feeling promises of discussion were broken.) To be clear, there may be a few cases where we can go against promises made, but there need to be exceptional circumstances and/or where the situation has substantially changed neither of which seem to apply here. Also while I'd prefer no need for an ANI thread, I see zero significant harm in one. (There is one recent arbcom announcement and preceding ANI thread where we had far more reason to limit discussion and did, but even there we still allowed some discussion.) Ultimately if the community does not agree with this decision, then they have a right to impose some other decision and it's incredibly unfair of anyone especially admins to suggest they can't. Likewise if the community or JPL cannot handle this thread in a reasonable fashion, then any problems which result are a symptom and not a cause; and we really need to work out how to resolve those problems rather than doing stuff which just makes everything worse like preventing discussion when people want it. While Floquenbeam could have let someone with concerns open the discussion, I think the comments here show why they are the best place. While Floquenbeam clearly feels at least 2 of the replies so far are unfair, and may not totally agree with the way the unblock was handled, they are still largely an uninvolved admin and so I'm sure have the experience and wherewithal to deal with such comments. By comparison, it's easy to see some editor who is very unhappy about the unblock or conditions getting rather pissed off about any perceived attacks of them opening a thread and for the thread to substantially degenerate as a result.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Unblock with conditions - I think the specific plan addresses the issue at hand well, and can be reevulated in the future as needed. ––FormalDude talk 06:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock- this seems like the best way forward for everyone. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Unblock with conditions. If JPL can stay out of drama for 6-12 months, there should be a good chance of getting the restrictions lifted. And thanks to admins for last few actions on this. Floq's 1 week cool down wasnt risk free but seemed for the best on balance of probability, & JPL looks much calmer now his TPA is restored. Also great that El_C unblocked; with that as the status quo at the start of this discussion, its much more likely we'll get JPL back. If JPL reads this, I hope he considers JClemmen's point about being too reliant on Wikipedia as his vehicle for making valuable contributions. Even allowing for the challenges from mild autism, there must be thousands of undertakings that would appreciate help from someone with JPL's intelligence and energy.FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions per my comments at JPL's talk page, and above. Hopefully these extremely narrow conditions will allow JPL to get back to editing and improving the project, while keeping them away from problematic areas. And JPL knows that if he breaches those tight conditions, then a lengthy and perhaps permanent block awaits. I'm also sorry to see El C and Floq in disagreement above - both admins I respect greatly, and I can see where both of them are coming from - El C is entitled to undo their own block on the one hand, and Floq wanting to keep their promise to the community by coming back to ANI. Hopefully this discussion here will not prove too contentious, and then the two diverging narratives can be reunited once more. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, well, I've been finding Floq to be grumpy a lot lately, which is frustrating, so I admit to have generally been trying to avoid a closed loop of frustration there, but sometimes there's overlap. And sometimes you're tired. Oh well. Anyway, too bad we couldn't discuss the details of RESTRICT formalities on JPL's talk page, but I guess a promise is sacred. Still, I'd submit more broadly that not everything needed to be done right fuckin' now. In any case, it is what it is at this point, so forging ahead, I guess. El_C 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Change of view to oppose unblock. Apologies for this but, when I wrote the following (now struck through) on the 6th, I was unaware that JPL had created additional accounts and this rash action must count heavily against him. The recent block for BLP violations (highlighted by Andrew below) is another decisive factor because it is inexcusable for an experienced editor to breach BLP. While I remain concerned about JPL's stress levels, I think Guerillero makes a salient point in saying that "editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health". Much has been said about JPL's attitude towards religion and, although I personally have no religion whatsoever, I fully respect other people's religious views and JPL should do the same, always subject to site policies such as WP:V, WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, etc. – obviously, if JPL were to revert some unsourced nonsense about the CLDS, he would be right to do so. On balance, the combination of SPI and BLP (both of which I had not previously taken into account) tips the scales and I now think both JPL and WP would benefit from a parting of the ways. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support unblock with conditions for six months. In addition, I think JPL should be allowed immediate access to AFD and CFD because I've found his contributions there are always insightful and useful, even on the few occasions when I haven't fully agreed with him. If he can interact with others at those pages, it will help him to feel part of the community again. Bearing in mind that his messages during the block have strongly indicated extreme stress, he should not be made to feel marginalised. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Unexpected to see a good faith editor like yourself selectively quoting Guerillero in a way that makes their nonsense seem even less reasonable. What they actually said was From the last thread, editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health. That's a valid reading of the thread, but it's a rather small data point. Before venturing an opinion on another editors MH it would be polite to take a wider view. JPL was quite clear on his TP last week that Wikipedia is the only place where he feels able to make valuable contributions. Regardless of the fact that the editing here occasionally makes him feel stressed, angry or panicky, it's clearly allmost certainly a net +ve for him. There's a handful of editors here who engage in high level consultancy with platform operators & governments concerning Digital media use and mental health . But most venturing opinions on other editors MH should be ignored or asked to keep their armchair psychology to themselves. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, editing Wikipedia can be torture. But no-one expects the comfy chair!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock with the proposed restriction. It’s a curiously narrow restriction but if JPL is content with it, I am too. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Opppose any unblock without a specific and logged ban at WP:RESTRICT from all deletion processes and all religion-based pages for a period of at least a year. Otherwise this is an utter waste of time and we will be back here as soon as JPL thinks people have stopped paying attention. The above from JPL are not actually 'conditions'. Note use of 'the plan' and 'for the time being'. Even with specific blocks from those two areas, JPL will just cause disruption somewhere else. This is not their first rodeo, this is not a second or third chance, this is once again JPL saying 'sorry I wont do it again' then they will go and do it again. WP:NOTTHERAPY also exists for a reason. We are way beyond the point where Wikipedia has made reasonable adjustments to accomodate JPL constant excuses. They have demonstrated over many years they are fundamentally unable to change, so they either need to go completely, or be forcibly prevented from causing issues. And I will absolutely echo KW here in that the persona JPL likes to project on-wiki is very far, deceptively so, than that they project off-wiki. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Waiting to hear from John I have some thoughts to share, but before I do so, now that John has had ample time to reflect on his decisions, I would like to read his thoughts on his using multiple accounts. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, and second the statement by Only in death does duty end. I followed the thread without comment last week, and have been watching it unfold at JPLs talk the last few days. Definitive logged restrictions need to be in place. A blanket restriction from religion articles is probably also in order, as editor seems constitutionally incapable of separating their own beliefs from the NPOV required to edit them, especially concerning his own religion. Heiro 12:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock I think it is in everyone's best interest from from JPL to the community's to give JPL our best regards and bluntly tell him to find himself another hobby. I suggest one that is not found in cyberspace and involves coming into contact with vegitation or the outdoors on a reguar basis. From the last thread, editing Wikipedia seems actively harmful to JPL's mental health and his contributions to our deletion processes and religion have been harmful to Wikipedia. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd really wish there were less of these NOTTHERAPY expressions by those espousing this CBAN masquerading as an oppose unblock. El_C 12:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: And I'd really wish you didn't rush to push the unblock button before the community had a chance to give their input on it. I find my comment to be extremely frank and transparent. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I used my discretion when blocking and I used my discretion when unblocking. "Extremely"? Yeah, maybe. Good luck to you all. El_C 13:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I thought the "go take a walk outside" rhetoric to be pretty condescending and dismissive, actually. Reyk _YO! 14:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is not really an unblock condition. It's so loosely worded that there's no real condition here except 'start slow then phase back in'. Probably why it isn't logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary like other unblock conditions would be? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

At this time, that is correct. El_C 12:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on these terms. There is absolutely no commitment to avoid problematic or tendentious editing areas, only not to immediately start back on them (and even then, "1922 births" seems like such a niche area that it's hard not to assume they may have a biography in mind within the wheelhouse they're best avoiding); any request should ideally include a much more concrete tban from areas fraught with issue for JPL until they can demonstrate they're responsible enough to contribute. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions - the self-imposed conditions seem very stringent to me. We could change it to "1919 births" if there are doubts about the randomness of 1922. I have always found JPL's comments at cfd of interest and as valid as anyone else's (other than my own of course). Oculi (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the current conditions and Support asking everyone to step back from the edge a bit. None of the recriminations, aspersions, or sniping helps build the encyclopedia. There's far too much personalization of actions and ascribing of motivations occurring. Take a break and go smell the flowers or dance in the rain, as your local weather indicates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The categories of 1921 and 1922 births are not random and seem quite inappropriate. The people in this category will tend to be either (a) recently dead or (b) centenarians or (c) of uncertain BLP status. JPL was blocked just three months ago for messing with BLP categories of this kind and the proposed restriction seems likely to increase the chances of this happening again. It would be better to restrict them to a less sensitive age band such as 1821 births. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) It seems pretty ridiculous to unblock so soon after JPL's sockpuppetry. Seems as though people were simply swayed by his strong emotional reaction to the original block to the point that the subsequent misbehavior was treated as immaterial or forgotten about entirely, but it's a pretty serious infraction. At a minimum it seems more reasonable for JPL to wait out the standard offer before being given the opportunity to return with such restrictions, in light of how easily he fell into the temptation to evade editing restrictions (that is, a full block). --Equivamp - talk 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) 1922 and 1921 look oddly specific, but people on the spectrum often view the world in non-mainstream ways, and I read nothing more into those dates than that. There's no doubt that improving existing articles is valuable work which can make a real difference. For a pragmatic reason, I'd suggest 1770 births and working backwards from there; before the birth of any prominent member of the LDS Church I know of. If JPL can get any article in that class up to DYK or GA status - well, enough said! those are hats well worth collecting. Narky Blert (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions under the assumptions that concerns about the pattern of emotional blackmail etc have been addressed in private off wiki by JPL and relevant admins. If my assumption is incorrect and those issues have not been addressed then I can’t in good faith support an unblock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC) I was incorrect the main issue has not been addressed, I must therefore change my position to oppose per my previous statement. At this point I’m not even sure that they understand that what they did was wrong, which is really the bare minimum and should be just the start of the conversation. On the philosophical side (because apparently thats also what we’re discussing), is there nothing compassionate about enabling an abuser? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I see an attempt at an apology, but nothing more, and nothing to address the issues that JPL was blocked for and why they wont repeat that behaviour. Then it goes to the non sequitur of tasking themselves with articles in the 1921 and 1922 births categories. That's before you get into the issue of socking and the recent BLP-related block, that Andrew Davidson mentions. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  Although this all seems moot now, as I see their account is unblocked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose given all the drama, second/third/fourth chances, and the fact that none of these restrictions get at the original problematic behavior, the sockepuppetry, etc.; enough chances have already been given. Grandpallama (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment the complaints at the top of the thread that it's "insensitive" to have an ANI thread must be rejected; unless ARBCOM is involved or the restrictions clearly (and voluntarily) include all the suggestions in the initial thread there MUST be this follow-up thread. It seems the unblock condition is that JPL can only edit articles regarding people born in 1921 or 1922? This is one of the most bizarre unblock conditions I have ever seen, and it doesn't address the issues regarding the Manual of Style's guidelines on short names of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at all. Obviously this isn't a long-term solution, and we must expect an appeal; if there is an understanding that further disruption (particularly regarding Manual of Style issues) before an appeal will result in a Community Ban Not Appealable For 180 Days this may be minimally acceptable. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @力: It's my understanding JPL agreed to not edit any articles, even those appearing in people born in 1921, that are in any way related to the LDS Church. Additionally that topic restriction means he can't edit the MOS. So, for those reasons, isn't his issue regarding the MOS guidelines on short names of the LDS Church fully addressed?

  I do agree that this ANI thread is a requirement and appreciate Floquenbeam for following through with it. ––FormalDude talk 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I must endorse the WP:NOTAVOTE claims; I don't feel I am supporting or opposing any specific written proposal regarding the unblock of JPL. That editor is currently unblocked, yet consensus is clear that an unblock would need conditions. I support there being fair conditions; not unreasonably burdensome conditions that amount to a procedural block, yet also not so vague and minimal as to amount to an unconditional unblock. If anyone can tell me whether that is "support" or "oppose", they might be more enlightened than Bodhidharma. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν)

• Tally — 9 Support to 7 Oppose as it currently stands. ~18 hours post thread opening. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Shibbolethink: To you of all people I thought citing WP:NOTAVOTE wouldn't be required. No comment on the matter at hand, since I really don't care for the drama, although if it's this close, it might be that there is no consensus here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  NOTAVOTE is so idealistic and much of it hardly applies in practice these days. Maybe it used to apply more once upon a time. When was the last time a large-scale dispute was resolved by building actual 'consensus' (using the traditional definition of the word, not the WikiSpeak definition)? I don't remember, personally. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  WP:CON still exists, but it does have to contend with vote counters of several types, including those who will snow close a discussion rather than let the discussers try to come to some understanding of each others' perspectives. Though I will agree that so called "drive by voting", and people talking past each other rather than listening to each other (not to mention gamesmanship of many forms), seems to be becoming more prevalent, which I do find disenheartening. - jc37 03:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  My anecdotal experience with WP:NOTAVOTE is that it applies when people are not justifying their votes, or when there are people piling on just to pile on, rather than to further expand support or opposition for a particular point. To that extent, everyone here seems to be furthering the discussion. ––FormalDude talk 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Of course I would agree, this is not a vote @RandomCanadian! But I still think a vote tally is a useful gauge to approximate how the discussion is going. When closing, arguments and policy must be examined, as well as the strength and merits thereof. But that doesn't mean we just ignore the vote tally. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support somewhat reluctantly, mainly on the basis that the WP:ROPE has been extended so many times now that it's on its very last thread, and any further issues will probably be a CBAN, and I'm sure JPL knows this. Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Probably meaningless now, since it's a fait accompli, but oppose per Black Kite above. There has been so much drama and so many numbered chances, not imposing a restriction of some kind (not a "plan"; that's neither meaningful nor enforceable), let alone not addressing the socking...it's hard for me to see this ending at all well. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Involved support I was the editor who brought JPL to ANI which spun into this situation. I have accepted his apology about the actions that led to El C's indef and as I said here or his talk (can't find-but someone can), I won't stand in the way of an unblock as that was not my goal when I brought his Mormon / LDS edits here. I remain concerned about JPL's ability to edit with an NPOV, but there are enough folks watching that I'm sure any 192x issues will be addressed if and when they happen. I do think this is the last last straw though as he's a productive editor but he has been here one too many times Star Mississippi 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per LindsayH et al. - the socking is a major aggravating factor. GAB^gab 01:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with a "But" Given the behavior included socking, I think we're beyond the point of a simple apology sufficing. I do not believe that JPL editing Wikipedia is in either Wikipedia's interest or JPL's interest given the behavior in the last few weeks when they were unable to edit. However, since it appears that the block will not be reinstated, if JPL's allowed to edit again, I'd argue that it's crucial that any condition of return involve a topic ban specific to religion, given that the behavior in that area has been repeated and is why we are here in the first place. So yes, allow JPL to post about 1922 births or whatever, but make sure that we're not talking about religious figures, broadly construed. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think JPL has done much more than a simple apology, but either way I agree that a topic ban specific to religion is a good idea. Since he is limited to only 1922 births, that is a given, and he has already agreed to the further restriction from editing any 1922 articles that are in anyway involved with the LDS Church. I think it is likely he would agree to not editing any religious figures broadly construed too. Following his two week break, he has been very reasonable and accommodating in his request to be unblocked. ––FormalDude talk 04:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Leave as is unless something new happens A lot of people supporting or opposing the unblock. However the unblock was performed by the blocking admin and no admin needs community consent to reverse their own action. So the question to me is not if the unblock was appropriate, it was. The question is if a new block is justified. I say for a new block to be justified there would need to be new behavior to justify it. I suppose it is possible that the previous discussion of sanctions could resume, but I think it lost steam. That being said the community is clearly close to its breaking point with this user and I recommend to them to walk as though on egg shells. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Observations: 1) First, thank you Floq for following through on your promise. 2) I think a couple of the early replies were uncalled for, and I was disappointed to see that kind of behavior. (the douche comment was also over the top - but I understand it due to the frustration). 3) I agree with High in BC in that since it was El_C's block, it was his right to unblock (although I'm not convinced it was a particularly good unblock). 4) Again I agree with HighinBC in that once someone has been unblocked, it would not be right to re-block ... absent continued disruption. To that end, I'd suggest just closing the thread, and stop snipping at each other. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with no conditions - if they can't edit productively without any conditions attached to their account, they have no business editing Wikipedia. If they are truly a net negative to the project, leave them blocked indef. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's a philosophical question that doesn't belong here, goes against years and years of actual practice and actual processes -- hell, actual software features like partial blocks. If you want to make fundamental changes to how Wikipedia does things, start an RFC. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not starting a RfC, and I did not ask a philosophical question. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding whether or not a block can be issued, as with any scenario, the community is free to review what has transpired and reach a consensus on the best path going forward. isaacl (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. He definitely should be banned from any deletion discussions due to his well-documented history of indiscriminate voting and prodding and any topic related to religion per Only in Death and CoffeeCrumbs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. A read of his talk page will show a history of shifting rationales, of saying whatever he thinks will let him get his way. His sudden and aggressive attempt to use "racism!" regarding the word "Mormon", for example, and his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win. The restrictions he wants don't address the issues that keep bringing him to ANI, and seem so specific and unexplained that I can't help but wonder what's behind them. Unless there are firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors and have consequences for attempts at testing or gaming them, Wikipedia is better off without him. --Calton | Talk 07:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"his change to over-the-top attempts at evoking pity makes me believe that he's acting in bad faith, where he's treating Wikipedia like a video game where if he can use just the right cheat codes he can win" is what I was referring to in my comment as "emotional blackmail etc” I assume its been addressed off wiki by admins in emails with JPL. I assume that there are in fact firm restrictions that address his actual behaviors that we just don’t know about. I would actually like clarification on that, @El C: can you help? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

No. El_C 15:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So the big issue was never even addressed? You’ve gotten enough shit already so I won’t pile on but smh. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is JPL agreed to a broad topic ban and would likely agree to additional firm restrictions. ––FormalDude talk 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Frivolous digression

Shake your head all you want, Horse Eye's Back, but if you're not going to bother reviewing what I've written here and on JPL's talk page, I'm not sure why you think you're owed a substantive response. Please stop pinging me to this discussion, my patience is wearing thin. El_C 15:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Thats not correct, I have read everything that you’ve posted here and on JPL's talk page. I’m not sure why your patience is wearing thin, I pinged you a grand total of one time so there is no need to give me a scolding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Whatever. El_C 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Well, you sure showed me by revising your statement to call JPL an abuser, Horse Eye's Back. Major smh. I honestly had a higher opinion of you, which saddens me. El_C 16:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC) If you’re going to ask me not to ping you I would expect an extension of the same courtesy, thank you. If it makes you feel any better the reassessment of opinions and sadness at the result is mutual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Double whatever. El_C 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Can you not? It makes me feel weird when an admin acts like a kid, I don’t really know what to do here. If you actually have an objection to me calling JPL an abuser I would like to hear it, seems fair after the PA, socking, etc. Don’t we refer to all of those as abuse? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Can I not what? Explain to you the difference between "abuse" and "abuser"? No thank you. Please leave me be. El_C 16:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC) You could perhaps explain how its possible to have abuse without the one doing the abuse being an abuser... But I will digress, I do hope you don’t take this personally. You’re still one of my favorite admins and I know at the end of the day I’m probably the dick for taking such a strong stance against someone on the spectrum, but I think its the right thing even if it makes me feel shitty about myself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support full unblock, a productive long-time Wikipedian. Gets carried away on a topic from time to time, but then those are discussed and ultimately solved. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed If we're going for a last-chance unblock, then, looking at what ultimately caused JPL's block, and now the aggravating socking (from someone who has been here long enough to know that's not the way forward); the conditions strike me as entirely missing the mark. What I could support is an unblock with the following, simple restrictions: topic ban from religion, broadly construed, and, of course, a single-account restriction; but in principle no one is essential to the project so I don't see why we'd want to make yet another example of WP:UNBLOCKABLES. We indef new editors for way less, so I'm not convinced in any case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock with conditions - I have thought about this all weekend. My mind has wandered in both directions. I believe Wikipedia is a net positive for JPL but is Wikipedia a net positive with JPL here? Ultimately, I agree that Wikipedia has ben affected negatively by JPL in certain areas of focus. However, other areas have benefited greatly from JPL being here. The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor. That being said, the community must also protect the integrity of the encyclopedia and I believe adding restrictions and conditions to JPL will not only accomplish that but will also be beneficial to him. What I genuinely request of my fellow Wikipedians is to please treat this situation with sensitivity. We are dealing with a real human being, not a robot, not a machine and not just a name on a computer screen. Please make sure your comments going forward are done so in kindness and respect for JPL as a human. I am in no way saying you can't speak the obvious according to the way you see it. Just that we can do so while realizing the complexity of the situation and respecting the individual we are discussing. --ARoseWolf 14:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  "... The conundrum we face as a community is the health aspect. I'm not discussing particulars or going into detail but it is a reality and to deny including it in the conversation is actually doing a disservice to JPL. Wikipedia has been a positive place for JPL in regards to his health. He feels most productive when being able to edit here. To deny that would cause serious harm to a fellow editor."

  Absolutely no.

  I am and have been a strong supporter of the idea that we need to remember that there is a person behind the username. And in my opinion, this situation is a mess.

  But it is up to JPL to manage their own health issues, whatever they may be, we are not doctors, and we can not (and should not be expected to) do that for him.

  So I'm sympathetic, but at the end of the day, JPL is to be held to be responsible for their own actions and their own choices. - jc37 16:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Jc37, If you have read any of my comments directed at JPL over the entire duration of this discussion and even a prior discussion here on AN/I, I have never removed the responsibility off JPL for his actions. However, I will not remove the responsibility of the community to act with kindness and understanding, of which most do so without having to be told but the fact that his talk page has had to be protected and the fact that a fake account was made to try and exploit upon JPL's situation to try an further get him in trouble, which was determined not to be him, has lead me to caution the community that we can not shy away from our responsibility as human beings. WP:AGF is nonnegotiable and it has no limits in regards to content. If this were a simple content dispute then the application would be simple. However, there is behavior and content issues and the only way to address them is to address them all. Sticking your head in the sand and saying that a person's health issues can not be a determinant factor in the behavior of a person is in-effect, denying its existence. I kindly ask you not to put words into my mouth or read into anything I have said as if I am claiming we should be doctors or manage his health. What we should be is humans and we should look at the human equation in its fullness. My call was to uphold policy but do so with understanding, civility and kindness in regards to JPL's health and status as a human being. That was not and has never been a blank check for which JPL can do anything he wishes. I believe that this AN/I discussion and the results has been eye-opening for JPL and the break he was forced to take was impactful. Only he can decide what he will do with what he has been told and shown. I choose to help him if he decides to call upon me or seek my advice. Many others have offered the same. --ARoseWolf 18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  In much of what you are saying, you are preaching to the choir. I totally agree, it was merely the way in which you seemed to frame this as if we must allow JPL to edit because to not allow him to edit may adversely affect his health. To that I say: assolutely no. If Wikipedia is being used in that way, that has zero to do with us as editors or as a community. That may be between JPL and whatever health provider he associates with. But that has nothing to do with whatever decision-making we do here. - jc37 06:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:ARoseWolf, well-said on the kindness stuff. Would you care to voice some opinions on what areas you think John's use could be limited in a way that might be mutually beneficial to Wikipedia and to John? I think it would be beneficial for everyone if as many people are as specific as possible in terms of what we might like to see happen. (You and I have some similar thoughts, I think, and while I voted "oppose because" and you voted "support with" :) ) Good to see you again. Peace be with you! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, DiamondRemley39. I was sidetracked by something off-wiki. It is great to see you as well. There really isn't much difference between your "oppose" view and my "support with" view from what I can see here. I respect everyone's opinion and I think there have been a lot of valid points. One of the things I wanted JPL to understand is that, while some of the actions like vandalism of his talk page and the trolling sock account meant to try and get him in trouble are concerning, the opposition to him being here is not unfounded. His actions have affected a lot of people negatively. The socks he created, which, though they didn't cause harm from what I have seen of their contributions, are a direct violation of trust that so many have placed in him, especially those that have defended him. It also indirectly led to the fake sock being given so much credence. Actions have consequences. I believe, if JPL is here for the right reasons then he should evaluate his editing and avoid the contentious issues like religion, among others, and by avoiding I mean even AfD discussions. Cut it out completely. I believe it would be wise for JPL to find a group of editors here willing to assist him with advice. No one should feel forced to intervene but if there are those who would be willing to offer advice then I think that can't be anything but a positive. Should JPL follow the guidance I think we will avoid a lot more discussions like this involving him. If he refuses to follow guidance then he may wind up here again and the community may have to ban him. I am trying to avoid that recourse and its why I have asked JPL to help us help him. That's a choice he has to make and it appears he is taking serious which I am thankful for. My goal has never been to silence people who think different than me, I don't care how different, positively or negatively, good or bad, we may think about something. I don't want you or anyone silenced. I've been there and I have realized we are not solo dancers in life. We can not be a symphony if we all play the same instrument. That being said, the disruption can not persist. That's why I have implored upon JPL to heed our advice here, even those he doesn't agree with. All of the points made here are made with reason. --ARoseWolf 19:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - colleagues, you are wasting your time supporting/opposing an unblock that already happened. This round began with a community discussion about a topic ban from religion based on personal attacks and other disruptive editing. It's not the first time; April 2021 was the most recent ANI thread involving personal attacks (and other disruption). During this discussion, JPL had a bad reaction and was blocked, and has now been unblocked. The next step isn't to argue about the block/unblock but to resume the discussion of the topic ban. If others agree this is the next step, perhaps someone should propose it formally. Personally, I don't think restricting JPL to Cat:1922 births addresses the issues raised in this month's ANI thread. Levivich 14:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed. Since JPL's was initially a unilateral admin block, the admin is also able to undo it. Due to the fact that the earlier ANI was closed for compassionate reasons, a consensus to enforce a ban on the editor did not arise. I suppose the closer of this discussion will have to interpret "opposes" here as implicit supports for a site ban, and "supports" as implicit opposes against a site ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  And thus the compassionate block/unblock has turned a tban discussion into a siteban discussion. Levivich 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. What will he be allowed to do and not allowed to do? For how long? Everyone needs clarity here, especially John. (Go to his talk page, he doesn’t know how he is supposed to use it at this time.) If John is to be successful, such arbitrary phrasing is likely to lead to trouble. He had talked about being on the autism spectrum before; however, all users deserve more specificity than this. Beyond the as-proposed issue: Socking to double-vote and perhaps to get around a likely block reveals an addiction to using this site. This is not some unbecoming behavior that can be chalked up entirely to frustration and is quickly forgivable when one is contrite (accusing someone of something one has a history of experiencing in the heat of a moment is; I can overlook that in light of the apology). But the socking is unethical, problematic, a red flag, of utmost concern. Outside of this website, this kind of deceit is the sort of thing one could lose credibility, licensure, and career over. It doesn’t matter how long the accounts existed. Are there other accounts? Will there be accounts in the future? John desperately wants to stay. His actions suggest he should move on. I would love to see him enjoy anything in the real world, or even something more creative online. His comments about his life being a failure, etc. are alarming. Anyway… I asked John on his talk page about his involvement in deletion point-blank; his reply suggests he is uncomfortable answering questions there and here because he is concerned about repercussions. Reading between the lines of what he said, he may be agreeable to this. He could keep going on with category work and perhaps more minor edits to articles and I’d be fine with that (though “minor” perhaps should be defined; I know there have been run-ins). A permanent ban from all AfD processes is a more than fair compromise. He is stuck on it enough to sock. 99.9% of what he does in AfD is prodding or nominating; anyone can do that. We aren't losing one of our better HEY researchers by taking him out of that space. (NOTE: John and I have probably been on the same page in AfD as often as we are opposed, and when we’re opposed, I generally can make an article pass muster, so I’m really more disappointed at the thought of losing his votes in the religious corporation space than I am threatened by the thought of his continuing here.) Socking must be met with a permanent consequence of some kind… or some of us will lose faith in Wikipedia. Can’t we iron out some specific terms? FYI, I would support his return if a full and permanent ban from deletion is in the terms. Per Morbidthoughts, Only in death does duty end, and others. Sorry this is so long! DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from religion and article deletion (previously "oppose but might support with more appropriate specific conditions"). Indefinite topic bans from religion (all religions) and from all article deletion processes (including CSD and PROD, and project-side discussions about deletion) ought to be minimum, owing to the fact that JPL has on two separate occasions within the past six months created socks to avoid scrutiny and in the more recent case to evade a block to edit those topics. While some others in these various discussions have applauded JPL's devotion to Wikipedia, I see a level of fanaticism that is disruptive to the project: after being blocked, in two spurts totalling five hours of editing JPL made more than 80 comments on his talk page which were some variation of this begging apology, including "my life is unlivable", "I am sinking into despair", "I am not going to kill myself", "I always fail at everything", "I have spilled out my life in trying to make Wikipedia better", and including a handful that required suppression. But in amongst this flailing against a block he considered "like a death sentence" he nevertheless continued to ping editors to his talk page to start new discussions about LDS content that he disagreed with ([41] [42]). That is not dedication, it's obsession: John is demonstrably unable to disengage from this topic. If he really only wants to edit articles about people born in 1921 and 1922 then fine, these restrictions shouldn't hinder him much but ought to keep him out of the areas he frankly can't handle. That being said, the unblocking admin's wrist-slap unblock, and their flippant and dismissive comments in this thread, shouldn't be held against JPL. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good to know a lot of this, I suppose. But my block wasn't a CBAN and the unblock wasn't the TBAN, though I did intend on working on that component of it in consultation with the community. El_C 16:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from religion Levivich is correct above that it is a waste of time to express support for or opposition to unblocking. Johnpacklambert is unblocked. Everyone whose has paid attention knows that the recent disruption has to do largely with topics pertaining to the Salt Lake City church he belongs to. Right now on his talk page, he is going on and on about expatriate categorization for Gerrit W. Gong, a senior figure in the leadership of that church who was born in 1953 not 1921 or 1922. I think a clearly defined topic ban is necessary if there is to be any hope of this editor continuing to contribute to this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current unblock restrictions, support topic ban from religion - Category:1922 births and Category:1921 births would include centenarians and thus be covered under the longevity DS (which, for reasons I don't understand, is also listed at WP:GS, so I guess it's both a GS and a DS). When an editor has been disruptive in one area, restricting them to a DS area is a bad idea. Additionally, those categories include dozens of Latter Day Saints [43] [44], which is the topic that started this round of ANI. The unblock conditions should address the issues raised in the ANI thread that led to the block, such as a TBAN from religion. Levivich 16:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, thanks for that analysis. It is interesting that Walter Gong was born in 1922 and is the father of Gerrit W. Gong, who Johnpacklambert is discussing on his talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose current unblock conditions, support topic ban from religion A topic ban from religion is an absolute must. The socking has not been adequately addressed either.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• TBAN from religion indefinitely, formally log the voluntary 1922 restriction and call for a quick close. I appreciate Floquenbeam keeping their word and soliciting community review of the unblock conditions. The most recent flurry of inappropriate conduct was centered on the question of religion, and the archived discussion included evidence that this wasn't the first time. It's sensible for the community to protect itself from the further abuse that is likely if JPL continues to edit in the topic area. Some editors/admins note the drain that continued discussion is having on both JPL and others. JPL is communicating that the 1922 voluntary restriction will be helpful to them and formalizing such a restriction should help clarify the bounds. I'll be likely to support dropping the restriction in a while on appeal. Finally, continued discussion on this matter is clearly a drain on both JPL and the community; I encourage an uninvolved admin to be bold on closing this discussion quickly. Not now, but ideally soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak oppose religion topic ban (Involved) I'm a regular editor in the Mormonism topic area. JPL's moving and renaming spree was annoying and disruptive. I know. I spent nearly an hour reverting it. And I was shocked by his complete loss of objectivity...calling people bigots for using the word "Mormon" and such. That said, in my experience this kind of behavior is not normal for JPL. I think part of it may have been a negative reaction to stress or something. More importantly, I think JPL has realized he crossed a line and is committed to correcting course. He's been unblocked for 2 days now and is gnoming articles in the 1921 category or whatever, as promised, drama free. I hope after several months of productive editing on this tiny sliver of the encyclopedia he can eventually return to full editing. The bias is still a concern, but that's something that can be managed. Recognizing it's a problem is the first step. I appreciate having gnomes around who are both knowledgeable about the subject matter and capable editors. ~Awilley (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock without very stringent editing limits, particularly with regard to religious topics. JPL has an established history of religious hate speech off-wiki coupled with targeting articles relating to religions he disfavors on-wiki, especially the Roman Catholic Church. There's also his bizarre comments here, barely two weeks ago, declaring that the concept of Islamophobia "invented by the same forces that orchestrated mobs that killed over 200 people in direct oppostion to the right of people to draw certain cartoons" and that people who use the term support "physical punishment for apostasy". He seems unable to sustain rational discussion when religious ideas he disputes are involved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - on the basis of socking. Will except an unblock in 6-months, if no socking has occurred between now & then. GoodDay (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock His presence on AfDs and CfDs is missed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also Support Religion TBAN as an add-on that, in a formalized way. I think the unblock was proper, I think the conditions were workable, and I think this discussion is malformed. We should, in general, be focusing on the TBAN proposals below and not on critiquing the behavior of an admin who was acting in good faith. If the unblock conditions are adhered to, I think it would be a perfectly fine outcome. But I do support the religion TBAN as a prophylactic measure. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Deja vu

So in reading all of this, I'm getting a strong feeling of Deja vu. The apologies, and the volunteering to limit editing to certain articles of a year-related category (which I don't think ended up happening in that case). I spent some time doing searches, but couldn't find what I was looking for. Maybe someone else remembers more clearly. I dunno if it would help bring insight to the current situation or not, but it just seems like an odd thing, the offer being so similar (in my memory, at least). - jc37 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• This also occurred to me, but I can't find anything either, and if my memory is correct it wasn't quite the same issue (I could be wrong, but wasn't that one to do with "YYYY in sports" or "YYYY in the United States" type articles?). Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  I can't say for certain, I don't completely remember. I wish I did, because the similarities between then and now just makes something about all this to 'feel' disingenuous. It's funny, in my head I can see my computer screen with the text of the discussion in question, but not quite what all the text was (I think there were one or more cfd discussions involved?). But I do remember him protesting that it wasn't fair the things people were saying, that he felt he was just trying to say "x", and so on.

  The thing is, it's sometimes kinda true. Quite often these things with JPL are situations of "it takes two to tango", but all too often they either start with someone baiting him (typically in an effort to discredit his perspective while trying to push their own perspective in an xfd or rfc), or with him just saying something that is less than stellar, or making edits that are less than stellar (to put it kinder than I prolly should), or some combination thereof. I don't think the above proposals (the unblock conditions) are going to do much more than kick the can down the road (again), but I also don't think indef is necessarily warranted yet. I think there are solution possibilities, but no matter what they are, I am pretty sure JPL will feel they are "unfair". Anyway, that would be a whole new discussion I guess, and right now, people seem more concerned about the immediate situation. - jc37 02:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the "Deja vu" feeling. We've had a fair number of "Last chance unblocks" that didn't work out over the years. Can't say any particular "one" comes to mind though. — Ched (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Totally, every time JPL ends up here it seems to be because they are incapable of dropping a stick, they're given rope and we end up back here a few weeks later—blindlynx (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• I will say this, if JPL is blocked again, that's it. Enough "last chances". I do not care how "vital" someone is to Wikipedia, you are NOT bigger than the project itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Look, if an individual admin has done their research and still viewed my unblock to have been in error, I wouldn't have seen it as WP:WHEELWAR for the indef to have been reinstated (when I told Floq that they could re-block, that was not a trap). And, indeed, there may well be a lot of key history that I'm unaware of.

Still, I'd have wished to have gotten a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL about, well, everything I'd previously noted to him. From the LDS issues (including about Mormonism, whose full and move protection first brought him to my orbit), to the attacks, to the socking and so on. I admit to have found it hurtful not to have even gotten a chance to try.

But, okay, if someone feels committed to doing something then that's that and there's not much more to say (and for me, to also do) about it now. That said, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that during JPL's block, I've had to protect both his talk and user pages due to repeated harassment. So, yes, I thought that the path forward could continue being charted with them unblocked. All things I'd have touched on had I been asked. But I was not ... asked. Oh well, spilled milk and all that. El_C 05:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

El C, I can't understand the approach you're taking to this discussion. You still have a chance to follow up post-unblock with JPL, and it seems you're doing so. You still have a chance to try. The path forward is currently being charted with them unblocked. You have been asked above to touch on all sorts of aspects of the block/unblock. Do you just generally disapprove of community discussion on a TBAN or other restriction? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Right. I don't understand the maudlin self-pity—what's preventing you from following up with JPL now that he's unblocked? MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give me a chance to answer before twisting the knife, MastCell. Firefangledfeathers, I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the block was for egregious personal attacks and harassment by JPL. That's it. As for my original intent of figuring out the right TBAN package: no, I don't want to do that anymore, not like this. And if the prevailing view is that that is a defect on my part, so be it. Finally, the various NOTHERAPY expressions here are ones I find particularly objectionable and I want no part of that. I really don't know what else to say. El_C 17:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think El_C's unblock was 100% appropriate. We don't want to get into a rut where we need to go to AN/I to overturn the unilateral action of a single admin (especially when the admin wants the action undone). I think Floq also did an ethical thing in allowing the community to finish its discussion on whether to impose a topic ban. I'd guess that discussion will finish with no consensus, but if people want to have it, fine. I personally prefer trying to resolve issues at a lower level, but accept things won't always happen that way. ~Awilley (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Though it's worth even less, I also agree that the unblock was appropriate. The "support unblock"/"oppose unblock" framing of the above debate is unfortunate. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would take it a step further and say that I think Floquenbeam (talk · contribs)'s approach in particular left a lot to be desired. Yes, they closed the original thread because the situation warranted sensitive treatment, compassion and/or calm discussion with minimal drama, which is admirable. But the unpleasant taste left by reading the first posts in this thread was in my view caused entirely by Floquenbeam's ill-considered wording within the closure text and their subsequent exercise of unintentionally poor judgment. Their closure of the original thread noted: It is not possible that he will be unblocked without significant restrictions... I do not think a community ban discussion has, or is about to gain, consensus, but I also don't think unblock conditions are going to be hashed out now either. When/if unblock conditions are discussed, people will have an opportunity to comment. That is, there was no consensus on unblock conditions or bans, which made it within El_C (talk · contribs)'s discretion as individual blocking administrator to unblock if El_C was persuaded, but the wording of the text concurrently and inappropriately suggests that El_C cannot unblock without community discussion (that is simply not the case). A more considered closure would have swapped the promise with something like "Discussion on restrictions will resume at the time or shortly after the block is lifted"; that might have been worthwhile and generated less concern and frustration at the outset, though arguably, Floquenbeam could have left it at that too. In any event, even with the ill-considered text that was written, exercising sound judgment and "doing the right thing" in that scenario would involve Floquenbeam having a discussion with El_C individually about his desire to return to ANI to fulfil said "promise" (or indeed, seeking input about El_C's views on it prior to opening this thread as an unblock review) at the outset; I believe that level of courtesy and camaraderie is expected of administrators and would have generated a response from El_C which was far less "frustrating" to Floquenbeam, and in turn probably would not have resulted in Floquenbeam's unseemly response in this thread to El_C about "nonsensical comments", being a "douche" and "disrupting this thread" about their own unblock. (Lastly, my observations are certainly less pleasant, less disappointed and more wordy than El_C was in answering Floquenbeam's question at the outset of this discussion of what else they could have done, but personally, I'd prefer El_C's response over mine - but then again, maybe my comments are also somehow nonsensical.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, while I appreciate the support, I'd really like to put this behind me. Yes, the oppose unblock !votes were weird to me, to say the least. At no point did I promise that JPL will remain blocked during a TBAN discussion phase. As I noted above, I used my discretion when blocking (not a CBAN) and I used my discretion when undoing my own block (not the TBAN). It just feels like a lot of confusion and tension followed for naught, but maybe I have too rosy a view of my own actions (probably). El_C 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for the last sentence, the comment was intended more as clearer feedback about Floquenbeam's approach rather than support for you specifically. I couldn't do that without mentioning you unless I did so indirectly (which would make the response more wordy), sorry. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Biographical information

User:El_C has posted to JPL's talk page that they have withdrawn from this. So in some ways everything above is apparently moot now.

But from what I can tell, the community would like something done, and would like some sort of solution or resolution to these situations.

Ok, well for JPL, this means a tban related to biographical information (including but not restricted to BLPs). Full stop.

Yes, over the years people have complained about LDS, or other religion, biases, as well as actions with categories, and at XFD.

But biographical information is simply the main issue. And BLP editing is not a minor thing.

There are many many discussions concerning him and editing information on or about people, which go back many years.

Does the community care about the other things? Sure. That seems clear in the comments above. But most of the other issues fold back to biography-related editing. And besiides, to keep him out of various Wikipedia process discussions would seem to be counter-productive.

But I think drawing a line at biographical info should be something rather straightforward to enforce.

Based upon previous discussions, I would not be surprised if JPL found this to be "unfair", and I am aware that there are others who feel that some of his edits concerning biographical articles has been good content. That's great, but do good edits counter this amount of regular, consistant disruption? I believe this is the only way the AN/I merry-go-round is going to stop, short of a site ban. And, as yet, I don't support that.

If JPL can show that he can contribute positively on Wikipedia in other ways for a year at least, then maybe he could come back to the community and appeal this topic ban (per WP:BAN).

tldr version - topic ban User:Johnpacklambert from all biographical information on Wikipedia regardless of format (article, template, category, etc.). This includes project pages and process discussions like RFCs and XfDs. He may appeal this in no earlier than 1 year's time.

I hope this helps. - jc37 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Until a better proposal comes along. Though it does not address sockpuppetry directly, it effectively does address some of the practical implications from the abuse of multiple accounts, namely the XFD involvement. It is better defined than the "birth categories until it's time to do more" proposal. Would prefer topic bans of an indefinite nature (I'm not saying a universal one, John), but a BLP [edit: BIOGRAPHICAL, INCLUDING DECEASED PERSON BIOS] ban for a minimum of one year is workable. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  A ban on all biographical information in addition to the current reverse Category:1922 births ban? That would reduce the number of articles John is allowed to edit from 8162 to zero. (Unless animals are included in the 1922 births category.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not in addition to, but to replace that restriction. Wikipedia has many articles that are not on people, and John has experience editing them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC).

• Support However, I believe this should be a permanent topic ban. I say this based on my experience with the issue at hand that lead to this (being one of the first editors JPL challenged on his controversial edits reguarding the LDS Church), and based on the slew of community input that has been given, which largely considers JPL's past AN/Is as a key issue for why his actions have been so unacceptable. I honestly do not know if JPL could be a productive editor of religious or BLP topics again, though he is quite convincing, which others have noted could easily be an attempt to game the system, and this is not something that I can rule out, especially given the socking. What I do know is JPL has been here again and again, and given the seriousness of his misteps, the only tolerable action in my view would be a permanent topic ban with no option to appeal. Since he wants to stay a part of the project, let him contribute only in areas he has not yet proven to be disruptive in. ––FormalDude talk 19:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Overly restrictive. And also targeting the single area where JPL has been doing allmost all his recent good editing, at least over the past few months. If we look at these so called "many many discussions concerning him" , then out of 34 AN appearances , most are either trivial, have nothing to do with biographies, or are just JPL's name appearing in a thread attacking someone else. This strongly opposed 2013 Topic Ban request isn't trivial, but unless one just read the top few lines, it fails to show JPL in bad light. This said, while I see JPL as a big net positive for us overall, I wouldn't oppose a 1 year topic ban from religion &/or XfD -there has been some long term disruption in those areas. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  His block log dating back to 2015 tells a different story. ––FormalDude talk 20:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Look again. 5 blocks is not that much for such a prolific long term editor. And there only seems to be two BLP related blocks. One was admitedly for a severe violation, though still an understandable mistake. The other was just for removing a "Living persons" cat from the mainspace page of editor Brucedouglas1925. (Who was obviously alive exactly one year ago from today, and allmost certainly still is now.) But seeing as the most recent source was from the 70s, removing the Cat wasn't really that terrible a call. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  When I said "many many discussions", I wasn't exaggerating. There have been discussions on talk pages, user talk pages, project pages and talk pages. There's been at least one rfc/u (from back when we used to do those) and even a controversy where outside media and User:Jimbo Wales was opining. These things have simply been going on a long time. - jc37 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough - I struck "so called". Unless I'm missing something he didn't do anything that bad for the outside media controversary. Granted, the more elite types would have seen it as sexist in effect (if not intent) even at the time. But back in 2013 even some female editors were adding females to the "women tags", it was something that could been seen as boosting women. The Atlantic article that named JPL was actually partly defensive of him. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  A large majority of prolific long term editors have never been blocked. The problem I have with this proposal is that it does not address the topic area of the recent disruption, which is religion, specifically the editor's determined opposition to use of the word "Mormon" which was commonplace usage until three years ago when the leadership of his church suddenly rejected that term which they had previously long embraced. His recent disruptive editing justifies a topic ban from religion and religious figures, not from all biographies, and accordingly oppose this specific proposal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - a generalized topic ban on all biographies, including BLP's. If the proposal wants to be more topic specific, like biographies on religious figures, then it can be brought forward as a different proposal and evaluated on its merits. --ARoseWolf 20:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Conditional Support while biographical issues are a large part of his issues, I think we also need to consider LDS/Mormonism as well as that is what led to this whole mess. JPL is unable to edit neutrally on the church regardless of whether it's about LDS people or not. The challenge (which led to the indef) is he does not take criticism of his edits well, so imagine we'll be back here. Star Mississippi 20:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative Conditional Support, although, much like User:Cullen328 and User:Star Mississippi (and multiple other users in the section above) have noted immediately above, I think the issue of a tban on editing LDS/religion in general broadly construed definitely needs to be addressed in definitive language and apart from any "ban on bios for a year and then come see us again". Heiro 04:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as t-ban proposal is too broad. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is both too broad and also misses several areas of disruption. Try the narrower sanction first, and if the disruptive behaviour migrates to other topics then consider expanding the scope. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the user has shown they are capable of editing in the narrow areas proposed in the informal unblock conditions, and there's no reason why we should unnecessarily prevent them from editing the 1921/1922 births area. That, to my reading, would be included in this proposal and therefore the proposal is too broad. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unworkable. Few articles on Wikipedia don't contain biographical information. There's a sleight of hand being used here to switch between BLP and "biographical". TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is so broad that I don't think this will help clarify the distinction between this editor's constructive editing and ability (or not) to refrain from problematic contributions - which is in any case the purpose of considering an editing restriction over more extreme measures. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose You've got to give even the most condemned a fighting chance to survive! There's more than 1m articles in Category:Living people vs 6.3m articles on WP. Add in the deceased biographies, and it would be quite hard not to edit a biography. Unless you only worked on ant species in Rwanda or some such obscurity. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biographical information" can cover so much on Wikipedia that this is unworkable.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for JPL - Religion

• The specific proposal is: Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed.
  I have no comment on the above TBAN proposal and do not intend for this one to create mutually exclusive options. Editors might support both. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Addressing some comments below:

  • I wouldn't oppose an LDS/Mormon-specific TBAN, but I do feel there was adequate evidence presented in the last ANI discussion that JPL has been disruptive also in Catholicism-related areas.
  • I certainly don't intend for this potential TBAN to be a trap, and I'd be happy to get more specific if there's agreement on some qualifiers; all TBANs, even if narrowly construed, have the potential for abuse as described below.

  Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support He needs to be topic banned from the topic area where he was most recently extremely disruptive and dogmatic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Whether sticking to 1922 bios or not, he's amply demonstrated that this is a subject area that is trouble for him. The community is entitled to some prophylaxis here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - There have been more bio-related issues than just religion-related ones, which is why the proposal above. That said, I am not opposed to this proposal, and I agree that both proposals could pass and not be mutually exclusive. - jc37 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from LDS topics only. A ban from all religious topic is too broad in my opinion. I haven't seen any examples of JPL being disruptive in non-LDS related religious topics. I think the TBAN only needs to be for the Latter Day Saint Movement and related articles. My preference would be that the LDS TBAN is temporary (rather than indef). ––FormalDude talk 06:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support In my experience JPL let’s his personal association with the Mormon/LDS Church color his editing activities and votes at AfD inappropriately and expressions of concern are not enough to curtail this. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This seems to be the root cause of the issues at hand. Demonstrating an ability to edit constructively outside of a wheelhouse that they hold personal connection to would be the best start to proving that being unblocked was warranted. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 11:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If this will resolve the endless amounts of time and ink we spend on this one editor in the absence of something stricter like a re-block or indef, then I'm all for this particular TBAN. Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to oppose this proposal because it is too broadly construed. Religion is a huge topic. Almost anything can be considered a religion. There are pagan religions. He could inadvertently edit an article on someone who is linked to any type of religion and technically he would be breaking the TBAN. Anyone with an agenda would see the opportunity to get JPL into trouble. It's unfortunate that we have to look at it through this lens but it would be equally unfortunate to have went through all of this and still have JPL banned because of some inadvertent mishap. I believe we should focus a TBAN as tightly as we can in the specific areas that are an issue. --ARoseWolf 12:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I see your point on the breadth of merely "religion"; it does seem that LDS/Mormonism is the real crux here we could merely narrow it down to this if it were agreed upon. Ultimately the way I would want to see it done is in a manner that shepherds JPL away from areas of religious concern so as not to attract this same problematic editing pattern, if that takes a smaller rule to do so then the end result is what matters. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I hear your concerns, A Rose Wolf. I think this could be spelled out in more detail later--and in an official way--to protect John from drama. Certainly many biographical articles on older people may have mention of religion. But unless an article subject was in ministry, whether ordained or lay, or led a church or religious company, or is a journalist or essayist who wrote on religious topics, they should be fine. This should be apparent from categories, and if John finds out a topic he thought had no religious involvement is not religiously involved, he could play it very safe and revert his edits. Just some ideas. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DiamondRemley39, we have been here long enough to know that wont happen and it wont matter if he reverts after the fact once someone comes to AN/I over even the smallest violation. It is putting an enormous amount of weight on admins to decipher intent and purpose of even the smallest edit JPL can make. Whatever is the result here will be the only definition that matters. If the community supports a general TBAN on any article that even mentions religion as a focus then that is what JPL will be held to and that is what broadly construed means. No nibbling around the edges of any topic on religion, not just lay people or ministers. The specific wording of the TBAN above includes the topic of religion and religious figures of any kind, type, association or otherwise and it includes all religions and its indefinite. I feel this is wrong and could very easily become more of a trap in the future. --ARoseWolf 13:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - if that's the area that gets him/her into such trouble. PS - I'm an atheist by the way. GoodDay (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - John has demonstrated a lack of objectivity in too many articles related to religion, specifically LDS articles. He and Wikipedia alike would benefit from his focusing elsewhere. To be candid, I'd miss John in religious corporation AfDs, but that's moot. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Would also be fine with an indefinite LDS topic ban, as that is where the trouble seems to be, and editing behavior outside of LDS but still within religion is better, in my personal experience with John. A Rose Wolf makes good points--this needs to be worded carefully. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support broadly as stated per my comments in the main thread. If the consensus is for a narrower ban then it should be worded carefully to cover both the LDS Church and Mormonism, since JPL has insisted that they are separate topics and has likened equating the two to hate mongering, part of their ongoing pattern of being completely unable to edit those topics neutrally. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Also, if consensus is for a narrower scope than "all religion" then it should also include Catholicism, broadly construed, as that seems to be John's go-to "whatabout" deflection. And a strict reminder that the community will not look favourably on testing the edges of the ban, so John should steer well clear of these topics. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Avoiding areas that this user has such strong feelings about(religion) may remove the trigger for their problematic behavior. It may be the best way to keep an otherwise good editor. If topic ban is violated or the same behavior is exhibited in other areas then a long term site ban may be needed in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Unconditional support. This is as much or more a problem area for him as biographical articles as he is unable to edit in areas of Catholicism or Mormonism with an NPOV. Also, this was my original request before it spiralled. Star Mississippi 13:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom and per Star's original report. "Religion" is a better scope than "LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism". The latter is too many enumerations, better to keep it simple. Levivich 14:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

extended conversation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not sure how making it all religion is simplifying anything. There are literally thousands of religions worldwide. That is my issue with this tban. We need more clarity, not less. Is it just lay people, ministers, graduates of a seminary, a self-taught shaman in Asia or a medicine man from the Modoc tribe of Oklahoma? This is a trap topic. One violation will get JPL banned and it is more likely to happen than not. He could avoid every subject for three years on Catholicism, Mormonism and the LDS and edit the article of a "priest", or "shaman" from South Asia and get banned from Wikipedia even if his edit is nothing more than a category change. This is the problem with broadly construed tban's on such large topics. --ARoseWolf 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Hell, based on this tban he couldn't edit the article on Tibetan bowls. They are an instrument used in Buddhist religious ceremonies. I don't use them for that purpose but they are a "religious" instrument. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I don't see how "religion" is unclear. Is this article about a topic which a reasonable observer would (or might) consider to be a religious topic? Don't edit it. According to the standing bell article which covers Tibetan bowls, they are used in religious ceremonies, so that article is off limits (precedentially, only the portions of the article which cover religious use would be within scope, whereas their use as musical instruments would not be, but that is a very tricky argument and a slippery slope). We could say "organized religion" but then what counts as "organized"? If we have to start listing off every specific topic or even specific articles which John is not allowed to edit in order to ensure compliance, then John is not a suitable candidate for a topic ban and should just be site-banned. I don't see any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to abide by a clearly worded restriction, even if it is very broad. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Reasonable is a subjective term as indicated by the different opinions stated here. What you see as reasonable may not be reasonable to me. This broad TBAN is a slippery slope to begin with. A more focused TBAN to protect specific areas that have been a problem and are the very reasons we are here having this conversation would seem more reasonable to me. LDS, Mormonism and Catholicism are specific topics that can easily be identifiable. Most topic bans I have seen are very specific so that there are less pitfalls and traps. --ARoseWolf 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC) There are no "pitfalls and traps" in avoiding religion-related topics. You read the article before editing; if you see mention of religion or religious topics, you don't edit. As Ivanvector said, if we have to create rafts of specific restrictions for an editor, that's evidence they shouldn't be editing at all. JPL has been here a lot, so it's not as if this is a first-time effort where gentleness is necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I believe quite a few here would vote to support a site ban on JPL and you should definitely propose that if you believe that reasonable. That should not be the intent or purpose of this TBAN and it should be as constricted and specifically worded as possible. As far as gentleness goes, it is not for you to decide how or when I apply it or advocate for it. I believe the pretense of that statement is highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. --ARoseWolf 16:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Conversely, I find the pretense that in addressing a longterm, problematic editor, our first concern should be the editor and not the encyclopedia highly inappropriate and grossly offensive. It's also tiresome to see the old argument that a TBAN is somehow a "trap" rather than a measure to protect the encyclopedia from an editor who cannot edit neutrally within that topic. Grandpallama (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC) What religious topic outside of Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism has JPL specifically edited on that is problem for you or that you view as non-neutral? So you understand I am not going to comment on your personal opinion of what you view as my "priorities" or "concerns" because that really isn't within your purview but I will discuss specifics of comments outside of that aspect. --ARoseWolf 16:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC) @ARoseWolf: I hear what you're saying and you've got me thinking, but I'm gonna push back a bit. First, that a TBAN'd editor can't edit an article related to the TBAN is a "feature" not a "bug". So no, if John were TBANed from religion, he couldn't edit the article about the Tibetan bowl used in religious ceremonies. I don't perceive that to be a problem, I perceive that to be the solution to the problem (the problem being John's disruptive editing on these topics). Second, the same thing (whether you call it a feature or a bug) would happen even if John were TBANed from something narrower, like, say, "LDS, Mormons, and Catholicism" (I'll call it "LDS etc."). The LDS etc. ban would mean he can't edit Utah, Salt Lake City, Brigham Young University, all of which are LDS/Mormon. Utah's basketball team, Utah Jazz, would be an edge case. Kyle Van Noy is an American football player, but also a member of LDS and played for Brigham Young, so his article is probably out of bounds. How about Girl Crazy (1997 film)? Seems fine? I don't know, it's made by Richard Dutcher, the "Godfather of Mormon Cinema." No matter what the topic area, there are these unexpected connections where making the determination of whether it's "in scope" is hard, and that's what "broadly construed" is all about. Which leads us to my third point: this isn't about John, it's about everybody else. I appreciate that you have a lot of sympathy and concern for John; I do, too, but I have more concern for everyone else, everyone interacting with John. When evaluating the TBAN, I think it'll be easier on the community to analyze whether something is related (broadly construed) to "religion" than "LDS etc.". Yes, it means more restriction upon John, but easier for the community. That's a trade-off I think is justified. Don't forget, this isn't like John is making some innocent mistake and we have to help him fix it. He has repeatedly made serious personal attacks against multiple editors. There have been multiple ANI threads just in the last six months about this. The purpose of the TBAN isn't therapy: the goal isn't to "heal" John or "fix" him or otherwise help him in any way. The TBAN is probation: it's an alternative to a full site ban (the point is to find something less than a full site ban that will prevent disruption), and the goal--the only goal--is to reduce John's disruption on everyone else. The TBAN gets lifted not when John is "fixed", but when John can demonstrate that it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to others. So you've got me thinking about it, but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John. So, as of now, I still think "religion" will be an easier topic ban than "LDS etc." for the community to administer, and that's why I support the broader scope. If you think I'm wrong and the narrower scope will be easier on the community, I'm all ears. Levivich 16:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Also, consider that John's own proposal was to limit himself to only people born in 1922. This sanction gives him a lot more freedom. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 16:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I know what you intended by this comment but it comes off as a little insincere. Everyone knows if a personal sanction was enough we wouldn't be here discussing this. Also, putting it between parenthesis doesn't make it more believable. A personal ban can be lifted or put in place at the whim of the person making it. I ban myself from things all the time. It's a lot like those yearly resolutions so many people make. This TBAN is a community sanction and it will restrict JPL very far beyond the topics of his disruption. --ARoseWolf 16:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC) but I'm going to vote based on what I think is best for the community, not what I think is best for John Exactly. Grandpallama (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC) So it's about what is easier on the community now? On the face of it that would seem reasonable. Less headache, less oversight, less concern, less opposition. Is that not also a slippery slope. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. I believe we can protect the community while also placing restrictions on JPL in the very focused and specific areas that he has been disruptive. Does he deserve that? I don't know. What I don't want to see is us having to come back here and discuss an instance where he made a minor edit to an article that barely mentions anything religious, doesn't even have to say religion in any form, but someone feels is a violation of his TBAN because it says "broadly construed". This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. There are literally hundreds of thousands of articles that could fall into this category something about religion. I dare say more that do than those that don't. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? --ARoseWolf 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC) So it's about what is easier on the community now? Not easier, but what's best. Often, easier is best, but not always. Hey, if I always chose the easier approach I wouldn't be here throwing out a different opinion. That's an example of easier not being best. Sure, it'd be easier (for you and the community) if you didn't throw out a different opinion, but it might not be best (for the community), because your different opinion might help the community make a better decision than it otherwise would. This is about practicality as much as it is anything else. Completely agree. Why not get specific if it can narrow that approach? I believe figuring out if something is "religion, broadly construed" is easier, and therefore better (it'll save editor time), than figuring out if something is "LDS, broadly construed", "Mormonism, broadly construed", or "Catholicism, broadly construed". Simply because it's easier to determine if something is in one broad topic, than three narrower topics. Broader is easier on the community, and therefore better. Or so my thinking goes. Am I wrong? Levivich 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC) We may have very different opinions on what is right and what is wrong so I don't usually look at things from that perspective. Beyond that I don't believe I have the right to say you are wrong in your approach as much as we might disagree. I have been here and commented on many of JPL's AN/I discussions. I know full well he has negatively impacted others to the point where they probably don't care what happens to him. I can't say that I blame them and I can't say they are wrong for thinking like that. Your opinion is your own and I am not trying to change that, just offer my own such as it is. --ARoseWolf 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) Except for sanctions that we can enforce technically (i.e. blocks, or granular parblocks more recently) we have to trade off between "covers the disruption" and "is enforceable". Editors who have been around JPL a lot longer than I have have observed that the disruption is centred on the LDS Church but frequently spills out into other much more broad topics, and this suggests a sanction needs to be expanded in scope to "cover the disruption". I get the sense that religion isn't broad enough, but we have to start somewhere. In other words, assuming that JPL is going to abide by the restriction, a broader scope means it's less likely we'll be back here dealing with spillover in a month's time. As for the slippery slope at the edges of the ban (I agree with you here) we do not treat kindly editors who weaponize sanctions, there's a policy about that. If we get disingenuous reports here that JPL edited an article about a person whose father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate once attended a Mormon church, the person doing the reporting is going to be the one facing sanctions. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I wish I could have the same confidence but history has dictated otherwise. Nevertheless, its an issue that JPL will have to contend with and I suspect he will receive little leniency going forward for even a minor violation such as you suggested above. --ARoseWolf 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also support a narrower TBAN covering "Judeo-Christianity" or just "Christianity", either of which would cover LDS, Mormonism, and Catholicism (which, as I understand it, are the three relevant areas). Levivich 17:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support that too, it's a sensible limitation of scope. If the disruption is centered around three specific branches of Christianity, it doesn't seem plausible that it's going to suddenly branch out to Jainism or Zoroastrianism. If it does we can revisit. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Right, I think "Christianity" and especially these three concepts is ideal as a scope, broadly construed. The only reason I said "Judeo-Christianity" and not just "Christianity" is that there are some folks who do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian religion [45]. (It's complicated). Suffice it to say, a lot of Christians don't believe Mormons count: Basically a few Evangelical traditions, but also the American Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian conferences. And Mormons have actually said they consider themselves as close to Judaism as to Evangelicals. Even Evangelicals would admit that Mormonism falls within the bounds of "Judeo-Christianity" as a religion which believes the Bible to be a holy text, believes in the divinity of Christ, etc. Even if they don't consider them formal "Christians." And of course, LDS-adherents and basically all Mormons self-identify as Christians [46]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a very reasonable compromise. --ARoseWolf 20:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per all above discussion. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for Mormonism, LDS and Catholicism, which seem to be the problem areas.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN for LDS topics, broadly construed. lomrjyo ^{(✉ • 📝)} 15:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a long overdue religion TBAN. Grandpallama (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as more workable than overlapping smaller bans in the problem areas of Mormonism, Catholicism, and Religion in America. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity, to exclude islam, buddhism, sikhism, taoism, etc. But including Catholicism, Protestantism, and topics relevant to the LDS church and the broader topic of Mormonism. Support a broad TBAN against all religious topics, as a close second. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be the main problem area for this user, and it would make sense to have a TBAN to prevent further disruption/timesinks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: unworkable. "Religion" is far too broad and amorphous. TBANs need clear rules and clear methods of enforcement. I believe this is particularly important to autistic editors. It's prohibitively difficult to check that every page (not just article) you edit doesn't fall under the TBAN, and JPL does lots of rapid gnoming edits. If I can't work out how I would act if I were under this restriction, I cannot expect JPL to either. — Bilorv (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Bilorv, what would you have the community do instead? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Outline a clearly-defined sanction that everyone in the discussion thinks they would be able to understand and comply with themselves; and that sanction should be as specific as possible to JPL's methods of editing. Your narrowed TBAN suggestion is much better. You could go in a whole different direction and try to restrict the type of conduct that leads to escalation, like 1RR or a "no more than one reply in threaded discussion" kind of thing (but then I don't know enough about JPL specifically to form an appropriate proposal). — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  The issue here is that JPL seems to hold deeply personal beliefs about the LDS Church and Mormonism and isn't able to depersonalize when editing anything close to that topic, and he loses objectivity and can't deescalate whenever someone challenges his POV, which is unfortunately often. Personally I don't see how we can craft a restriction which permits him to continue editing those topics, and per comments on his talk page recently he seems to agree. He's separately under a "one AfD nom per calendar day" restriction (since 2017) and has done well under that (blocked once for violating it, for less than 48 hours) and so I think "he won't understand/comply with the sanction" is an unfair argument. He may be neurodivergent but he's not incompetent. I guess the other side of that coin is that if he can't follow sensible restrictions then he gets site-banned, and I don't think there's really anyone here who wants that. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: if what I communicated with my comments is that I think JPL won't be able to comply with sanctions because of his autism then my several rounds of rephrasing and copyediting my comment were in vain. I did not intend to convey that and I do not believe that. My argument was that clear and well-tailored rules are needed, and I said that I (a neurotypical person) would really struggle with obeying the sanction as currently described. The "one AFD per calendar day" restriction is immediately clear (just the pedantic word "calendar" rules out the only obvious edge case). This TBAN is not at all clear. If the restriction were reframed, say, "any article in any subcategory of Category:Religion" then it would at least be clear (albeit still prohibitively expensive to follow). As framed, I see several major points of contention that are unclarified and would be unsurprised by a quick indefinite block when JPL does something that falls within their understanding of the TBAN's allowances, and maybe even several admin's, but not by the blocking admin. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as currently framed. I agree with Bilorv. Any restriction on JPL should be so closely tailored that both his and everyone else's understanding of it is the same. He and I recently had a friendly discussion on his TP after he'd expressed puzzlement as to why anyone should mistakenly write 1922 instead of 1933. It might be obvious to you, but it wasn't to him. On the other side of the coin, we do not want his enemies crying "Gotcha!" and dragging him here should he accidentally step over the mark.

  Excess detail will help no-one. I tentatively suggest "Christian religions and people closely associated with those religions". That would solve some problems both of breadth and of over-specificity. It would allow him to edit (especially, to gnome) articles about people which mention their beliefs, but which are not important towards their notability. Narky Blert (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Narky Blert, I don't think talking in terms of "his enemies" is warranted here. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Propose another word, if you will. The people I have in mind are the WP:GRAVEDANCERS who infested JPL's UP and TP during his recent block. Narky Blert (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, gravedancing troll LTA sockpuppets are not just Johnpacklambert's enemies. They are enemies of all of us and of this encyclopedia, and any such nonsense would gain no traction here at ANI. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Narky Blert, I counted two socks on his talk page and one sock on his user page; all, no doubt, the same editor. (That's actually very, very little, considering the exposure this has gotten.) All had CU run on them and if that delivered an "enemy", I'm sure it was blocked. This troll is not the kind of editor who is going to be someone calling "Gotcha" as if they were a real editor. In fact, that thought is so far-fetched that I am wondering how you could seriously think that this was a real opportunity. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support but I don't mind a Christian tweak. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a narrowed TBAN applied to Judeo-Christianity (or just Christianity) My personal view largely matches Ivanvector's. If we're going to exclude JPS from LDS which he's passionate about, I'm not sure a general Religion ban would be much more onerous. Yes the trap potential is there, per religion still permeating so widely. But I agree with Ivanvector about JPS's competence, and (mostly) his assessment that the community is too decent to punish JPS for the inevitable minor violations. That said, RW, Shibbolethink etc strike me as insiteful editors - perhaps they are right that a more focussed Tban is for the best. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support either all religions or the more specific Judeo-Christianity area. For some reason or another, their editing in this area is disruptive, and well this seems like a good attempt at preventing that disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support narrowed to Judeo-Christianity per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's clear that this is a problem area for JPL. I don't want to see JPL re-indeffed, this seems a good compromise. -- Mike 🗩 00:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support a topic-ban narrowed to Judeo-Christianity, but... I guess my query is whether articles like this one (about someone who taught at a Jewish Community Centre) or this one (about someone who wrote about Secularization in Multi-Religious Societies), or this one (about someone "prominent in her efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church in China") would be caught up in either version of the topic ban? JPL has made largely innocuous edits to each since being unblocked (in an effort to establish he can be productive). But his typical editing pattern seems to consist of rapid-fire categorisation until he stops to read something, stays to fix it a bit, and then moves on. I have to query the value of sanctions that force a substantive change to JPL's editing pattern so that he can diligently assess each and every article for indications that it might covered by his broadly construed TBAN. Why not just let him focus on the one category he is currently interested in for a while? (I did advocate for expansion to 4-5 specific-year categories on his talk page). St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Surely the answer is to be found in what part religion plays in the person's notability. I haven't looked in detail, but the third example above (Audrey Donnithorne) self-evidently would fall under the ban based purely on the quote given from the article's lead ~ anyone whose notability depends on efforts to rebuild the Catholic Church would naturally fall under such a ban. As for changing editing patterns, aren't we all supposed to be diligent in assessing our edits? What difference if JPL needs to assess them with regard to a ban? Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but I suppose that's easier for those of use who wouldn't be subject to sanctions for making a mistake. If I include a factual error I can go back and rectify it. I can re-write the same paragraph 17 times before being happy with it. And I can drive-by tag a bunch of articles regardless of what they are about (and then go back and fix my mistake if I make an error). But I recently clarified that even talking about the subjects covered by a topic ban, with admins, to rectify damage done by someone else, was considered a breach. So I imagine all of those articles could be interpreted as being covered by the ban. I just think it will inevitably lead to dozens of editors watching JPL's edits and at the first mistake, we'll be back here again (again!). This is supposed to be about getting everyone back to productive editing, including JPL. I'm not sure this proposal will achieve that, but there seems to be support for it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This was my biggest concern going forward. JPL's disruptive editing, thus far, took place in the natural course of conversation. It's not like he was trolling along looking for ways to be disruptive. He allowed his emotions to get the better of him during conversations and in his editing. Such a broad topic ban is basically a delayed site ban. It has nothing to do with intelligence or ability. We are asking a human being to never make a single mistake in editing or discussing anything related to one of the most broadest subjects on Wikipedia. And with it we are inviting other editors to watch him for the slightest mistake so they can drag him back here for more punishment. To this point, it has been a legitimate reaction to a disruptive editor. This ban, as it was worded, doesn't just cover obvious subjects but also subjects at the very edge of the periphery. He could literally be in violation for discussing the birth or death date of an individual that attended a religious institution, even if their focus was not religion and they didn't pursue that in life, and even if the institution doesn't clearly define itself as religious. Baylor University is a private university in Texas. It is operated by the Baptist church. According to this broadly construed ban he can't even discuss anyone that attended that university. Nothing in Baylor's name indicates they are a religious institution. This is what Bilrov is talking about when they say that JPL and the community needs to know what the details are of such a ban. --ARoseWolf 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you may be overly broadly interpreting the WP:TOPICBAN scope. It would cover any edits about those persons where the edit was related to their involvement in religion. But not in mundane facts about their life. a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". (emphasis mine) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You've emphasised the wrong bit: the point is all pages ... broadly related to the topic, so that edits that are not about religion can fall afoul of the ban. Any of the three pages (in their entirety) given by Stalwart11 could fall under the TBAN, or not do so (except that the third is pretty blatantly under it), depending on which admin makes the decision—and crucially, JPL is not permitted to discuss whether any of the three articles fall under it. — Bilorv (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe they are allowed to ask for clarification on their TBAN? Of the Admin in question? If it's a super complex case I think it's supposed to come back here, but I think if it's relatively simple the implementing admin is supposed to be able to assist with that. Am I wrong about that? It's been my experience with other people's TBANs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in this case (and many others) the admin in question would simply be implementing the will of the community. While holding a mop comes with more responsibility, I don't (personally) believe that should extend to constantly re-adjudicating the original context of a ban to determine scope on a case-by-case basis. If it's too complex for an admin (or the community) to agree on its application (as indeed those three random examples suggest it might) then we should probably default to the proposal suggested by JPL himself (and provisionally accepted by the unblocking admin). In the end, JPL's conduct will determine if he can return to unrestricted editing (regardless of the scope of any ban). I don't see the value in making this more complicated that it needs to be, whereas I see merit in his choosing the length of his own WP:ROPE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support either full religious ban or narrowed Judeo-Christian one. Should help JPL and the community in avoiding further conflict. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 08:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support At a minimum a full religious topic ban (although I will again say this is hardly the limit of JPL's disruptiveness). The idea that a ban limited to judeo-christian specifically would actually be worthwhile is just setting up for wiki-lawyering later on. Its laughable the idea that given the chance JPL will be productive/not distruptive about religions that are not Judeo-Christian. When JPL holds, by any standard, views that are extremist both about their own and other religions. I am pretty confident that the Buddhists wont want him touching their articles either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe discussing the merits of the personal views of another editor are where we want to go as a community. Discussing edits is one thing, attacking personal views is another entirely. --ARoseWolf 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Buddhists owned any articles on Wikipedia, or that anyone did... or that we make decisions based on what we assume members of a group believe about articles of particular interest to them. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Has the user in question showed any disruptive behavior in articles or on talk pages related to these other religions? if not, I don't think we should go around pre-emptively TBANning people based on what we suspect may become an issue. In the absence of evidence. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I had asked you a similar question in a comment but rescinded it after seeing you post this question. It is a valid question and I asked for diffs earlier in the conversation because I cant find where he may have been disruptive on article related to other religions except LDS/Mormonism and Catholicism. Maybe someone will provide them. --ARoseWolf 18:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that comes to mind is John's questioning of the (if I recall correctly) non-policy-but-precedence-set blanket notability of bishops of Catholic and Protestant (exclusive of LDS, and we won't get into its classification here) faiths. He works on and sometimes nominates such articles for deletion when they basically serve as little more than a Wikipedia-as-directory listing when they are unsourced or poorly sourced. That is generally met with significant pushback. For what it's worth (nothing, really), I agree with him on the need for a real standard on this issue and appreciate his more critical thought on the issue. But that's one example of behavior that some would consider disruptive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Questioning something is considered disruptive? I've questioned lots of things on Wikipedia. Surely it must have been the way he questioned it, like did he make disparaging remarks, and not the questioning itself. But isn't he already limited in AfD nominations? --ARoseWolf 19:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect this is easier to show than tell. See the recent AfD on William Thomas Larkin. I believe there have been other articles, but I have neither the time, nor the interest, nor still the need to dig them up, as I think this covers it. Some people go for the essay/not policy of WP:BISHOPS and others don't believe every bishop ever of the 2000+ Catholic diocese are a) by default notable and b) should remain in Wikipedia even if sufficient sourcing is not provided. Now, that is my own summary based on my experience in bishop AfDs. I am not saying I could draw both conclusions from the Larkin AfD. Just context. So, that's why *some* *might* consider his work in one religious, non-LDS space disruptive. I disclose it here because I read the question and had some evidence to shed light; it doesn't mean I find such work of his disruptive (for the record, he nominated based on policy and was not out of line in the Larkin nom). To answer your other question, John is limited in number to one nom per day, but, I believe, not the topic of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DiamondRemley39 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, DR. I really hope no one thinks that AfD was disruptive because I have about a million more that would be considered uncivil if that was disruptive. It appeared to me to be a back and forth discussion. Should we really be punishing editors for nominating at AfD when it is policy based, even if we believe faulty application of policy is involved? I'm sure there are better examples of disruption and incivility is intolerable but I don't see an example of either in that particular nomination. I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every bishop ever known to the Catholic church. At the same time, I wouldn't call it disruptive if he nominated every chief of the Cherokee people either, so long as he thought he was going by policy and provided said policy as he understood it. I digress, it is only one example. I'm sure there are other examples that are actually disruptive. --ARoseWolf 20:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

_{It wasn't. I was the one who suggested it be closed per WP:SNOW and I did so because at the time we were dealing with another AFD at DRV which had to be overturned because of JPL's conduct. I thought it easier to rule a line under (or through, as it were) JPL's conduct that week and move on. But nothing about that particular AFD struck me as disruptive.} St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, my perception is that Johnpacklambert is consistently inclusionist about LDS Church officials and consistently deletionist about the officials of other churches. A long pattern of that is disruptive in my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with your assessment, @Cullen328, from my perusing of his past conflicts as shown in his talk page history. That's part of why I think the TBAN should cover all judeo-christianity, but probably doesn't need to extend to non-abrahamic religions, and probably not even to Islam. But I think it probably should cover protestant christian denominations as well as catholicism and mormonism. And probably also cover judaism as there are many ways in which LDS doctrine associates itself with the early church (e.g. gnostics) and jewish history. See: Judaism and Mormonism. Compare this to Islam and Mormonism. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to an entire TBAN on abrahamic religions, but I would prefer as narrow a scope as possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume this is Cullen and I apologize if it is not. I appreciate your perspective. Mine is different. If we decided that someone was disruptive just because they had "inclusionist" views on one topic and "deletionist" views on another (honestly, I'm not even sure why we still use those terms) there wouldn't be very many editors left at Wikipedia. It is just an AfD. One of the first lessons I learned about Wikipedia is if my favorite subject has to have an article on Wikipedia in order for me to feel legitimized, and I really hope JPL is looking at this because it applies to him too, then maybe I need to evaluate why I am here. I love articles on American Indians because that's my heritage. I remember being caught up in AfD's over about twenty articles on the Sioux people. I vigorously fought for those articles and we saved some and lost others. There was so much incivility thrown around that I realized it wasn't even worth it. The assumption that certain editors were here for dubious reasons and just being disruptive by nominating something they felt didn't belong felt so wrong to sit through and entertain. If I have to fight that hard then why am I here? You can nominate every article I care about and I'm still going to be who I am and I am still going to be here and I promise you that I will not view the nominators as disruptive just for that reason. Incivility and edit warring and socking are a different topic altogether but that isn't even being discussed at this point. Maybe it should, I don't know. I will never agree that a person's view and actions based on policy, even if misguided, is solely defined as disruptive. I'm yielding the conversation because I feel I have said enough and others opinions matter too. I was just responding to yours specifically. --ARoseWolf 21:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to sign that comment and thank the bot who signed for me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, ARW, I think the question is "what solution can we find that prevents JPL from being his own worst enemy, and that also protects Wikipedia in the most comprehensive way." Questions about JPLs motivations can help us get there, but I don't find them very convincing. No one truly knows what evils lay in the hearts of men. (or what angels). I very much do not like hypothesizing about the minds of others. I just want us to look at his past disruptions, figure out what pattern there is, and prescribe a solution which prevents those from recurring in the most targeted way possible. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 02:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

User making a point of starting trouble.

I'm not sure how to word this but I'll do my best. Since last week, I've been having a few problems with the user Addicted4517 seemingly doing what they can to undermine me. It began on the Wikipedia page of the wrestler Buddy Murphy, where I was updating his page to feature his new ringname, citing Buddy's Twitter as a source, as seen here:

• [47] which was followed by this user undoing my edit claiming that my edit wasn't right and my source wasn't valid as seen here:
• [48]

From there, we went back and forth as seen here, which as you'll note, Addicted4517 failed to correctly prove my edits incorrect, yet continued edit warring.

• [49]
• [50]
• [51]
• [52]
• [53]

This was followed by a completely unnecessary overriding of the source I provided with an article whose direct source was the Twitter I was citing, which the user in question claimed was invalid. So I ask you: How is the Twitter not a valid source, yet an article which directly cites the Twitter is? This seems like a user not wanting to be wrong, and undermining my source to save face:

• [54]

From here, Addicted4517 complained here about an edit I made to my own talkpage which they wouldn't have seen if they weren't hanging around my profile to start with. The dispute about my talkpage was settled, and then I checked in on the Impact Wrestling Personnel page, as it's my favourite page to read, and I find an edit myself and another user made reverted by this exact same user, who for the record, I've never seen edit that page before in my year and a half or so of editing the page. Again, this user ignores the source while claiming Twitter, which has never been an invalid source is an invalid source again.

• [55]

It seems to me at this point, this user is going out of their way to undermine my edits, along with stirring up unnecessary drama. And rather than blowing my stack and getting in trouble for being uncivil, I figured my best bet is to get someone else involved, thus this post. Thank you. SkylerLovefist (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This complaint is frivolous and WP:BOOMERANG should apply. Twitter as a source by itself should not be used as a general rule, and the claim made was exceptional (anything in a BLP can be so - especially as Buddy is yet to use the name on a show) so an independent source was required. SkylerLovefist refused outright to discuss this reasonably - being generally uncivil in the edit summary here and here and when I corrected the source policy getting it wrong the first time he was generally uncivil again here and not understanding the points I made here. It was crystal balling because Buddy was yet to appear on a show under the name, and assuming the name will be used on a show is both crystal balling and original research. Another user came in supporting my reversion and on Skyler's talk page pointed to two independent sources - 411mania and PW Insider. Both are listed on the pro wrestling sources page - the latter being reliable and the former having limited reliability. When SkylerLovefist used the former I switched it to the latter because PW Insider is a wholly reliable source. PW Insider always verifies it's sources before it includes them - and this would include Twitter. This is why they are a reliable source. The only reason I saw and paid attention to his edit on the Impact Personnel page was because I was looking for any edits on the main Administrator's report page (because it's so busy checking his contributions was the quickest way to do this) due to the report I made and my consequent support in retaining pro wrestling sanctions. I wouldn;t have worried about it except for the edit summary having a veiled crack at the previous issue with Buddy. See for yourself. I checked the source and there is no proof at all that any of the ladies in the video on the source is Brandi Lauren. Therefore it was original research, along with the fact that Brandi is not on the Impact roster per the official website. She had one match against Melina in August and that was all. A one off appearance. I respectfully suggest this is a bad faith report out of spite and leave it for administrator's to take any action, including sanctions if desired, as appropriate. Brandi Lauren is not a member of the Impact roster and the source provided does not prove it at all. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additional - someone else has also stated Twitter is not a reliable source and reverted the Lauren addition. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well I had a look at SkylerLovefist's recent contributions and found this [56] containing a personal attack. Addicted4517 was correct to revert this addition as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA it was not a suitable source and it fails verification anyway as it doesn't back up the claim made. SkylerLovefist's edit history on Buddy Murphy is exactly the same. Addicted4517 is patiently and politely pointing to the correct policy and explaining why SkylerLovefist is being reverted but SkylerLovefist responds with edit warring and personal attacks. I would suggest SkylerLovefist stop what they're doing right now as an admin coming here is likely to block them for A) Personal attacks and B) edit warring. SkylerLovefist should also apologise to Addicted4517 for your personal attacks when he was only trying to help them. SkylerLovefist might also like to look at WP:BOOMERANG as I strongly suspect one is heading their way if they don't stop now. WCM_email 08:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I am chuckling here because I just notified you of this on your talk page and you were here anyway. Thank you for this contribution. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

See, little digs like that are what I'm getting at.

And I don't accept that at all. My conduct isn't the issue. I'm getting frustrated because as I've said: this guy keeps undermining my edits. Why can't anyone explain to me why a third party article whose only source is the Twitter account is more valid than the Twitter account which is the article's only source? It's legitimate undermining.

And since when is "I personally can't recognise Brandi Lauren in heavy makeup" a valid reason to undo an edit? She was identified as Brandi Lauren on Impact itself by the commentators as an extension of an ongoing storyline where Brandi was kidnapped by Kimber Lee and Su Yung. SkylerLovefist (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I am the other user who gave him (Skyler) the sources. I saw the same edition over and over (including the new name), I was just waiting until someone includes a reliable source talking about the new name, no a Twitter video. BTW, the Impact roster article is a very s***y article with poor sources. I tried to fix it but other users just complained when I asked for sources. The roster article is about people who are signed with Impact Wrestling, but most users includes people "because they appeared on TV". This source (a Twitter video) does not talk about a wrestlers signing with a promotion, so it's not valid. It's just a TV segment, but no information about a contract signed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The last paragraph here is again original research. I already explained the second paragraph in my original response. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And you're still avoiding answering my question about why an article citing the Twitter is valid but the Twitter itself isn't. Also, I feel like going to other users who weren't involved in the Buddy Murphy edit war to try and further add to this drama by creating a dogpile further adds fuel to my theory you're going through this whole shebang not out of concern, but as part of a personal vendetta of some sort.

I'm happy to put my hand up and say I made some snarky comments purely out of frustration that my perfectly legitimate edits were being undone. But again: if Twitter is invalid as a source, so must the link you overrode the 411mania one with because it's only source is... buddy's Twitter. Which is how this ball got rolling. SkylerLovefist (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The question is... If you have reliable sources talking about his new name and you were asked about them, why you didn't used it? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This appears to be a (series of) content dispute(s) rather than something requiring admin intervention. WP:TWEET is the relevant guideline here and it seems that someone's declaration of a new stage/ring name on their personal twitter should be allowable under this, but as in all content disputes, the correct approach should always be to discuss on the article or project's talk page after the first time an edit is reverted, per WP:BRD. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm afraid that really isn't accurate, the problem here is the frequent personal attacks from SkylerLovefist and their inability to source their edits. EG [57] was sourced to a Twitter video, which makes no mention of the person concerned. They may be in the video but that is WP:OR and WP:SYN to make a claim for a WP:BLP. At Buddy Murphy he was edit warring to force his preferred Twitter source into the article even though HHH Pedrigree had provided one. I do wonder if this is more of a WP:CIR issue. WCM_email 10:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I consider the issue resolved, you aren't involved in any way, shape or form aside from trying to take Addicted4517's side. This wouldn't even be here were your friend not undermining me repeatedly, the comment above indicates my edits were correct, and once again, nobody can (or more accurately wants to answer because then they'd have to admit they're wrong) answer my question as to why a Tweet from the wrestler themselves is an invalid source, but an article which is nothing but a link to the tweet isn't. If you consider a Twitter video with the wrestler's name in it on a verified Twitter account with the wrestler's name on it OR or SYNTH, then yeah. You're deliberately grasping at straws to prolong a pointless edit war which wouldn't have happened had the correct guidelines been adhered to.

Kind of like this, actually. Now then, the matter is resolved, and the edit I made is correct per WP:TWEET. Good day, may it be a pleasant one. ;) SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@SkylerLovefist: It's not up to you to decide when AN/I discussions are over. They are officially closed. The only editor I see acting incivilly is you, and this last comment, attempting to rush close an AN/I discussion, was very misguided. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've not had anything to do with Addicted4517 before today and my comments are an honest reflection of what I found when I saw your complaint this morning and looked into it. I've already explained what was wrong with your sourcing, I already gave you a link to WP:TWEET - WP:SOCIALMEDIA is the same wlink. There wouldn't have been an edit war if you hadn't chosen edit warring instead of discussing it and listening to some good advice from another editor. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ wasn't telling you that you were right, you weren't, he was telling you how Twitter can be used. If a person makes an announcement on their Twitter page you can cite that but what you can't do is see a person in a video and make the jump to claim they've signed up to something. A Tweet has to explicitly support the claim you make, you can't infer your own conclusions. WCM_email 11:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't civility, it's the undermining, which I've stated multiple times. And as per the above comment from GrappleX, the original edit war never should have happened and the constant badgering which has gone on since shouldn't either. My source was valid per WP:TWEET. SkylerLovefist (talk) 10:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Please bear in mind that edit warring is not a one way street and when your change was reverted the onus was on you to discuss its merits, not to reinstate it. Please read WP:BRD for a better look at how to handle content disputes in future; there may be a guideline in favour of your initial edit but when it was disputed it should have been discussed and the relevant guideline explained on a talk page in order to demonstrate consensus exists for the change. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 10:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Even if your source was valid per WP:TWEET, tweets are primary sources. A secondary source discussing a primary source will always be better than the primary source itself; that’s basic sourcing policy. Replacing the tweet with an article about the tweet was correct. Mlb96 (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That was part of the problem one of the "cites" was a Twitter video nothing more. On the basis they personally recognised one of the participants yhey concluded that a person had signed a contract to participate. They've half-heard a comment from another editor on when a Twitter cite is appropriate and decided they were right all along. They weren't. I fear this is going to end in tears as they're planning to carry on - ANI hasn't even looked at the personal attacks yet. WCM_email 07:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Hopefully an admin comes in soon. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Not before Hulk! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Bashereyre

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

User:Bashereyre has been here since February 2007, and has in those 14 years created more than 8,000 articles. As an autopatrolled editor, few of his creations are actually checked by enough people. I noticed a lot of sub-standard stubs created by them, but not until May of this year did I pay more serious attention to them. As I found serious errors with creation after creation, I posted this, which lists a wide variety of problems, both with the quality of sourcing (including BLP issues) and the factual accuracy of his articles. They removed this a few hours later without replying[58]. Two weeks later, I tagged Ralph Brideoke (priest) as a copyright violation, adding yet another issue to the mix. I hoped that things would improve, but I see very little change. In the months inbetween, I have checked some of his older contributions and some of their current ones.

• Thavaraj David Eames: the dates in the one-sentence BLP article were contradicted by the lone (primary) source
• Nicholas Lechmere (priest): see Draft talk:Nicholas Lechmere (priest)#Reasons for move to draft
• So, what did Bashereyre do? Well, recreate the article as Nicholas Lechmere (archdeacon) but with the exact same issues of course
• I also since moved to draft Draft:Martin Parkinson (priest), Draft:Thomas Hayward (warden), Draft:Andrew Sewell, Draft:Thomas Talbot (priest) and (today) Draft:Edward Deane (1727–1770), each time explaining the issues at the draft talk page (e.g. Deane didn't live from 1727 to 1770, that was copied from another article: and the only source at BLP Andrew Sewell was not about him)
• In June 2021, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cuppage closed as delete. Today, Bashereyre recreated the article as George Cuppaidge (an alternative found during the AfD): now deleted as G4

Examples of uncorrected issues:

• Barry Denny (politician) (created yesterday), "Deny [sic] represented Tralee from 1717 to 1727.": nope, he represented it 1696-99.
• Thomas Dawson (politician) (created yesterday), "Dawson represented Armagh County from 1783 to 1790, and Sligo Borough from 1873 to 1790." Apparently it was Armagh from 1776 to 1783, and Sligo from 1783 to 1790. That's one year correct out of four. No idea what he's doing in Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for County Louth constituencies (1801–1922) either.
• Alexander Dawson (MP) (created yesterday): MP from 1826 to 1831, but neither the first nor the third source mention him (logically, as they only deal with MPs until 1800). And no idea what he's doing in Category:UK MPs 1868–1874...
• Henry Darby (Irish MP) (from yesterday) "represented Kilkenny City during 1800"? No, he represented Gowran (Parliament of Ireland constituency).
• William Cuffe (created 4 September): "Cuffe represented Kilkenny City from 1735 to 1743". That's weird, he was only born in c. 1743, and was MP between 1783 and 1792.

A typical example of what causes many (though not all by far) of his errors, copy-pasting the previous creation to start a new one, can be seen here:

• first create Richard Boyle (politician), who lived from 1655-1711
• then Samuel Boyse (Irish MP), birth and death 1696-1711 (oops), with the interesting tidbit "He died as a result of a duel"
• then Nathaniel Boyse, who of course has the incorrect claim: "He died as a result of a duel".

A chain reaction of errors...

All suggestions on how to make sure that Bashereyre's creations are reasonably correct in the future (and any ideas on how to clean up the 8000+ existing ones) are welcome. Perhaps starting with the removal of the autopatrolled right? Fram (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

First on the list is to stop Bashereyre from creating so much disruption for other editors to clean up . Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Question - Would it be appropriate to impose a topic-ban against creating articles in article space, and so requiring him to submit them through AFC? That may be a minimum sanction; some other more expansive sanction may also or instead be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• The disruption needs to be stopped immediately. Removing autopatrolled is the first step, but insufficient. A topic ban against creating articles in mainspace would be something. I'd go so far as to say an indefinite block or partial block from mainspace is needed to engage Bashereyre in discussion first. It can be lifted as soon as Bashereyre expresses understanding that discussion is not optional on Wikipedia, and that it is their responsibility to correct errors they are introducing en masse. They should be fixing these errors before being permitted to create new pages (even via AFC). — Bilorv (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from article space (I think; not sure how to format namespace p-blocks. Any admin please correct if wrong). Miniapolis 23:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 07:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: your block prevents them from making any edit in article namespace, not just creating new pages. If that was your intent then you did it right. I don't think we can block a user from being able to create pages specifically. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(←) Ivanvector's squirrel, I wasn't sure how to address this and wanted to get their attention. Sounds like a ban on article creation outside AfC would be best, but the magnitude of the mess seemed to indicate the need for an immediate halt. As I said, any admin should feel free to modify the block. Miniapolis 17:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the block is absolutely needed. Bashereyre needs to engage in this discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Crawiki WP:OWN/WP:ONUS/WP:CRYSTAL

The article State collapse is largely the work of Crawiki. It abounds in examples, but is very short on an actual treatmentof the phenomenon. Among the examples cited were/are "States allegedly at risk of collapse", based on the opinions of (amongst others) Piers Morgan, Nigel Lawson, Andrzej Duda and others. This section was removed by Beland as WP:CRYSTAL and subsequently reinstated by Crawiki, claiming these are expert opinions and, as such, exempted by WP:CHRYSTAL. I agree with Beland and removed the section again, opened a discussion on the talk-page and got the response that I WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and my opinion these are not experts is just my opinion. What does constitute an expert according to Crawiki, remains unclear.

I am at 3RR and do not wish to revert again, but the entire affair is rich in WP:OWN and short on WP:CONSENSUS. Kleuske (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The article seems to be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR. I'm particularly concerned with Crawiki's statement in the heated discussion from November 2017: I'm sure your 'concrete examples are useful. But wouldn't it save time all round if you would simply specify where in MY article there is OR and SYNTH? That way, I can fix them much quicker. That sentiment really drives home the WP:OWN.  — sbb (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the SYNTH concerns. From a quick search there is definitely a term named state collapse, but some of the authors cited seem to be talking about the concept of state power and their rise and fall more broadly. For example, Erich Fromm talked about the psychology of collapsing states, but not the term of "state collapse". My worry is that this article is trying to act as a secondary source instead of a tertiary one. If we want to say that Fromm made important contributions to the theory of state collapse, we need to cite an article that argues that point, not cite Fromm directly and in essence argue it ourselves. Likewise, the Examples section seems to just cite basic historical facts ie. confirming that the partition of India did in fact happen, when actually we need to be citing something that argues that these cases are an example of state collapse. Pinguinn 🐧 08:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be that the article is less of an article and more of a bullet list of everything related to the topic, so there's a lot of wp:undue stuff in in in general. Though it's not clear if wp:OWNership of article is the cause of this—blindlynx (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Not here

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

---

This looks like spam [[59]] to me not sure where to report it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And they seem to have posted it 5 times to different sections of my talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

And it seems just one, so wondering now if this is spam, or some bizarre vendetta thing by a sock.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Indef'd independently of this report. What you were wondering - I'll just respond with another question mark. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Well it seemed odd they picked on me, and then just spammed my account. So I was wondering if this was a user I have had issues with in the past creating a nuisance account.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, odd. They're on a rather spammy network, so make of that what you will. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

That email address is probably phishing (a major brand "giveaway" with a gmail address is a huge red flag), their edits should be WP:RD3 revdeleted. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Repeated unsourced content to BLPs - BosnianBeast60

BosnianBeast60 (talk · contribs) has a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, with multiple warnings littering their talk page, and has been blocked for it numerous times previously, including just over a month ago. Despite this, they continue to do so, e.g. this. what is to be done - indef, topic ban, or ignore and let BLP violations continue? GiantSnowman 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The diff complained about appears to be adding factually correct information without a citation. Whilst this is less than desirable, it turns out the information was correct (you yourself added a citation for it later) and as such improved the encyclopedia. Adding unsourced content about a living person is not in itself a BLP violation; as per WP:BLPSOURCE, the content would have to be contentious, challenged, or likely to be challenged in order to be a violation. I would need to see more diffs of addition of incorrect or contentious content to be convinced that a block or other action was necessary. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Dreadjonas POV editing

Dreadjonas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dreadjonas shows a history of POV edits, for example in this edit they changed mainstream to westerners with an easter egg link to barbarian invasion, attacking the sources on the basis of race rather then reflecting the material and here changed the sentence to make no sense to make some sort of point. This part of series of edits that are changing the articles from sources. 2001:8003:38C0:900:59FD:742E:49BD:3BA (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this user's contributions, almost all of it is either vandalism or vandalism-adjacent, but it's the sneaky kind of vandalism that consists of changing a correct statement of fact to a similar but incorrect statement. Mlb96 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited at all for over a month. Neiltonks (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Long-term vandals get away with their vandalism by going on extended hiatus and then resuming later. A long-term pattern of disruptive editing and sneaky vandalism should be addressed with a block, because this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. ♟♙ (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not sure how your response addresses the long-term pattern of disruption. ♟♙ (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel

Dubious tag on a highly opposed, active discussion removed saying "nothing dubious"[60] not self reverting despite warning about WP:WNTRMT. Viewsridge (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I advise you attempt to resolve this per our normal dispute resolution procedures first before coming here. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Ifidont and alternative medicine

Ifidont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user has a block from the page Ayurveda and its talk page for edit warring and disruptive editing against ARBCOM sanctions on the page. The user has continued writing about alternate and complementary medicine at Traditional medicine and the edits were reverted. The user has now created a new page Glossary of Ayurveda. I believe the user will continue adding disruptive material, often unsourced and a POV push (contemplating from the user's contribution history). [Unfortunately the user wasn't given a DS/alert in ACU, and thus I couldn't ask for AE sanctions?] — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Where you say "... has not created ...", I think you intended to say "... has now created ..."? - David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Haha yes! — DaxServer (talk to me) 15:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI, now alerted to DS in Complementary/Alt. Medicine and Pseudoscience. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Extremely disruptive user, WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Verman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Verman1 blatantly edit-wars and later adds complete WP:OR with POV modifications in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: Revision history. As seen from the history, I notified them numerous times about their unsourced additions, now they're adding the same with a source that doesn't support their claims (and which after checking, I told them [61]). They re-reverted me yet again without an explanation, even after I opened a talk discussion (also breaking 1RR if it applies [62] [63]).

Today, they re-reverted (again) and misrepresented my position on talk (seems like they didn't even open their added source) [64] [65]. Moreover, they edit-warred and removed sourced information in another AA article, Shusha. After me explaning the problem with their edit and asking them to explain in talk (again) [66], they blatantly edit-war and re-revert without even engaging in talk [67]. The user was aware of all the relevant notices [68].

In conclusion, Verman1 breaches multiple guidelines with complete disregard to them such as WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, and I think it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to suggest that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I've just wanted to warn the user Verman1 as well, as I see the tendency in removing non-pro-Azerbaijani statements in different articles. [69] Please, use tags and templates but don't remove the whole content (which you doubt) until we find and add the sources. Thank you in advance! Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you're referring to Shusha, it was already sourced, see the diffs. I asked them to show why exactly Caucasus Heritage Watch was unreliable. They refused yet again, and re-reverted without engaging in talk. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni Thank you for sharing this information! This user seems to be experienced and is most likely familiar with the fact that many articles related to Armenia-Artsakh-Azerbaijan are subject to special editing regimes and may entail discretionary sanctions. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that a source was added [70], Armenpress. (for one of their other re-reverts [71])

Still no excuse for all the edit-wars [72], disruption and POV by Verman1 with no discussions opened in Talk:Shusha and with persistent re-reverts in both Shusha and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. They have yet to explain in talk about the "unreliableness" and exact reason of their disruptive behavior and many other re-reverts [73] [74]

Following standard wikipedia guidelines to ensure a cooperative environment between editors should be the bare minimum imo, but the user failed to do so every step of the way. The only sign of hope I saw is when they finally replied to me in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh conflict#Disruptive edits (which I had to open a discussion for as they were refusing to do so), but their reply left me very confused and doesn't match the reality which I explained later in that same discussion. All in all, I still think the user is not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I see you issued a block against this user previously for a week earlier this year. You might want to weigh in here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Talk:Persecution of Christians

Persecution of Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A while ago this was brought here and a close was made that included drop the stick.

However the stick has not been dropped, and I keep getting pinged over it (whilst also being told I should drop the stick [[75]]). Moreover the same user (Dominic Mayers) have taken to appeal to logic [[76]] and blatant statement to allow OR of primary sources based upon an RFC that did not ask that question [[77]].

It is getting tendentious now and well into bludgeoning. They are rejecting any opinion that does not agree with theirs, based upon logic, not policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As well as an outright rejection of the idea of an RFC to clear this up on the grounds they might not get the result they want.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Logic is not opposed to WP policy, but supports it. I am only intervening in this last discussion to help. I have not started it. I came first in this talk page because of a RfC. Essentially, I am asking editors to focus on specific content proposals and drop any discussion about universal rules that try to go beyond WP rules. Slatersteven keep proposing a universal rule that is not WP policy. It's true that he does that because the discussion about universal rules is still going on. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC){{

And we have this [[78]], which is not only chock full of comments about me and not content. It is continuing a discussion we have been told to drop and yet again mentions me. This is now bordering on badgering.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And this [[79]]. Which violates (as far as I can see) wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Though you're personalizing it, this is plainly a content dispute. Why don't you try WP:RSN? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts)
• User:Slatersteven, a link to the previous discussion here would be helpful. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ivanvector's squirrel is right that Slatersteven is personalizing the situation. The statement "It is getting tendentious now and well into bludgeoning" says nothing about policy or the article. It only presents the other editors as the enemy of WP, as people who wants to break rules, etc. If Slatersteven disagrees with other editors regarding content policy and fails to convince them, he can bring the discussion to the appropriate notice board, but here he went too far. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Being pinged to a discussion you do not want to participate in is annoying—I know the feeling—but it does not actually compel you to respond. It seems to me that you are very uncharitably cherry-picking a word, "logic", that another editor used, and trying to stretch out a narrative based on that one word alone. You're both experienced contributors, so why not assume that you both understand basic policies/guidelines and how Wikipedia works, and that disagreement you have is of two rational people disagreeing with this specific situation alone? (And then such a disagreement is resolved by listening to each other, presenting sources that address the problems the other person sees with the ones they have read, and if necessary soliciting third party opinions, rather than accusations that the other person is violating everything but the kitchen sink.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Its not a case of I do not want to participate, we have been told to drop the stick, and its not being dropped. I am happy to participate as long as it is then not used against me as "not dropping the stick".Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Just to give some context, with this comment Slatersteven again show that he does not understand WP:consensus, in particular, that any consensus can be revised by a subsequent consensus that is as strong, especially if it is about a more specific case, like an exception to a general rule. He might not realize it, but his comment implies that he wants a consensus that cannot be revised. This cannot exist and he does not get this point. This is especially problematic given that he wants it for a rule that has currently no support at all, but he shows no opening. For this reason, I suggested to Jenhawk777 that he should focus on concrete content, but he is not happy about that either. He wants a sharing understanding that would apply to any eventual content. As a consequence, I don't have any friend in this talk page, but I am sincerely there only to help with no bias in one way or another regarding the content. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Having removed [Persecution of Christians] Talk page from my Watchlist in order to avoid any more of this, here I am, and for that I have no one to blame but myself. In my view, both Slatersteven and Dominic Mayers have been equally difficult and obstructive because Ivanvector's squirrel is right on target that this is a content dispute. It started with a revert of Karma18's edit - through the application of Slatersteven's personal rule as 'Reason'. His rule requires the presence of the word persecution in the source or he reverts it as OR. I think WP allows for a description or a definition that identifies persecution by a common understanding that anyone would get from reading the source - even if the word itself is not present. The State Department provides an annual report on human rights, and their violations, every year, and yet it never uses the word persecution. I think that should be available as content anyway. By Slatersteven's rule, it can't be. This remains unresolved, and I don't see any hope of resolving it, therefore I have now and forever more 'dropped the gd stick' and moved on. IMO, this should just be closed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

    Jenhawk777 reexplains what I already explained, but from his perspective. I am sad that he sees it negatively. I am just saying that he should proceed with concrete proposals, but if people here decide to work with him to resolve the issue in general, with no specific content on the table, then why not. I am not fundamentally opposed to that. But, it will be a consensus that in principle can be revised, especially given the fact that it would be general (applicable to any content) and a specific content can easily suggest an exception. Also, Jenhawk777 complains as if Slatersteven's rule is a law that needs to be contested. It does not need to be contested. It's already a fact that there is no consensus to support it. This might be the issue. He might need to be reassured that there is no consensus to support Slatersteven's rule, even though it is obvious. He might not understand that the burden to obtain consensus for his rule belongs to Slatersteven. He (Jenhawk777) has nothing to do. He has already, by default, that there is no consensus to support this rule. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

IP- fast moving disruptive edits

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

---

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

IP is doing many edits very quickly, seems like a block may be needed sooner than later to prevent further disruption. IP is continuously replacing 'stray' periods with semicolons- however, it is leading to many errors, including: [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], and [91]. Edits are going very fast that it's impossible to check each and every one for any similar mistakes. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This popped up on my watchlist and I've blocked them and now rollbacking the edits. Cheers, Number 57 21:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Long-term NOTHERE by what appears to be static IP

• Special:Contributions/77.248.85.29

Edits dating to at least one year ago by this IP ([92]; more recent [93][94][95]) suggest they're not really here to contribute constructively, and they appear quite interested in pointing out various instances of "propoganda" (along with actual insults and similar childish stuff). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Last edit on 2 September and 3 edits in the last month doesn't seem to me to justify administrative action at the present time. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:GovGuide making frequent careless edits, not responding to talk

GovGuide has been rewriting article introductions and introducing errors at a fast pace despite being asked to stop a few times [96][97][98]. Their talk page is a mess of stream-of-consciousness questions/complaints and they're rewriting information pages, throwing around templates with no explanation, inserting nonsense, etc. Either they're not understanding something or refusing to understand something.Citing (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

someone just changed all the work i did thats crazy

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

---

this person User talk:Citing

they changed all the work i did for no reason ?? GovGuide (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a wiki, it means that anyone is able to edit pages, including to remove some or all of the edits you make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifle (talk • contribs)

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

They seem to have stopped as abruptly as they've started. Admin action seems premature for now. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Stifle, they haven't stopped. All these edits and there's still this wild and disruptive formatting, the poor command of English, the weird posts: no, WP:CIR applies here. Even their post here is incomprehensible, though it wasn't helped by the fact that it was hatted (prompted by GovGuide's strange habit of making sub-sections all over the place) and one post was unsigned. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since 4:36am yesterday. I am not blocking them, because blocking is preventative not punitive and there is nothing to prevent. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocking isn't all we do, Stifle... Drmies (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

+1 ♟♙ (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cold Season - topic ban proposal

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

---

Since last year's ANI thread concerning User:Cold Season's behaviour, Cold Season has continued to display strong ownership behaviour, casting aspersions, and POV pushing through deliberate misrepresentation of sources. When confronted, Cold Season dismissed other editors' concerns with an WP:IDHT attitude and continued reverting. The problematic behaviour has been discussed at Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok and Talk:Death of Luo Changqing and I don't think I need to repeat the discussion here. I believe this behaviour has become intractable and I propose an indefinite topic ban on Cold Season from editing articles about Hong Kong politics since 1997. @Ohconfucius, Citobun, OceanHok, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe, and Underbar dk: Pinging editors involved with related disputes. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what how far Cold Season's ownership and POV pushing issue extend beyond articles regarding events in Hong Kong from the last few years (it's not good to WP:WIKISTALK) and have proposed "Hong Kong politics since 1997" as a way of drawing a boundary around the issues I have seen. If you know other topic areas where this editor, feel free to invite other editors who have engaged with him into this discussion. Deryck C. 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• To user Horse Eye's Back, I have zero disputes at the wiki article Ming treasure voyages, so that is simply an untrue statement to see what sticks, falsely based from only that I am the main contributor there. You probably only found it by looking at my recent contribution history as I'm engaged in a GA review there, nothing else. Nor is it against wiki policy to make a lot of edits in an article. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from post-1997 Hong Kong politics, per nom; or at least from events and topics related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which includes all the other articles mentioned above. I don't see any ownership issues evident at Ming treasure voyages — they are involved in a GA nomination at that article — so I wouldn't support a universal China topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from Hong Kong topics. Wikipedia has millions of articles on topics having nothing to do with Hong Kong, and an editor with problems stemming from this one topic area might find themselves more useful in any of these other areas. BD2412 T 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. You will find that all my edits have references, mostly western or HK sources, using similar wording as those sources. If there is any doubt of me misrepresenting something (I have not), then I wish for uninvolved editors/admin (rather than the clique that they often unsubtly ping e.g. [99][100] and here, whenever they see issue to gang up on) to check the wording with the references provided.

- For the Chow Tsz-lok article, use this stable article [101] (see also the talk page Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), since it has been changed a lot from what I wrote.

- For the Luo Changqing article, use this stable article [102].

(because user Deryck Chan — who casts aspirations himself like at [103] ironically using a statement by me defending myself from someone else casting aspersions, like a tag team — has opposed to words as used in sources as simple as "ruling out" [104] about a legal verdict)

The POV pushing claim is circular, as it is clear that my content does not contradict the sources when checked, but is disliked because it is not slanted to anti-government views. Providing content in full (rather than just anti-government, which is in vogue, which I also keep in the articles) is not pro-government. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Adding to that. I've provided a comprehensive list of reasons for the so-called reverts at the Chow Tsz-lok article now (see Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), disproving that this is an WP:OWN issue, rather than just me correcting misleading edits.

Secondly, both Deryck Chan ("I need sometime to look at the bulk revert in detail " [105]) and Citobun ("I'm not so familiar with this article" [106]) have acknowledged that they have not bothered checking the article, indicating blanket opposition by a group.

Notwithstanding that I actually combed through it and didn't just revert, unlike the accusers (see my effort and time [107] followed by a single hostile indiscriminate revert [108] opposing my work, held in place by people unfamiliar). Conversely, no reasons for the changes have been provided (in this opposite day for the burden of proof) which I like to hear. --Cold Season (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not directly involved in your recent dispute at Death of Chow Tsz-lok. I merely commented on the talk page that your behaviour has become a long-term intractable issue best dealt with at ANI. As I have said, I am COMPLETELY UNINTERESTED in getting involved with your content disputes because your Wikipedia:OWNERSHIP of these articles and WP:BLUDGEONing of associated discussions is toxic to deal with and goes nowhere – it is your way or the highway. I am amused that you would actually characterise independent, reliable news media as "anti-government" here, while closely paraphrasing Chinese state mouthpieces and Hong Kong government sources is merely providing "content in full". Citobun (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Question @Citobun: Do you have any evidence of misconduct on a post-1997 Hong Kong topic other than the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests? Most recent activity at User talk:Cold Season is about this one issue, and I don't see anything else Hong Kong-related except for an invitation to an ANI discussion about sourcing-related conduct by Horse Eye's Back. (The reference in question, CGTN (RSP entry), was deprecated later that year.)
  However, I did encounter a brief incident at Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic under User_talk:Cold_Season#while_you_(not_having_edited_the_article_before), which Einsof (talk · contribs) alleged to be another WP:OWN violation. On 21 May 2021, they changed the organization of a section to an earlier, "long-standing" organization by topic; when they were reverted by Einsof, they falsely accused them of not having edited the article before.
  As for the other points, the more recent guidance would cluster near the bottom (refuting their claim that the chronological order emphasizes the more outdated guidance), and we don't need to emphasize the guidance above all else because Wikipedia is not a guidebook. I have restored Einsof's organization by chronological order because it makes no sense to put the "background" information last, and unsurprisingly the guidance is clustered at the bottom. I did separate one paragraph about the CDC guidance that didn't quite mix with the rest, but I hope we're all happy now. Besides, this dispute can be referred to an RfC at the talk page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm unarchiving this because there is still an open request for a formal close. SpinningSpark 13:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User informed of reopening. SpinningSpark 07:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The most damningly threatening personal attack I've ever seen, from an IP-hopping, block-evading editor

• 2409:4064:e97:ece9:5b55:87a8:17c6:50c3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since the beginning of September, a user has been edit-warring to remove films from List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes on the mistaken supposition that films aren't technically "episodes", so they musn't belong on a list of "episodes" (See #Content dispute and possible slow edit war above). That user got a 24-hour block, after which he used a variety of IP's to continue his removals, including on List of Sid the Science Kid episodes, which I used to civilly explain that movies should belong on episode lists. (A discussion on the talk page of the Miraculous episode list arrived at the same conclusion.) In the most recent of his removals, he used a profane, vulgar attack in his edit summary, with all the triggers I can imagine (profanity, damnation, s*icide, body shaming, mental illness, p*rnography, death threats and more). I urgently request his summaries removed and all his socks blocked. Miracusaurs (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary removed and article protected. I'll leave any range blocking to somebody else. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:. Thanks. I guess you'll need to protect List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes, his main target, as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Widr has blocked the /64 and NinjaRobotPirate has partially blocked the /32 from the two pages for 3 months. I note that there have been previous blocks at /33 and /34. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Censoring and activism

Claude ker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
New user engaging in censorship of sourced content under the false ruse of "fixing typos" [109][110] and activism[111] on AA2 articles. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

To start with I've given them an alert for the existence of the AA2 discretionary sanctions. Any other admin is free to take further action, but this alert means they can be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions for further edits which are problematic. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And I've warned them. Bishonen | tålk 21:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC).

223.38.78.0/23 and Senegalget

• Senegalget (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 223.38.78.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An anonymous user on this IP range is persistently removing sourced content from 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Third Round without adequate explanation, with the last edit's summary being the last straw (edit summary translated from Korean to "You b******s doing a refurbishment."). I've also added Senegalget to this report as I suspect these IPs are all the user editing while logged out following an evaluation of a common editing pattern at South Korea national football team, where similar disruption occurred. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• IP range blocked. Senegalget is already globally blocked from the Korean wiki as an LTA. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite Man, again at Alicia (album)

Previously reported at this noticeboard for edit warring at the same article, confirmed by an admin to not have engaged my points in discussion regarding the content dispute, this time at this thread at that article's talk page. Not complying with WP:BRD, appears to have no interest in compromise either. Diffs of reverts as follow:

• 08:50, 5 September 2021
• 13:52, 5 September 2021
• 08:26, 8 September 2021
• 08:27, 8 September 2021

Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I've tried time and time gain to discuss the changes but to no avail.Samsonite Man (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You have tried to discuss? How does one try to discuss? You either discuss or you don't. If you have opened dialogue then why have you stopped. The discussion doesnt end until and unless there is consensus or the consensus is that there is no consensus. You started this off with a Bold edit. That edit was Reverted. The next step is Discussion. The edits can not be re-added unless consensus is in the favor of your edits. The only thing you can try to do is convince the community that your edits are backed up by reliable sources and then wait for a consensus decision. There is no time limit on discussion. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf Have you read the article's talk page? My edits have been backed up by sources. Samsonite Man (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite Man, Have you read WP:BRD? Do you understand what it says are your options if your edit has been reverted? You don't get to circumvent the process just because you believe your edit is legitimate. Once it is disputed, the ONLY recourse is community consensus on the talk page, period. By you reverting it back to your version of the article you are edit warring. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This editor is clearly trying to bet me blocked for making edits to the article he doesn't agree with. So far he has reverted every single edit I've made.Samsonite Man (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have offered no other recourse, with the way you've handled this dispute. You have exhausted my capacity for compromise and understanding. I am here hoping for remediation. If a block is necessary, so be it, at this point. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back, being hard on myself: I have compromised, particularly with recent edits surrounding the recording period concern raised by the editor. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I must thank the editor for offering the newly added source. The article is better for it. Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Samsonite Man: I think you are the one who is edit warring. Alicia is a featured article, that means it should have high quality sources and the sources you added are not in high quality. Also the article is fine as it is, no need to change it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheAmazingPeanuts I'm not the one who's edit warring. The article is not "fine" by any means. Please read the album's talk page. This editor thinks he is allowed to police the article and revert every edit he doesn't agree with just because he's written most of the article. Every source I've offered has been reliable. So far I've only been able to convince him that link to a student newspaper article didn't offer any "additional and more detailed overage of the subject"... He's a severe case of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR! Samsonite Man (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow. What a jerk. "By any means"?? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Piotr Jr., please strike that. You can comment all you want on the content of their edit but please do not call them disparaging names. It's really not helping matters. Thanks --ARoseWolf 16:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Stricken, but still felt ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

IP edits (Great Purge)

Different IPs are repeatedly making the same inappropriate edits:

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]

• [115]

Please, semiprotect the article for a month or longer.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What an edit summary. I believe at least one of those IP's should be blocked. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It is currently continuing:

• [116]

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can someone put some page protection in place?Nigel Ish (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is a Wikipedia related website? I feel like I'm in the city of Troy with a giant wooden horse wheeled up to my castle walls. lol I would agree with protection of the article. --ARoseWolf 19:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The last semi-protection was for two weeks so I have semi-protected for a month. Alert me if the disruption resumes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked the various IPs as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

User:IMW1974 gross incivility/possible threat

IMW1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a user who I have had no prior dealings with, has issued what may be considered a threat on my talk page (highlighted in green):

WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM??????????? THE BILLBOARD HOT 100 YEAR END LIST CLEARLY STATES THAT YOU REALLY GOT ME WAS AT # 79 AND NOT # 78 ON ITS 100 YEAR END LIST LFOR 1964. I'LL KEEP CHANGING IT BACK UNTIL EVEN AN ASSHOLE LIKE YOU WILL SEE THATS IT'S TRUE. YOU WANNA PIECE OF ME?????????? [highlight added]

TO OJOROJO THE IDIOT LOSER MORON.

HEY IDIOT! CHECK OUT THE 1964 BILLBOARD YEAR END LIST FOR 1964. EVEN A LOSER LIKE YOU WILL CLEARLY SEE THAT THE SONG AT # 79 IS YOU REALLY GOT ME BY THE KINKS.IT'S NOT,I REPEAT,NOT AT # 78. YOU'LL KEEP FIXING IT WRONG. I'LL KEEP FISING IT RIGHT. YOU CLEARLY HAVE NO LIFE SO GET ONE!

You Really Got Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is the article in question.

• The source that was used for the article "Charts and certifications" section[117] shows the position as number 78[118]: "Billboard Top 100 for the year ... the Kinks' 'You Really Got Me' (no. 78)".
• IMW1974 changed it to 79, with no new source or explanation/edit summary.[119]
• I reverted it back to the original with the edit summary "was correct according to source used".[120]
• IMW1974 reverted to 79, again with no new source or explanation/edit summary.[121]
• I reverted back to the original with the edit summary "ref provided shows '78', changes need a new source".[122]
• IMW1974 reverted to 79, still with no new source or explanation/edit summary.[123]
• IMW1974 left the rant copied above on my talk page.[124]
• User:IdreamofJeanie reverted IMW1974's comments from my talk page.[125]
• After some research, I found that the original source that was used in the article was incorrect and added a new one that in fact shows it as no. 79.[126]

All IMW1974 had to do was provide the source and this all could have been avoided. I have not come across IMW1974 prior to this that I am aware of; I can't see any explanation for their outburst, but clearly it should not be tolerated in a collaborative project like WP. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Unacceptable, blocked 31 hours. Based on their user page and messages on their talk page this is not an isolated incident. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This editor is lucky that Ivanvector clicked the block button before I did, because I would have blocked for a longer period.The editor has made several unacceptable personal attacks and had been warned about it on June 20, 2021. They also threaten to edit war to get their way. And this is all about minor discrepancies in song chart positions in the 1960s. Ridiculous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas

In April this year I created a draft page for the movie TÁR. User:Bruno Rene Vargas, who at the time was having what I'll call a credit dispute over Cocaine Bear, elected to shove this version to my userspace, and make their own version as a means of spite over my decision to stop the fight at Cocaine Bear by relocating his draft with this abysmal and pathetic rationale "It seems unfair to me that someone like you who months ago reproached my way of creating drafts now does the same and does not suffer what I suffered at the time with Draft: Cocaine Bear. I proceed to send your draft to your personal workshop because I consider that my draft was created with a better format and information, just as you did with User:Bruno Rene Vargas/Cocaine Bear (film). There was a back and forth back then and I, just not wanting to continue dealing with it, dropped the issue. Cut to now, when I notice that the film TAR has now begun filming, I decided to correct the wrong done unto me and use my version and move it to draftspace. Vargas, now using the account @BRVAFL: (despite "permanently retiring") is again utilizing absuive edit practices to continue this spite to again garner credit by twice shoving my work out of the way, despite being warned not to. They are not entitled to any regardless, I created it first anyway as per the edit history, they have no claims to that and has gone on to create multiple needless userspaces I do not want just to continue spiting me. I demand at this point they be blocked for their abusive edit practices and that my version of the article be restored back to userspace. They fundamentally do not care about what's best for the site, just what's best for them. Rusted AutoParts 23:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@TAnthony: @Anthony Appleyard: would WP:HISTMERGE be usable here to clean up all the needless new pages BRV created? Rusted AutoParts 23:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll also ping @Liz:, BRV seems to have taken unbridge with some of her decisions too, from the looks of it. Rusted AutoParts 00:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping but I just do not get the issue about getting "page creator" credit among editors working on contemporary films. This is just pettiness. No one is keeping score and handing out awards for who creates the most film pages. Is this about bragging rights? Work on the article that is the most developed and complete no matter who made the first edit. This is like the old days when talk page participants would yell "FIRST!" when they posted the first comment. I thought this in-fighting would end when Starzoner was blocked but it seems to be endemic to the subject matter. You should be working together to create great articles, not competing with each other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I write this without examining the facts of the case so I'm not passing judgment on who is right, just shaking my head that this bickering is still going on. And Bruno, I thought you retired...no? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I highlight the credit aspect as that's really the only rationale I can fathom as to why Bruno conducts themselves in the way they do. I used to be similarly minded when I would see duplicate versions of an article/draft I made but over time I realized it's both pointless, and duplicate pages tended to fall on my shortcoming of not fully double checking if it already existed. I just wouldn't go to the lengths Bruno has, by sending different versions of the same content spiraling all over the site just to insert theirs. Rusted AutoParts 08:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It does not seem very smart to come here to accuse me making use of lies such as the fact of having cited a dispute in which it was not even you who was arguing with me, you only got to make page movements without anyone having requested it. The one who should be punished for abusing your page-moving privileges is you since you can clearly see the history of unnecessary movements you made to position your draft.BRVAFL (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

You are moving pages simply to spite. That is abusing your abilities. Your choosing to ignore I intervened in a dispute where you were pulling the same shit on @Vistadan: doesn't negate that. Whether I was involved with the Cocaine Bear dispute from the start is not relevant, you were redirecting them repeatedly, despite their version having better information at the time, and you continuing to do that just for the sake of beingf first. Here, in this instance, This isn't two editors making drafts at the same time, this is you LITERALLY discrediting my efforts cause you believe I screwed you over or something. All because you were so offended I simply asked you to improve your draftwork style. How pathetic. Rusted AutoParts 23:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to previous ANI discussion about this issue and these editors: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064#User:Bruno_Rene_Vargas_draftwarring. Schazjmd (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bruno Rene Vargas agrees not to repeat a move of a draft to userspace to create space for his own draft" they certainly ignored that. Rusted AutoParts 23:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely wasting my time here, the fact that there are people like you who prioritize their whims over what others have to contribute tells me that the best decision will be to definitively withdraw. I already tried several times, first when I was editing on the Spanish Wikipedia (where I am blocked up to now) and now the same thing happens to me on the English Wikipedia. This will be my last edition, for me to do what you consider most appropriate, at the end of the day life is too fleeting to waste time in banal discussions like this. If creating pages about movies is not allowed here then I will stop writing about movies and instead start writing my own movie.BRVAFL (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I prioritized ending your bickering over something so trivial as who created it first, not some petty whim like deliberately hijacking an existing edit space to spite. Rusted AutoParts 00:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved opinion The shenanigans with TÁR and the user pages (literally hijacking a page out of what appears to be some WP:OWN silliness) are grounds for drastic and unequivocal action. Suggest A) speedy deleting the hijacked pages and restoring the originals (because this is a collaborative project, so if Bruno had anything constructive, he could just have added it to the existing article) and B) since apparently, this is not the first time, giving the culprit an extended break (potentially of indeterminate duration...), because not heeding the concerns of others with one's edits and repeating the same disruptive silliness, months after being warned about it, is, as in point A), incompatible with participating in a collaborative project. (edit conflict) As for the above comment, and since people will surely ask, in addition to it confirming some of my points, given that Bruno had previously "permanently retired" (only to come back), I don't think it's reason to avoid imposing any sanctions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, if what they want so much is to see me sanctioned myself, I request a permanent blocking of this account and the main account so that if I wanted to return again, I would not be able to do so. As Kendrick Lamar says "Whatever you doin ', just make it count" so I won't waste my time here again.BRVAFL (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Nobody's out there to get you sanctioned. If, however, you're not willing or not able to actually collaborate, and instead keep digging, then there's nothing further that needs to be said. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• @RandomCanadian and Rusted AutoParts: Special:Contributions/BRVAFL shows what pages BRVAFL has worked on; but which of those pages need history-merging or whatever? A look shows TÁR, Draft:Draft:TÁR, User:User:Bruno Rene Bargas/TÁR;:are these relevant? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Man I didn't know just how many pointless versions of this got made in this mess. All three of those are just the exact same thing. They should be merged and moved out of mainspace to reimplement the original version or just be deleted. Rusted AutoParts 08:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous; Wikipedia is not a game to be won, and each one of these unattributed copies of another editor's work is a violation of Wikipedia's content license. Here's what's going to happen here:
  1. I'm removing the page from mainspace and create-protecting the location, and restoring both drafts to their original locations. All other versions will be deleted.
  2. For abuse of the permission, RustedAutoParts' pagemover rights are revoked. They may reapply at any time via the usual process, unless the proposal below passes.
  3. Neither of you is to move either of the drafts, nor make any more cut-and-paste copies of either one, nor create any new drafts for this film. If you do you will be reverted and blocked.

If anything remotely similar to this happens again, you will be blocked from editing. Here is a list of the pages/copies/redirects I've located already; most were created within the last 24 hours:

• TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Draft:TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Bruno Rene Vargas/TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Bruno Rene Vargas/TAR (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:User:Bruno Rene Bargas/TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts/TÁR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts/TAR (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts TAR (film)/1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Rusted AutoParts TAR (film)/2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• -- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Scratch that proposal I wrote here earlier (I've removed it). On further investigation the disruption here is all Bruno Rene Vargas' doing, and it's plainly obvious that they're trying to steal credit for other users' contributions and settle old scores, and doing so in a way that is highly disruptive to prove a point. So I'm going to simply propose that Bruno Rene Vargas (using any account) is banned from moving any page, period. (Cut and paste moves are already forbidden) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Primefac and I were working on this at the same time and might have stepped on each other a bit, but I think we've got this down to the original two pages. The draft originally authored by RustedAutoParts now lives in the article namespace, while the version that Bruno Rene Vargas created some time later and repeatedly tried to hijack over the first version by cutting and pasting has been reassembled and lives at Draft:TAR (film). Several redirects from page moves are littered around the project but all the actual content is now in the history at one of those two pages. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: move ban

To formally agree with Ivanvector's point above, I am proposing that Bruno Rene Vargas (under any identity or alt account) is banned from moving pages. I was hoping this whole "who gets credit thing" was limited primarily to Starzoner (now indeffed) who was doing similar things but on a much larger scale. Through that entire experience I was in discussions with Bruno and thought I had intimated that these "who gets credit" issues are trivial, and that they understood, but clearly I was mistaken. I am not going to go through another dragged out dramafest like with Starzoner, so it's time to nip this in the bud. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - is this something that can be enforced by use of the software or are we relying on Bruno Rene Vargas to not move pages on pain of an indef? Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  An edit filter could be set up to prevent page moves. Otherwise, it would be based on checking their move history occasionally. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's not the best reason to consume an edit filter, and I'm more concerned about the cut-and-paste moves personally. A move ban works just like a topic ban, really. We (presently) can't block someone from page moves, but the tradeoff is if they don't follow this restriction, we'll block them from everything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Rusted AutoParts 18:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As the minimum. After violating their voluntary ban this proposal seems necessary. Tiderolls 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support to prevent future problems and to have the restriction on record should BRV undo their most recent retirement. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support One extended rodeo of that sort was enough, thank you. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per having proposed this above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This behavior is unacceptable. - Aoidh (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support – it seems being able to move drafts and articles makes it impossible for Vargas to edit constructively. Restricting it may help him to become more accustomed to working collaboratively and stop being so concerned with how many drafts or articles he has "officially" created. —El Millo (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

96.19.71.229 again

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

User is continuing their edit warring ways, this time repeatedly attempting cut & paste page moves on various Windows articles. Looks like they haven't learned their lesson even after release of their first block. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for three months. Let me know if problems resume later. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic aspersions, bulk POV edits and re-reverts

Toghrul R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Removal of sourced content from contentious areas [127], [128], [129]. Source Armenpress oldest news agency in Armenia
• Similar bulk disruptive edits in AA topics, just a few: [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136].
• re-reverts in AA area without opening a discussion, notified of WP:BRD, [137], [138]
• Casting ethnic and other aspersions when confronted for their disruptive edits, and disregard for the official MFA statements just because the reporting source is Armenian (the oldest one in the country btw): [139], [140] | full discussion: [141].
• still going and re-reverting as we speak [142]

Their POV edits, subsequent blind re-reverts without discussion (even when they were notified of relevant guidelines such as WP:BRD), and casting of ethnic aspersions (one might say hatred of Armenia/Armenians) suggest that the user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting before i was going to you report you. I removed unsourced information from the articles and I totally stand by my edits, while on Shusha article, I created a heading in which we can talk about the claims. There's not a vandal act there as you exaggerate. While you stated that I don't care what your opinion is. This type of statement cannot lead to fruitful discussions. And Here some of your reverts which go against the rules: [143] [144] [145] [146]. Once again, i stand by my edits, so your reverts of unsourced content are against the rules, straight up. — Toghrul R (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

At least do the bare minimum and link the exact diff, so people can see what you're talking about. My response was to you bringing my supposed ethnicity (which you have no way of knowing btw) 2 times in a row, after I kindly implied you to stop and focus on the edits [147] (there is much you should focus on right now): yet you still persisted [148], [149]. Comment on content, not on the contributor.

Here some of your reverts which go against the rules [149] [150] [151] [152]

Care to explain what rules? How do I know your edits aren't just another POV like you did with above examples removing official Artsakh MFA statements just because "source was Armenian"? Hence, the reason I explained and reverted you per WP:BRD, yet you re-reverted me after without opening a discussion in all of the articles I reverted you. I don't think you're here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni first off, i have been on Wikipedia for many years, please check my activity. I'm not a controversial person, but in this case your tone of speech ("what the hell", "I don't care") ruins the process. Your etnicity has a role in your view, sad but it's true. If you're an Armenian, you support Armenia. As for the sources, it's not a guesswork, if the source (in this case: the statement) doesn't include exact names, you cannot add that to the article (in this case Madagiz, Shusha and etc.). It's just a statement to relieve the people who suffered from the war, that's it. Your reverts ([149] [150] [151] [152]) were absolutely incorrect. Firstly, NKAO was located in Azerbaijan SSR. We mention the birthplace in the articles and correct subdivisions that existed back in the day. Toghrul R (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toghrul R: It is absolutely not true that [i]f you're an Armenian, you support Armenia. I know that may be hard to believe, but people can have nuanced and complicated feelings about their home country. I highly recommend you strike that statement (by adding <s></s> around it). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

And armenpress doesn't mention Madagiz, Shusha or other places: [150]. So the verification fails in this case. That reference can be added inside of the article of Artsakh as it mentions that "The territories of Artsakh are considered occupied by Azerbaijan", nothing else — Toghrul R (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop, this is not the place to discuss content, see Wikipedia:ANI_advice (you should've done this in the talk pages of articles which you failed to do). The issue here is your editing behavior and your breach of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BRD, WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:CONSENSUS. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The root of the issue comes from that citation and your false reverts, so without discussing the contents it's impossible to determine the guilty. Toghrul R (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading my replies very carefully or any of the relevant guidelines. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the guidelines. In my case, I've done my edits absolutely correctly and stand by them. — Toghrul R (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, "Your etnicity (SP) has a role in your view, sad but it's true. If you're an Armenian, you support Armenia." That is a dangerous precedent to set. It would almost seem you suggest that a person of a particular ethnicity can not edit articles related to their ethnicity or in reference to without presenting a non-neutral POV or that they may even have a COI because of their ethnicity. We shouldn't be trying to guess ethnicity here on Wikipedia or assume that it plays a role even if you believe it does. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, I know, but unfortunately, that's the core of the issue. The rage between the countries and people is at its peak, so his reverts are quite understandable in my book. Looking for the tiniest details, etc. By the way, whenever I edit an article, I feel attacked by others. Most of the time I check their user page and it says that they belong to the mentioned etnicity. I wouldn't want to talk about this on an encyclopedia, and feel sorry for this, but it's the situation, not only on enwiki, but other platforms as well. — Toghrul R (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, that's not an excuse. The fact you search for it as a means to determine the intent of an editor is troubling in my opinion. Assuming good faith is not an option and we are not to assume bad faith based on ethnicity. That goes against the very core principles of Wikipedia. If you were that aware of guidelines and principles then you should know that. This has morphed from a simple content issue into something that is bizarre and concerning. --ARoseWolf 13:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf The intention i have from the beginning is to remove falsification of reality, even thou the I don't care what your opinion is comment made by the user makes it impossible to have a consent on the issue. I've said nothing against his/her will, didn't say that he has a bad faith because of his ethnicity. I said that it's understandable for him/her to make such edits (reverts). — Toghrul R (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I already showed the context of my reply with diffs, Here again [151]. Yet you try to 'clinch' on something to belittle me or my arguments. Indeed, I don't care about your ethnical aspersions. Just because the community is busy with "drama" (learned yesterday, apparently how this board is described [152] :)) doesn't mean your continual repetition without context will go unnoticed. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Toghrul R, You referred to their reversion as "vandalism". How is that not bad faith? Vandalism is one of the most serious charges of bad faith here. You admitted, right here in this discussion, that you arrived at this conclusion based upon assumption of their ethnicity. --ARoseWolf 13:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: yes, i did. But it was not because of the person, but the revert itself. It's quite misleading. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to keep going here or can you just admit you targeted his edits and called them vandalism because you believe the editor is Armenian and you disagree with their view of the issue? I'll leave this right here as yet another exhibit of how you keep trying to move the target. If it's not about the editor or their ethnicity then why even say this, Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits.? --ARoseWolf 18:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm already aware of the guidelines

Oh really, then you should be aware that you're breaching WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS. The disruptive edits you did on mutliple pages already enjoyed consensus at the very least per WP:SILENCE hence my reverts to consensus/stable version. As shown by the diffs above, most if not all of your edits were unsourced addtions on Armenia/Armenians related pages. When you get reverted (espeically in contetious articles), it's on you to achieve consensus for your changes on talk. You failed to do so in every article I reverted you in and edit-warred with re-reverts later. Your contributions history is full of examples (as the diffs mentioned above) [153].

Moreover, breaches of WP:PERSONAL and casting ethnical and “vandalism” aspersions done by you [154] [155]. Some quotes:

• Chipmunkdavis, ZaniGiovanni is Armenian, so his defence on the issue is quite understandable. In general, Armenia tries to calm their citizens down by referring to the lost areas as claimed or occupied by Azerbaijan. In reality, it's controlled (both de-facto and de-jure) by Azerbaijan, so the country should be Azerbaijan only, no matter the Armenian media says.
• Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits. Wikipedia is based on neutral sources (if the local ones are not necessary). The so-called Artsakh MFA can say anything, they can even call the lands not lost, but the reality and 3rd party sources say otherwise.

FYI,

1) you had no way of knowing if I'm Armenian (or any nationality for that matter), and you automatically assumed and cast your bigoted and completely WP:OR aspersions

2) I didn't do any edits, I reverted your disruptive edits and sourced content removal / sourceless additions per WP:BRD yet you re-reverted me and refused to open talk discussions. The one and only discussion you opened so far was in Talk:Shusha#Country_section, where I didn't even revert you [156] (and discussion topic seems to also be different, but again POV focused)

3) Since you're admitting yourself that you're aware of relevant guidelines and still see no wrong-doing in your editing approach, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that you're not here to build an encyclopedia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand, but I mentioned that I assumed your etnicity due to the nature of your edits, and to show that obvious conflict between the nations shouldn't make its way here. I'm not for that on Wikipedia, never have been. Plus, haven't added any unsourced information on the articles, but removed them, stated that many times already. Reverting is also a part of the editing process, it means that you agree with the provided data. I've been creating neutral articles, and the scenery on this side of became quite concerning to me to say the least. — Toghrul R (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Toghrul R, do you not see how you violated WP:BRD in regards to this diff? --ARoseWolf 13:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  ARoseWolf excuse me, but it's not. Let me explain. The Hadrut Region is different, it was within the divisions of Artsakh. Aknakbyur was the name given to the settlement after the capture of the town in 1993. So, from 1993 to 2020 i can agree the given division, but for 1930, the name was Ağbulaq and it was located within Hadrut District not Hadrut. Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, Azerbaijan SSR, Soviet Union follows the rest. He reverted to Aknakbyur, Hadrut, Nagorno Karabakh which is incorrect. Nagorno Karabakh was not an administrative division in 1930, but Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was. Cheers — Toghrul R (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why is any of that relevant to BRD? You made a change, you were reverted and you restored that change. DeCausa (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa and ARoseWolf: because the revert he made led to false information. The same with this diff and this diff as well. The user removes the word Azerbaijan for no reason, but it should be there. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Then the onus is on you, as the editor who made the initial change (the "B" in BRD) to then discuss why it should stand, not to simply revert the revert again. If you truly believe the information was false, provide a source to verify your position and discuss the change. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: the administrative divisions don't require a citation in my opinion. It's already written in the relevant articles, so a reader can see the administrative chain. That was the original intention while making such changes. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  All information requires a citation, especially if it's considered controversial or likely to be challenged, and editors reverted its addition is explicitly challenging the information, so the need for verification is clear. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  because the revert he made led to false information

  Ah yes, reverting "false information" of course. We'll return to this, but firstly,

  I think you just don't listen at this point. I reverted you, the articles were modified/edited today by you. So your subsequent re-reverts without attempting to talk is indeed WP:EW, and a clear breach of WP:BRD .

  Regarding your edits and "false information reverts": What Azerbaijan SSR and this person have to with each other [157]? Did you even read their birth date of 1998? Azerbaijan SSR was long gone by that time. How was your edit an improvement to the article? Why did you re-revert me again without a discussion [158]? This was nothing but a disruption and a clear POV, and I'm baffled by your persistent stubbornness here.

  It doesn't even feel right discussing all this content issues here, which you should've done in any, just ONE of the article's talk page. Yet you choose to edit-war, cast aspersions, and then come here to discuss content? What? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) @DeCausa, ARoseWolf, and Grapple X:, I concur with you all. User:Toghrul R, your behavior is concerning and that includes your behavior across articles violating BRD, your behavior towards users both when you insult them and invoke their nationality, and your behavior here as you stubbornly refuse to see that you're in the wrong regardless of how many users point it out to you. We don't need to discuss if you did wrong, as that's settled. The matter is rather this: if you are allowed to continue editing Wikipedia, how will your behavior change? Jeppiz (talk) 14:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @DeCausa, ARoseWolf, Grapple X, and Jeppiz: excuse for the ping, but i never denounce another person for their nationality. The reasons for the reverts were not because of this, but for administrative divisions which have been widely used across Wikidata as well. I'm an administrator on another wiki, and create articles in different languages as well. Among which there're Armenian people too. Does this exonerate me from being free here? Of course, not. I respect the principles on Wikipedia and the decisions made here, but if a user says I don't care what your opinion is, then i think there's no point in discussing it, so i'll leave it and take a rest. — Toghrul R (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I’ve had a look at your edits and I see you’re making a series of mass changes on a number of Armenia/Azerbaijan articles. That’s a bad idea to start with. But I see that your approach is to revert when you get reverted as you have been multiple times. This isn’t just with the OP but others too eg here. You need to stop doing this and head for the talk page when that happens. Being right isn’t a defence to edit-warring. And, btw, stop calling edits vandalism when they are not, and stop talking about others’ ethnicity. You will get blocked if you continue in that vein. DeCausa (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Note to the community - this is the third time user brings out of context quote and tries to belittle my arguments based on it. Third time I'm showing the context:

  After their ethnical aspersions [159], [160], I correctly (to which I stand by) said that I don't care about their bigoted opinions and showed the exact reasons of my actions and relevant guidelines. Here, [161]. You can have a look and judge by yourself, as I'm not just going to provide diffless quotes out of context. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  DeCausa i don't talk about it, the discussion mentioned that so i had to clarify it that my intention is not bad, but to provide clear knowledge — Toghrul R (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  That’s simply untrue. You brought it up first on CMD’s talk page. And, btw, the OP saying “I don’t care what your opinion is” is in response to you saying “Yes, the ethnicity has a huge impact on the settlement of your vandalism edits.” The OP’s response is justified. DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) It may sound uncooperative and certainly could have been worded better, but ultimately when it comes to article content, no one's opinion matters—your opinion, or mine, or any other editor's, is not verifiable, not reliable, and not pertinent. Now, if you presented adequate sourcing verifying your position and a reverting editor refused to discuss this, then you would be in the right to pull them on not engaging in the BRD cycle, but you still have to initiate that discussion regardless of whether you think they will engage or not. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 14:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Toghrul R, I'll be blunt. Any of the following is likely lead to your expulsion (WP:TBAN) from the WP:AA2 topic area: 1. Ethno-national personalizing of disputes; ascribing ethno-national -inspired motives to your fellow editors during these. 2. Calling legit good faith edits vandalism (see what vandalism is not), a personal attack. 3. Contested mass changes. 4. edit warring, especially over items that you have introduced (WP:BRD, WP:ONUS). I think that's it. Hoping you're not gonna Dunning-Kruger it up, like the user whom I banned from the WP:BALKANS topic area yesterday, following a noticeboard discussion that bears certain parallels to this one. I am loggin this warning. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  @El C: I took a break for a few hours to deal with real-life issues, and feel relieved to comment again on the topic. While AA2 topics are quite irritating, i think it's better to keep the drama out of Wikipedia and keep it for somewhere else. Thank you for your take on it. — Toghrul R (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Nylankramwiki

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

---

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

After Nylankramwiki attempted to create a duplicate copy of Jean Garcia at Jean Garcia (Actress), I turned the latter into a redirect, with an explanation in the edit summary [162]. They wrote Hey fuck youu what is your problem on my article [163] on my talk page; I tried to clearly explain the issue in my reply [164]. Another personal attack followed [165], and yet another after a warning on their talk page [166]. This is not the first time they have lashed out at other editors [167]. DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

I just wanted to add to this, they had created a draft Jean Garcia Official that was a copy of the main article, so I deleted it. I would note that it seems the account is claiming to be the article subject, and it seems they're viewing Wikipedia in the same way as a social media account on other platforms, hence the Jean Garcia Official designations. So we may not want to completely dismiss the editor. However the behaviour and attitude are not acceptable and if it is that person, it's not a good look. However given the language usage, it doesn't strike me as an experience 52 year old actress. Canterbury Tail talk 14:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I doubt an experienced 52-year-old actress would be trying to directly promote herself - her agents/promotional staff would, but not her herself. Image is everything. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ZeusAmmon1

This user did posted a message falsely claiming I am a Greek editor and containing another personal attack because I disagreed with him.[168] Then he admitted there is an organized editing community on Turkey-related Wiki articles.[169] Later, he claimed that there is an Armenian trolling group.[170] Lastly, he said that my profile is "full of being how great being greek" and claimed that I am being "paid" for this.[171] This shows clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You litterly miss understood everything. How did you manage it do it? And i didn't ask you for do you gettin paid for "full of being how great being greek". I litterly said do you get paid as moderator. What is wrong with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusAmmon1 (talk • contribs)

(Non-administrator comment) Please refrain from making personal attacks as you did here. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, and moderators are not paid as you claim; as such we are to focus on the edits and not the editors. If there is a content dispute regarding information on the Turkish War of Independence page, please use that article's talk page to discuss—with reliable sources—any changes necessary, but do not resort to insulting editors you disagree with. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Which part do i attack him? Greek nationalists accuse me of being an organized nationalist troll and when I answered i get warning but your beloved mod not getting one. This is literaly called as hypocrisy sir ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Accusing someone of having "brain seizures" simply because you disagree with them is clearly a personal attack. If you do not have content to contribute to the article in question it may be better to walk away from any argument rather than engaging in insults. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

He twist my words and you're focused about i said "brain seizures" , since when brain seizures is an attack? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just minutes after this incident on Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Possible_Turkish_Nationalist_Troll_Network_and_Meatpuppetry_Case, a highly-followed, aforementioned Twitter account shared a post on this event.[172] This user is clearly WP:CANVASSING.--V. E. (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Again with the ethnicity stuff? I can see some TBAN's or even main space bans coming in the future over this mess. ZeusAmmon1, you knew you were insulting and attacking when you accused them of having "brain seizures". You meant it as an attack because they were frustrating you. But you allowed that frustration to turn into a personal attack rather than walking away (that is a thing). Canvassing isn't cool either and I hope it stops but I'm not confident it will. The content issues should be discussed on the article's talk page. I wish people would just forget what they think they know and open their ears and eyes and pay attention to what they are saying and doing. Attacking someone because of their ethnicity is so ridiculous. We all come from somewhere so we all have an ethnicity. Yours is no better than anyone else's. Neither does mine qualify me to edit any more than yours and it sure doesnt make my edits more relevant than yours. The same goes for everyone else. Just stop it already. --ARoseWolf 16:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Apparently he didnt say anything about voting. He says look what wiki mods are doing. If you're not understanding Turkish why still trying to accuse someone for WP:CANVASSING. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The Brain seizure part and the repeating of it jointly with hypocrisy seems to merit some admin action. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

You keep saying ethnicity but it's nothing about ethnicity ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The diffs pointed out by Paradise Chronicle: "Do you have brain seizures or what?" and the clarification that only makes it worse: "And "Do you have brain seizures or what?" part simply means your hypocrite and pretending differenly." are outright personal attacks which are not allowed on Wikipedia. A personal attack does not have to be an ethnic slur.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ZeusAmmon1, I am assuming you are making a serious statement in response to my comment. "I am actually a socialist. And you're a greek nationalist." If it had nothing to do with ethnicity then why did you bring it up to them? --ARoseWolf 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad finally someone asked properly. That person took a screenshot and said, "Look, Turkish nationalists gather and trolls like this, sometimes by deliberately making wrong translations." I felt the need to respond to this because I am neither a nationalist as he mentioned, nor am I a member of any group, nor am I trolling. I didn't even have a conversation with the person he called as this person is organizing. The person in that account, whom he refers to as a nationalist, also says that he is not a nationalist. And when I told that he pretended like I say quite opposite. Anyway as a response I told him I am nationalist but apparently, you're nationalist. But when I called him a greek nationalist he acted as greek is a slur but it's not a slur and never was. Dunno why but he acted weirdly and i asked "Do you have brain seizures or what?" why do you make this? Yet again he acted like I say brainless or etc. Also when I simply asked does moderator getting paid? (which I asked as a serious question) and his response was creating Adminastor notebooks and wrote this "Lastly, he said that my profile is "full of being how great being greek" and claimed that I am being "paid" for this.". This is only one of the things he purposely typing false things. And about "Later, he claimed that there is an Armenian trolling group" part I am not claiming I do have some proof and her tweets still stands here. on her profile you can see "Co-founder of #WikiArtsakh". This is their group and they're breaking COM:NPOV. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Your message is factually incorrect, I did not call you nationalist nor troll. Besides, you thought that I was Greek with prejudice; because, as I said earlier, I am not Greek which means you label people as Greek when you disagree with them. Secondly, you are falsely assuming random Wikipedians on Twitter to be a part of troll group. In fact, they are not even editing English Wikipedia as it is apparently seen in the image. AFAIK, this misinformation was spread by the same Twitter user I mentioned earlier; you shouldn't take him seriously as he publishes incorrect information. The only part you are right is me incorrectly linking "paid moderatorship" to being Greek; however, that's irrelevant to the personal attack you did. Lastly, I did not mention the other PA which does not relate to ethnicity explicitly, because, it was already an obvious one.--V. E. (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• This whole discussion has gotten weird. I'm suggesting to a potential closing admin to close the discussion with a warning to both editors. WP:AGF is non-negotiable. WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable. Both probably need to take a break or both might end up with a TBAN, or more, and before you say anything, Visnelma, we can all see your talk page and we know you've had some issues with civility in the recent past. We need to take our own medicine sometimes, self included. Let's keep it real. Overall I believe a request for both to take a more civil tone with each other and discuss content, only, on article talk pages is in order. If you both can't do that I would suggest a self-imposed interaction ban. I don't think we want any escalation and sometimes it serves both parties in a dispute if we walk away from it. The disparaging remarks on ethnicity and back-in-forth as if this is a battleground needs to stop. That's my personal observation. I will yield to my fellow editors for more discussion should they feel it necessary. --ARoseWolf 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Hi, during this discussion, I am unsure where I was being uncivil or did not assume GF. If you think there is a contrete reason for that, please quote the most offensive message I posted. However, I strongly believe that I did not post any such messages. On the contrary, there is a clear violation by the user that multiple non-involved users quoted. Regarding the previous incident on my talk page, it's a seperate issue and is completely irrelevant to the current discussion as that discussion was not related to the same article-topic nor it was an argument with the same user. Besides, it is not "some issues", it was a single-time issue. You suggested an interaction and topic ban, but another incident with another user should be a reason to impose such a restriction.--V. E. (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I also yielded but you brought me back so I will explain. I never said you were uncivil, this time. To your point, this is one incident, is it not? My words were those of caution and a call for both of you to take a more kindly approach with other editors in light of these issues. I suggested neither a TBAN nor an interaction ban from this particular discussion or any other in the past, simply a close with a warning. Regardless it is just a suggestion to whomever closes the discussion and I believe that astute individual is competent enough to know that my suggestions are just that. They are based on my observation of the totality of the issue and mine alone. I encourage you to continue discussing any content related concerns on the associated article talk page and if you have any content related questions please feel free to visit the teahouse. Happy editing! --ARoseWolf 21:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is not important because it was one incident, however, I think seperate issues should be discussed seperately. If you or anyone else wants to discuss it, I let it be known that anyone is welcome to my talk page. However, I am not sure why you want me to be warned for something happened in the past which is not related to the current discussion. If there was a continuation of the same behaviour after that incident, I would get it but it was not repeated by me again. Best regards.--V. E. (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See, this is the canvassing I was talking about.[173]--V. E. (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: I hope you are not thinking the same after all the canvassing this user caused.--V. E. (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Andlol17, disruptive editing and out of process draftifications

• Andlol17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Weboproj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over the last couple of days these two accounts have been trying to create an article on Ranaghat News, the current article is located at Draft:Ranaghat News. The article was drafted twice due to lacking sources and generally not meeting the minimum standards for an article [174] [175]. After trying to win the move war by requesting page protection [176] the page was move protected at it's draft location with instructions to submit it for review.

Following this Andlol17 seems to have been going on a spree of draftifications, sending articles on other newspapers to draft space on the basis that they lack sufficient sources to remain published. they did this to the article on Bartaman [177] and to the article on Sangbad Pratidin [178]. The issue is that both these draftifications were not done in line with policy - these articles are 16 and 15 years old respectivley, WP:ATD-I is clear that draftification should only be done to recently created articles, if there are concerns about notability they should be prodded or sent to AFD. Because of the subject of the daftification (other newspapers) and timing I can't help but feel that these are being draftified for "revenge" purposes.

I requested that Bartaman be undraftified a couple of days ago when I noticed what had happened to it [179] and another IP has just shown up at the teahouse complaining about the missing article for Sangbad Pratidin [180]. The article was temporarily moved back to article space by User:Blaze The Wolf before being re-draftified by User:Deepfriedokra.

In accordance with WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTOBJECT The article on Sangbad Pratidin should be moved back to article space and dealt with through PRODS or AFD if necessary. I ask other admins to look at the draftifications that Andlol17 performed and to judge whether they were for disruptive purposes. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to include this in my original report, but I think it's worth noting that most of the remainder of Andlol17's edits consist of adding links to Ranaghat News' website to various articles [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] and adding Ranaghat News to various list articles [187] [188] so I think it's highly likely that there's some COI involved here. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not making any comments on this other than that I think one account is a sock of the other because of how similar their behavior is with both accounts having tried to create an article on Ranaghat News. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:TEAHOUSE

Sangbad Pratidin is a reputed reliable print Bengali newspaper started in 1992, created in 2006 in Wikipedia, is already supported by reliable sources. I request to restore it. It looks like it was moved to Draft:Sangbad Pratidin erroneously or by someone who does not understand Bengali topics or about the region. I request to restore it. Please find the weblink to get familiar (https://www.sangbadpratidin.in/) and e-paper link (https://epaper.sangbadpratidin.in/). Thank you. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC) This is a piece of page move vandalism - the account that did this did the same thing with Bartaman a couple of days ago. They seem to be on a spree of revenge draftifications because their article wasn't accepted. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) pinging @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra:. The editors Andlol17 should be blocked immediately causing vandalism and Sangbad Pratidin should be restored. I pinged you both since you have commented at Andlol17's talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Hello IP! I decided to be bold and move the article back out of the Draft space. I hope my reasoning is sufficient enough for people to understand why I did it. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: thanks for helping. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) Hello, indeed, the move does did not make sense, I think. I asked them about the move. The editor has not edited after that and I am waiting for their response. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC) The move has since been undone by User:Deepfriedokra with appropriate reasoning. IT will probably be moved back if it should remain out of Draft space. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: You are not helping. This clearly lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to show notability. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC) My apologies. I did not fully understand the situation. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Blaze The Wolf: Might I suggest you reread WP:CORP, and if you are not an AfC reviewer, do please leave main spacing drafts to those who are? Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) Will do! Reading what was going on I thought it was someone who was making article's drafts for no reason but it appears that the move had valid reasoning. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: I disagree with your draftification of the article, it doesn't line up with policy - From Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation If recently created, articles that have potential, but that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the Wikipedia:Drafts namespace ... Because many drafts are not regularly reviewed, unilaterally moving articles to draft space ("draftifying") should generally be done only for newly created articles (as part of new page review or otherwise) or as the result of a deletion discussion. Incubation is not intended to be a "backdoor route to deletion" A 15 year old article should not be getting draftified - if you think the sourcing is poor and does not demonstrate notability (which it doesn't - the sources in the article are really poor) then prod it or send it to AFD. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2) User:Deepfriedokra, Thanks for your comment. I think the articles passes #3, #4, and possibly more of the notability criteria. I agree that the article needs better demonstration/sourcing. If you search, please use alternative spelling or variants such as "Pratidin", "Pratidin newspaper", "Sambad Pratidin". Example: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (See Google Books). Happy to discuss this further or work on to improve the article collaboratively. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Titodutta and Deepfriedokra: Its really surprising that Andlol17 is doing this because Draft:Ranaghat News was declined. You are letting vandalism to go undetected. I am really sorry for ourselves. For prrofs see @Deepfriedokra: your talk page. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Related discussion at User talk:Deepfriedokra

Sangbad Pratidin was not moved by admin Liz. It was done as an act of vandalism. See logs [189]. Andlol17 has done that since Draft:Ranaghat News ‎ was declined (see [190] and [191]) and in revenge. See proof [192] for Bartaman and [193] for Sangbad Pratidin. Also @Titodutta: for views. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Yes, @Titodutta:. damn tremorsInterested in your views as this clearly has not been shown to meet WP:NCORP, and 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 looks like they have a WP:COI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Sdrqaz: You moved another page that looks dratifiable. Need your input. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: I having nothing to do, I came across Sangbad Pratidin as part of my school project info, and now found its gone and moved to draft. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC) You might want to report Andlol17 at WP:ANI. Awaiting more feed back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I am Andlol17 reporting at WP:ANI. Its really a shame how a person is removing articles since their drafts Draft:Ranaghat News got rejected 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I was just in the process of writing up an ANI report when the other IP decided to ping a load of other people, I'll post something in a minute. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @192.76.8.74: I am waiting for my fellow IP editor to post a complaint. This is ridiculous. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Give me a minuite, I'm getting the diffs together. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @192.76.8.74: please go ahead and report. Also, @Deepfriedokra: Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj by removing your comments (proof) and working on Draft:Ranaghat News. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC) Done Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Andlol17, disruptive editing and out of process draftifications 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC) I assume we're talking about my move of Bartaman. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftifications should only be carried out in a few instances: following an AfD, when the creator has a COI, or during new page patrol. Given the page had been in the mainspace since 2005 and none of them applied (okay, maybe the creator had a COI going off Special:Diff/23752861, but so many people have edited it since that it's basically moot), it's far more desirable to put it through AfD than draftify it and probably get it deleted after half a year. For me, the same applies to Sangbad Pratidin – it's been in the mainspace since 2006 and the ship has sailed long ago as far as NPP is concerned. Also relevant but ignored by most NPPers: WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that if an editor raises an objection to draftification it should be moved back to mainspace and AfD should be used. I'd argue that doesn't hold for COI and paid editors (their work really should go through AfC), but that doesn't come into play for Bartaman and Sangbad Pratidin. I'd advocate keeping it in the mainspace, especially given how long it's been there. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC) @Sdrqaz: thanks for a through and logical explanation. I don't know how to report at WP:ANI. One of the fellow IP editor 192.76.8.74 said he/she will do it. Also,Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj and fooling us. That needs to be stopped. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Titodutta and Blaze The Wolf:, 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466,. Apologies all around for my part in this. I made a number of mistakes here. I will return the one I moved to draft to where it started. Please let me know what other blunders I've made today. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Thank you. Looks like only the issue of sock remains un-attended as pointed by Blaze The Wolf 2409:4061:2C90:7EBD:E18D:7915:CA79:72ED (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To investigate the possible socking going on would could open up an investigation at WP:SPI, however that would require figuring out which one is the master and which one is the sock of the master. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: It's alright! I was a bit confused when you moved it back due to how I had understood the situation and assume that I has misunderstood what was being stated. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 18:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted, but I wish people would just follow WP:DRAFTOBJECT and list this at WP:AFD if they think it should be deleted rather than edit-war and argue about the issue here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

• 2A01:4C8:1404:22BB:8CBD:914F:8A9F:2115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, I made some edits on Zombie (The Cranberries song) that removed non-reliable sources and some general copy-editing. Today, User:2A01:4C8:1404:22BB:8CBD:914F:8A9F:2115 made this edit on the page in which they changed a word in a sentence and gave a passive-aggressive edit summary. The sentence in question beforehand read "Graham Fuller commented that the metaphor could "reanimates the children whose deaths inspired O'Riordan to write it"." before they changed it to "Graham Fuller commented that the metaphor perhaps "reanimates the children whose deaths inspired O'Riordan to write it"." I then received a message from them here on my talk page in which they flat out attacked me and named me the specific reason they "will not donate any cash to the Wikipedia project" and that I "demean it and all the dead children".

For context, I did not write this sentence originally (I don't know who did). This IP is implying that because I made a string of edits to the page yet missed this sentence, I am a disgrace to the WP project and "demeans dead children". I replied to them here explaining that. According to their contributions page the IP is already partially blocked but I still thought I should bring it up here in case another course of action needed to be taken. Thank you. – zmbro _(talk) 16:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

See also the IP range's other edits to user talk pages. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

For a particularly egregious example, look at this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Mehedihasn and a physics hoax

I don't think it's quite blatant enough for AIV so I'm bringing this here. Mehedihasn has been playing a nice game of tap-dancing with a physics hoax, Draft:Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2 (layperson explanation of why it's nonsense). They submitted it at AFC, and it was declined a couple of times, and then they moved it to mainspace directly, and then it was speedily deleted, then they got it refunded and recreated it in article space, so it was snow close deleted at AFD, and then their latest two refund requests were declined and today they've tried to blank the AFD page. We're clearly just going to see more disruption (however transparent) until the user is actually blocked—they've never made unrelated edits and made no serious engagement in discussion of why it's pseudoscience. An admin could also choose to salt Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2 and Draft:Derivation of E=mc^(2n+2) from Einstein's E=mc^2. Since the topic is complete nonsense, I can't possibly see an issue with these pages being creation protected. — Bilorv (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. It makes no difference if this nonsense is a hoax or a crank theory. As for salting, that could be circumvented by a slight rewording. If this nonsense returns, any new account can be indeffed for block evasion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Username006 closing own page move discussion & general competence issues

Username006 has had a troublesome and frustrating past in making (and latterly requesting) page moves that have not always been widely accepted as sensible. This morning perhaps things have got too much for them and they made this [[194]] move on a page they had made a move request for and was under discussion Talk:BKS_Air_Transport_Flight_6845#Requested_move_9_August_2021 for which there is as yet undetermined consensus.

The edit summary for the move was "The move request has been stretching on for too long. Nothing much is going to happen anymore. It is evident that it should be renamed to the proposed title." I must say this is typical of this user and the sensibleness of such an edit is only really "evident" to them. I do think that there is a general question of this users competence not in a technical sense (these are fixable) but in a general willingness to understand how Wikipedia works.

@Acroterion: @WilliamJE:

Andrewgprout (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Username006 has been warned multiple times for making page moves without prior consensus. He was also blocked temporarily for just that. In fact he came close to being indefinitely blocked for his behavior. They deserve another at least temporary block for his latest actions. 006's general conduct, as seen on his talk page, has been problematic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also note they seem to have a habit of badgering those who take the opposing position in the debate, as they did with Andrewgprout in the linked debate, and in Talk:1961 Ndola United Nations DC-6 crash to a lesser extent. BilledMammal (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I had previously given 006 strong advice to not make undiscussed moves or moves against consensus to make "obvious" corrections. Technically, I can't impose a formal move ban - that's a community decision. The alternative is a catch-all disruptive editing block, Therefore, short of blocking, I suggest a formal community move ban for Username006, since they keep trying to claim IAR and overwhelming obviousness that nobody else perceives. It is my perception that Username 006 is very young, and may simply be out of their element on WP. Acroterion (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I've left yet another note on their talkpage, warning that if they're going to branch out from their own interpretation of move guidelines into a personal MoS, a site ban my be required. Acroterion (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd support such a restriction, or eventual ban. Five months of these unilateral moves and it does not seem to be getting any better. Eventually WP:IDHT becomes WP:CIR. Meters (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support a CBAN on moving pages. I note in the BKS case that 006 moved a page in which they had initiated the move request. This is a practice that should be avoided, even where there is clear consensus. Mjroots (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a TBAN on moving pages. The recent item was an egregious move in clear opposition to the RM consensus in an RM that he initiated [195]. When compounded by various recent warnings and blocks for the same reason, a TBAN is the least we should do here. Softlavender (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Skiyomi

I wished to bring to attention that after another socking by User:Skiyomi I have placed full protection on their user talk page, as I see no reason for others to post there with the risk of further evasion. I invite others to review this and change if desired. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree out of exhaustion with that user and this prior thread. @Deepfriedokra: Star Mississippi 20:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes a nice honey trap. But, yeah. Exhausting. So exhausting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

In hopes that a UTRS ban works before user posts there, I've banned that last one. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

My original question was whether or not I can decline to take a unblock request here from UTRS. (Skiyomi being a poor example, cause yeah.) That question was not actually answered, but . . . . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you can decline to take an unblock request, at least when a user is community banned, based on the wording of the ban appeal, where it says about asking an administrator to post their appeal to AN,"This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess."Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, without presuming to speak for the entire community (and having discussed this issue with you briefly before) I don't think the community would oblige you to transclude appeal requests, regardless of previous involvement. I assume that if another admin subsequently felt it appropriate and filed an appeal, you wouldn't be offended or consider it wheel-warring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: As I clearly demonstrated earlier today, I sometimes make mistakes. So, I rely on the good judgement of my colleagues. I am never offended if another admin sees their way to doing something I could not. I would make clear in my UTRS note that anyone else should feel free to carry to the community what I did not. My concern is with usurping the Community's prerogatives by preemptively saying "nope" and denying them the opportunity to decide. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone having a concern with that approach, and your track-record in this instance speaks for itself. Choosing not to flog a dead horse (on someone else's behalf, no less) is not the same thing as refusing the community a right to consider the horse; another admin can pick up the stick (or use their mop) if they so choose. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE and other issues - Capurta

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

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this, but I thought I should bring it somewhere.

The user Capurta has been editing Wikipedia for almost six months now, but in that time most of there edits have been reverted, including ones on contentious topics such as the Armenian Genocide that were presented with the edit summary "Added more arguments. It didn't happen :)". They also have a small habit of removing "Citation needed" and similar tags from articles without fixing the mentioned issues.

On the 9th of September, Capurta altered the date format on Fall of Kabul (2001). I reverted the change, and User:Tamzin placed a notice on their talk page about changing data formats. In response, Capurta edited their comment to make it look like they were apologizing to Capurta for an unspecified wrong, against WP:TPO, before going to the Fall of Kabul (2021) talk page and editing a lengthy discussion about the page title, replacing it with a section titled "I'm a dumbass" and stating "Kill me!!", falsely attributed to User:Kettleonwater. BilledMammal (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Capurta for one month for disruptive editing. Falsification and fabrication of comments by other editors is utterly unacceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of this, BilledMammal. In my view, a month isn't enough. The latter offense, regarding Kettleonwater, reads to me like a death threat. Given the rest of this user's behavior, I see no reason to AGF that it was meant any other way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've also left an ARBAA2 DS alert in light of the genocide denial. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Capurta wants me dead :( no Kettleonwater (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: their replies on their talk include gross incivility and a vow to sock. Time to upgrade to indef? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As a result of their response to the original block, I have extended the block to indefinite and revoked their talk page access. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Softlavender by Butterslipper

Hi. Softlavender has been extremely aggressive towards me. Softlavender has

• Accused me of a "pro-Communist agenda" [196]
• Accused me of lying [197]
• Accused me of a coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing [198]
  • All without evidence

I tried to tell Softlavender about the personal attacks on their talk page instead of replying [199] because they would ignore my replies and then Softlavender made an entire post on my talk page agitating Acroterion to block me again [200]. Their claim was that I exercised "accusations, personal attacks, battleground statements, and quasi-legal threats" citing

• me trying to tell Softlavender that they were assuming bad-faith in me [201] but took it out of context to focus on "you're revolting and vilifying assumption of bad-faith is intolerable" when I only insulted their assumption and not them which wouldn't account as a personal attack because it was not personal and it was correct
• me trying to defend myself from attacks [202] which I was right in saying due to the aspersions being needless and rude
• me saying that I have had personal attacks thrown at me which I was correct for saying because another user personally attacked me [203] which Softlavender had done before too [204]
• me pointing out how they have disrupted the consensus and pointing out how they had no reason to remove my edit [205]
• me saying vulgar mudslinging (like what??) [206]
• me pointing out how Softlavender sullied the page [207]
• me saying that they're slandering me (specifying in a non-legal sense) [208]
• me saying people do not have to contribute if they're going to be derogatory (because they assumed me of arguing based on reddit...) [209]
• the talk page message I gave them for personal attacks [210]
• me saying their personal attacks were foulmouthed gossip which was true [211]
• me rightfully saying their reply was a hatchet job of false accusations [212]
• a so-called "edit war" where I had reverted disputed information that required a consensus on a BLP and changed the page as to remain neutral and in a middleground between the editor and I from which the dispute began (Mikehawk10)

Please help. Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am copying my comment from AE: I am not sure why ButterSlipper is still allowed to edit the English Wikipedia. They have tiny contribution to the article space, all of which have been reverted, and their contributions to talk page discussions, apart from personal attacks, show complete misunderstanding or disregard of our policies and inability to listen to the opponent. Basically, they label all sources they disagree with as unreliable. Unless there are objections, I am going to block indef per WP:NOTHERE, this will save a lot of time of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Please substantiate all those claims Ymblanter. I am here on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia for the public good. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) You seem to have made a mistake with your diff for 'coordinated effort and having an observable agenda-pushing' as all it shows is SoftLavender removing a duplicate post. The next edit doesn't show anything like that either and the previous edit is by some other editor so it's a bit confusing what you're referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad Nil Einne I will fix that.

I have fixed the first Nil Einne but the second is pretty clear. You just have to scroll down in the diff and then you can see the accusation of lying. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have three editors' names being directed to the letter "U"? instead of pinging them? GoodDay (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh I must've made a mistake I will make them pings, thank you. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I assume they were trying to use the {{u}} template. Unfortunate mistake but the concept seems fair enough. Pinging should not matter since they should have notified all the editors on their talk pages. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Although it seems they notified Softlavender but not MikeHawk10 or Acroterion. I'll notify them myself. The main problem remains failing to notify on the talk page rather than the ping failures. Normally I'd remind ButterSlipper's of what the big box says, but since they're probably going to be indefed I won't bother. Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I myself haven't done the work of Ymblanter but I think they're probably right that we should just indef ButterSlipper. Checking out ButterSlipper's talk page and finding out they are justifying introducing a potential BLP violation as instead exempt from 3RR for BLP reasons ('My edit that changed "He is a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese" into "The Telegraph says he's a fluent speaker of Mandarin Chinese"'). Anyone who tries to use BLP to harm living persons is not welcome on Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne that is an assumption of bad faith I am trying to improve the BLP. If you have contentions with my suggestion then please address them with me but do not accuse me of such behaviour. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I myself have just given ButterSlipper a final warning about their disruptive behavior concerning the Uyghur genocide. They are on thin ice regarding the general sanctions on Uyghur genocide and the discretionary sanctions regarding BLP. Having just recently seen that these disruptive activities amount to the near totality of their contributions I am wondering if they are a net benefit to the project at all.

They are constantly finding faults with others while insisting that any criticism against them is faulty. They demand evidence to meet their arbitrary standard when they are called out on their behavior while insisting they don't have to listen to users they feel are wrong, this is but one example. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC almost all my contributions have added to the encyclopedia positively so I don't know how the near totality of my contributions have been disruptive and I am not doing any of the negative behaviour you are describing. Yes if I have evidence that someone is wrong then I do not have to listen to their suggestions because they are wrong and the "example" you cited was me just asking for you to provide evidence for allegations??? The burden of proof is on you to prove how I am doing what you believe I am but you are refusing to. I have a very open ear but you are accusing me of not listening to others. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Those contributions have been reverted as problematic. Most of your edits are to talk pages where you bicker with the numerous people who disagree with your particular view of things. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC those are the small minority of my edits (the previous disruptive ones I made) and how is "bickering" (discussing) on talk pages an issue??? Was me alerting Softlavender of their personal attacks bickering and disruptive too? Please explain. ButterSlipper (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ymblanter is exactly right about very single point. And to HighInBC, the answer to "I am wondering if they are a net benefit to the project at all" is no. Softlavender (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ButterSlipper, you're peeving off a growing number of editors. They're gonna push you out the exit door, if you don't stop. GoodDay (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is making them mad a qualifier for a block?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterSlipper (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Your view of Wikipedia (on your userpage) isn't a great start. Personally, I don't care what any editor puts on their userpage. But, my guess is it's putting you in a bad light. GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• My evaluation of ButterSlipper is that they are pretty blatantly not acting in good faith. ––FormalDude talk 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear that FormalDude what evidence led you to believe that? I always work to maintain the encyclopedia to the best of my ability and your assumption of bad faith is disheartening. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to indefinitely block ButterSlipper

• Propose and support indef block for ButterSlipper as it seems they are here to push their point of view about the Uyghur genocide rather that create a neutral encyclopedia. Their behavior is very disruptive and they are providing more strife than useful content. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)