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

Johnpacklambert

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

---

first close attempt withdrawn.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)

Translator's note: "douche", in French, means "shower". jp×g 22:11, 12 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 ([1] [2]). 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 [3] [4], 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)
• Support unblock I believe that editor has expressed sufficient remorse. The block etc. have been logged and are part of their wiki-record. That's enough if we ever need to revisit this; let them resume their productive activities. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 15 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)

  "Information about a person". A much more concrete definition than what I see in the thread below. Nearly anything can be associated with religion in one way or other. Which, I think, is being discussed below. - jc37 16:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've seen how "broadly constituted" topic bans can be taken to include almost everything. This one is so broad that it's effectively limits the recipient to very small part of the project. Additionally, I don't find the rationale convincing (where are the diffs?). No, if you want something so broad, take it to ArbCom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale

The idea behind this was straight-forward. JPL has had multiple issues around information related to people. He's even currently under BLP sanctions which do not appear to be religion-related. And by setting an appeal date, we give him a timeframe and a chance to work and show the community (on a longer term than just during AN/I discussions) that he is moving forward as a productive contributor.

This actually is something he has done in the past. It sometimes took the community to show him, but once he understood, he did get better about trying to follow policy/process in those specific instances.

Limited sanctions should always have a sense of focus and rehabilitation to them. (We say 'preventative, not punitive' for these very reasons.)

I look and see in the discussion below that there are those who really seem to see this as a mere bureaucratic formality towards what is apparently their end goal - a complete ban.

This all is really starting to look punitive, not preventative.

If that's the plan, then just indef him now. Don't slowly drag him through this seeming torture, just to ban him anyway. That just seems wrong. - jc37 16:07, 10 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 [5]. (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 [6]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

It's actually not that hard to explain. New prophet plus new scriptures equals new religion. c.f. [7] for one take on it. Jclemens (talk) 18:52, 10 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)

Beep boop. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:55, 11 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)
• Support a full ban from all religion topics, indefinitely, with no appeals to be considered for a period of not less than two years from TBAN start. Jclemens (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reaffirming my earlier comment. A TBAN on "religion" would be too broad. It would, for example, preclude removal of the deprecated |religion= field from {{infobox}}es. From what I know of JPL, he would need a precise definition to enable him easily to distinguish between allowed and forbidden areas, and "religion" does not do that. Narky Blert (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

collapse digression

Narky Blert, you already !voted above. You can't !vote twice, and I have therefore unbolded the beginning of your post. You should also use the word "vote" rather than "comment", because this really was a !vote [8]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Not-vote jargon is unduly confusing. If the editor not-voted, then they can call it a "not-vote" or a "comment" (even if that comment begins with an initial "oppose" sentence). Calling it a vote pretty much negates the value of using the not-vote jargon. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC) You're not making sense in my view. No one cares that you don't like the "!" convention, so that's just trolling on your part IMO. This is a poll/survey. Each person can vote in the poll only once. Votes are bolded by convention. Anything else that is bulleted plus bolded at the front and is not labeled "Comment" is generally perceived as a vote by closing admins, particularly when it says "Reaffirming my comment". The problem with NB's bolded bulleted statement was that his so-called "comment" far above was a clear vote ("Oppose as currently framed"), not a "comment" [9]. If it had only been a comment, then there would have been no need for unbolding (or notifying closing admin, etc.). Softlavender (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Since you called it really a not-vote, it was odd to request that it be labelled a vote instead of a not-vote. If you had said to call it a vote because it was really a vote, or to call it a not-vote because it was really a not-vote, then the request would have been consistent. Although I agree that it's courteous not to make multiple posts with bolded summary sentences at the start, I have confidence that closers can handle it appropriately. But I don't have any concerns about unbolding the sentence. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I didn't call it "a really a not-vote"; I called it (NB's first bolded statement in this thread [10]) a "!vote"; nor did I "request that it be labelled a vote". Please stop trolling; push your fringe agenda and false double-talk elsewhere. We also disagree about closers -- it is standard to correct issues or to notify closing admins when someone has made what appears to be two bolded votes. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC) Softlavender, see WP:NOTVOTE. isaacl is trying to be helpful here, not trolling or agenda-pushing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC) My comment above was ill-advised, and I apologize for the condescension implicit in linking a basic policy/guideline at an experienced user. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC) I have no disagreement on choosing to unbold the sentence or notifying closers. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Since religious topics have been JPL's problem area, removing him from these topics gives him the best chance of continuing to contribute. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support with the understanding that after an indefinite period proving his ability to improve articles in the non-religion space that he be allowed to return. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. This would be a stronger proposal if it included diffs to problematic edits, or links to prior places such diffs were presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a close

I think this has gotten to the point where it's pretty clear the result. I might be biased but I think we need a WP:CLOSE here so the community can move on and get back to working on the project instead of debating about the number of angels on the head of a pin or whether this user should be able to tell us about that number! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It often seems that the length of time a discussion runs is inversely proportional to the obviousness of the result. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I also think a close now would be best. If it helps, I support whatever brand of religious TBAN the closer determines best matches the consensus here. Constructions as narrow as just LDS/Mormonism to as broad as my proposal are all fine with me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's time for a close--and in the light. I hope the administrator(s) involved in the closing will post a clear overview of constraints for John and for all. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• I thought we didn't do RfC/User anymore. Well what it this then. It's the job of the admin corps to decide whether to block or unblock. The admin corps has IRC or whatever people use now, let them discuss it. There's a reason we don't do RfC/User anymore. Oof people complain about how stressful an RfA is, this is so much worse. FWIW I support letting the guy edit. The Wikipedia is not a respecter of persons, but come on -- it's a website -- probably ephemeral -- and hobby. Balance that versus the life human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here and contributing here is helping that a lot. Be kind. Even ExxonMobile allows for individual cases when a person has a condition. Should we be meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile.

I set up this fellow with the idea of doing a positive pledge (random narrow place to edit) as this is much easier to follow, and for other people to check, than a ban on certain topic areas. (I suggested (at random) working only in Category:Calabar which needs much expansion, but the guy chose 1921 births instead, and fine,

I'd like to see if "Restriction to only topic Y" could be a better approach than "Ban from topic Z", for difficult issues where the editor's career is on the knife-edge. I think it might be easier for the editor to stay IN someplace rather than OUT of an attractive place [for a probationary period might last even a year say]. At least it's new idea (I think) so let's try this test case and see.

I'll be spot-checking and if he edits outside 1921 births [for several months anyway and with eplicit permission], then that has to be the end and he knows that. If it happens, the Wikipedia will survive. Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, one of the reasons RFC/U was abolished, was due to the pile on effect. I remember, as years ago, I had an RFC/U done on me. It was like trying to climb out of a hole, with the sand falling in each time you tried. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

That's news to me. Can you give me a link to the change in ANI policy? I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure... Also importantly, I'm not asking for a close in the RfC sense. I'm asking for a close because the community wants to know what's gonna happen here. Is that what is meant by an RfC/user? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"I just wasn't aware that community input didn't approach closure...". Well now you are, cos I'm telling you. It's the ANI board, not the "let's have a bunch of rando editors kick some hapless mook around" board. The admins allows non-admins that aren't party to a situation to chime in. They don't have to, but it's worthwhile more often than it's not, so they do. But here, it's not helpful.

Anyway, yes what we're seeing here is pretty much what RfC/user was. Sometimes RfC/user was useful, but it was shut down because a lot of times it wasn't and was just a lemon-squeezing party and just not an OK way to treat most editors. Still true. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking your sentiment here conflicts with WP:CBAN? If not, how is CBAN different? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibboleth, much as these discussions can be distasteful, community banning is part of the banning policy and there has to be a mechanism for that to be executed. ANI discussion is one of those mechanisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Herostratus has got it completely wrong. CBAN’s, topic bans, etc etc are regularly determined by the community here (not just Admins). Indeed, that was part of the rationale for getting rid of RfC/Us - ANI was one of the fora that could take that up in lieu. DeCausa (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hero, John is not the only human being who's trying to get thru his pilgrimage here. Your post makes it sound like the community just called John to the carpet and started evaluating him in a vacuum. Of course John, a human being, is more important than a website. I believe in "people over pages," but that is not the situation here. The community is not evaluating John; the community is evaluating John's interactions with other editors. And those other editors are human beings just like John. And while John is more important than a website, he is not more important than the other people who use the website. Sanctions are to prevent disruption not to the website, but to the other people who are using the website. That includes people who John accused of engaging in hate speech because they wanted to use the word "Mormon," for example. They shouldn't have to put up with that sort of thing from John or anyone else, and we should have as much sympathy for them as we do for John. I support John editing here, too, but I also support a TBAN to protect others from John's behavior, and that doesn't make this an RFC/U, and it doesn't make me meaner and harsher than ExxonMobile. Given that this isn't a new issue but one that's been going on for years, it's actually downright nice that the community isn't just throwing John out, but is instead investing significant time and effort into coming to consensus on some compromise that allows John to continue editing. Give credit where credit is due. This thread is a testament to how much the community cares about John, because if it didn't, he'd be indef'd already and no one would be talking about it. Levivich 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I tried to stay away from the discussion as much as possible over the last week because, well, I've made my opinions known, they haven't changed and to have someone constantly repeating their position would be grating for everyone. I'm sure Hero and I agree on a lot of things and we probably disagree on a lot of things. I am not going to pretend that everyone that commented on this case likes John or wants the best for him. Its not like they wish harm or anything either. I think several are apathetic to anything related to him or really anyone else. I'm sure quite a few think the community should have globally blocked John by now. There might even be some that think I have no business here either. We all have opinions and when you have someone that has been before ANI so often over the last few years its bound to come up. The fact is his disruptions have affected other human beings and that should be acknowledged. We can acknowledge that while also acknowledging that John is human and is affected differently than a lot of people here when it comes to confrontation. But John is intelligent and he can figure out how to respond in a different manner and he can take instruction and learn from it as almost every other human being is capable of doing. The approach may be different and I think that's where the divide is going forward. I have never advocated against a TBAN. I think the subjects of the LDS, Mormonism and probably Catholicism but especially those articles related to Catholic bishops should be off limits to John. They have been red button topics for him and have directly resulted in the AN/I cases in which he is the subject.

Many don't feel it is the community's responsibility to find a remedy in which John is able to edit here and the community is safe from any of his potential disruptions. That's a fair observation. I've heard it time and time again. We don't matter. All that matters is the encyclopedia. If that's what someone believes then I expect them to look at this discussion and the evidence and say John should have been long gone by now. My views may be different but I can respect that. I also believe, as pointed out by Levivich, that the very fact that we are still discussing it and working through a solution is testament that not everyone here holds that view and they do want John to continue editing and they do see the value in his positive additions while criticizing his disruptions. Hopefully John is watching this discussion even though he has heeded advice not to comment here. If he is then I hope he recognizes what we have just pointed out. The community, even those advocating for a full TBAN on "religion", still values his positive contributions. What can not continue is the disruption. I also hope he recognizes that the people he affected with his disruptions and aspersions are human beings and though I have advocated for him, I have also advocated for them. I believe his apologies are sincere and I believe this particular case has been eye-opening for him. As a member of this community I, like others among us, have decided to try and help John, through dialogue, but also hold him accountable for his actions.

We don't have to argue amongst ourselves. We don't have to think the worst of anyone here in this discussion. All points that have been brought up are valid. That's why we are still here discussing them. We are a community trying to find the best solution among many options and its very difficult to find that solution sometimes. The one thing we can not do is give up our faith in the guiding principles of this community. True civility is not found when we agree on something. True civility, one of the pillars of this community, is found when we not only disagree but do so passionately and emphatically. --ARoseWolf 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have avoided commenting on the substantive issue here (rather than in this meta-discussion subsection) because more than enough people have done so without my involvement. Surely its best for everyone involved (John, his targets and the rest) that this should be closed as promptly as possible. And, for the FDrecord,X I must be going soft in my old age, because I agree with User:Levivich. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Crux of JPL's conflicts—not so much his passionate points of view, rather his misapprehension of how fellow editors are likely to react to his edits that push the edge (in other words, judging consensus). John needs to quickly recognize when his activities are controversial—then step back and engage in discussion when necessary. Any constrictions imposed on his editing ought to be guardrails rather than prohibitions. One revert per article per day; one comment per AFD&. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 21:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Comtinued disruptive editing and POV pushing by HypVol

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077 § Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

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

I previously reported this user's disruptive editing in the thread linked above, where they were attempting to get some IP users that were reverting their edits blocked. User:Shibbolethink responded saying that they found the edits troubling, but ultimately no action was taken. Following this they seem to have developed a case of the ANI flu and vanished for a couple of weeks so I didn't press the issue further, but now they're back, re-inserting their disputed edits into a number of categories, articles and templates.

A review of this editors contributions will show a distinct pattern of disruption and POV pushing with regards to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan that demonstrate that they are WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia with regards to those topics. For convenience here's a small sample of some of the problematic edits this user has made (partially copied from the previous report, now updated with extra diffs):

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [11] [12]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [13] [14] [15]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [16] [17]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [18] [19] [20]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [21] [22]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [23] [24] [25] [26]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [27] [28] [29] [30] ][31]
• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [32]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [33]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [34] [35]

While individually some of these edits may be acceptable taken as a whole they demonstrate a distinct pattern of POV pushing with regards to these topics, at the minimum I think a topic ban from china related topics is required, but a straight up block may also be suitable. I also find this editor's use of their user page to construct a "hit list" of IP's that have been reverting them to be inappropriate. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indef. Shilling for Winnie the Pooh and his buddies is an especially unpalatable way to be a POV pusher here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the shitlist from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. – ².O.^Boxing 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is also a concerning post left on their talk page by another account whose only activity is reporting IPs to look out for to HypVol. Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: INDEF HypVol

Block for disruptive editing and POV pushing as described above. As far as I can tell, this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here to remove any mention of HK as an autonomous entity from Wikipedia. They also appear to be (possibly) socking or meat puppeting [36] with WenningHehn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I think it seems pretty clear here this is blatent POV pushing with no regard for building a legit encyclopedia. indef ban seems appropriate if not a broad china-relate topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support (OP) Something like this is definitely needed. Could some uninvolved administrators weigh in here please? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – would be nice if HypVol were to chime in themselves, given their sporadic editing it's quite possible this hasn't yet been seen by them, but the presented evidence to me is clear enough for that not to be a requirement. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious Rugrats Editor

I noticed Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:2B00:94D2:9173:D752:9ECA was editing two pages for Tommy Pickles and Angelica Pickles from the tv show Rugrats talking about Dil having a twin sister, named Trixie II, while what happened was in the 1998 Rugrats Movie Dil was believed to be female and was originally supposed to be named "Trixie" (named after Stu's mom) but it was a boy that they named Dil (after Didi's cousin) and I think he's just being disruptive Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

There does seem to be an editor bouncing around the /48 vandalising articles with made up nonsense, allways using the character name/show name as an edit summary - see Special:Contributions/2001:8003:378C:0:0:0:0:0/48 someone with more skill than me should be able to figure out the exact range they're editing from. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure about what range it is, but 100% a disruptive IP range. Continuously inserting entirely bogus information into different articles. Magitroopa (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Range readded incorrect/bogus content (once again...) on SpongeBob SquarePants (film series)... now reported at WP:AIV. Magitroopa (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanebbe

Vanebbe (talk · contribs) is very likely another reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked user User:Zerolandteam385. The editing behaviour is identical, and I have already added the Vanebbe account to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385). This doesn't seem to bother the person editing with this account (which is typical Zerolandteam385 behaviour). Virtually every edit done by this editor is disruptive and has been reverted, I actually believe that the editor fails WP:CIR. @User:Sandstein, User:Mr.choppers, User:Druschba 4. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support for discipline: Vanebbe has recently created two articles about truck models belonging to The Autocar Company, namely Autocar A and Autocar 64 which are riddled with incorrect information. Speaking as an expert on this topic, I couldn't even begin to edit them. They should be deleted entirely. Sedimentary (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I just found a third article, Autocar_Xpeditor and deleted all the text except for a simple factual statement I added. The article may be deleted, IMO. Sedimentary (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support sanctions - an indefinite block would not be out of line. Vanebbe has made only one user talk page edit and (effectively) one article talk page edit; in the latter case, showing complete indifference to the gravity of a copyright violation. The user does not show any indication of heeding the concerns that multiple editors have raised regarding their editing.

I'm not certain that Vanebbe is a sockpuppet of Zerolandteam385, as the editing does seem somewhat more sophisticated. I would've opened an SPI long ago if I had confidence of sockpuppetry being involved here. But, in any case, this is probably a CIR issue as mentioned above.

Additionally, per Sedimentary, all of the articles created by Vanebbe are suspect and deletion should be considered. --Sable232 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support This seems like an easy case for sanctions to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I am very much assuming that the account is a sock puppet. The editing behavior has remained the same in its basics, even if it has changed slightly here and there over time. I've been following the whole thing for several months, especially because of the many, very poor quality new articles on Russian vehicles. As an expert in this field, I would have liked to have many if not all of them deleted, unfortunately my time and my expertise in the en.WP are not enough. Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I've been paying attention to this user for a while as their articles often end up in the new pages feed and usually have little to no citations and are usually copyvios or made up unsourced material. I thought I would spare them and not bring them up here because they had potential to improve, but it's just disruptive at this point as the user doesn't communicate with other let alone even acknowledge the messages on their page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support per above.dudhhr_Contribs 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:8801:A002:3700:0:0:0:0/64

• 2600:8801:A002:3700:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this IP range persistently adding unsourced information to random baseball articles, mostly pertaining to the San Diego Padres, whose local market the range is Geolocated. They continue to do this despite multiple warnings sent to various IP talk pages in the range. This recent string of edits started with disruptive removal of redirects to Geometry Dash. Their continued unsourced editing pattern is starting to turn disruptive and may need administrator action. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was made, the user has ignored the notice on the Talk page of the last known IP used and proceeds to add unsourced material to articles, with the latest attempt happening at Bloons Tower Defense. Talk page messages will not work on a range as messages will not be sent to the user if their IP changes again. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland and disruptive unsourced editing

• Icecreamland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viacom18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm starting to find this user's habit of edit warring when their edits are contested highly disruptive. All edits do not contain a source, and when contested the user just says "check your sources" citing sources directly connected to the subject rather than third-party sources. None of their sources are cited directly, and the user does not link directly to the source. Now they've gone as far as accusing me of making destructive edits to the article in question. Their entire history is disruptive in nature, deleted edits included following an RFD on Colors Telugu. I'm close to assuming this has gone into WP:NOTHERE territory. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree with these allegations.

As I was new to wikipedia editing, I was unaware that I was supposed link sources which support my edit.

Moreover, I do not understand in what way my editing is disruptive.

I believe that Jalen Folf must respect a fellow editor's opinion regarding his edit, and try to rectify what's wrong.

Icecreamland (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Icecreamland: There is a formidable collection of warning messages from editors on your talk page since you started editing on 25 August. You started out with edits like this where you edited the headings of a table. It does not seem like the kind of edit that a new editor would do. Did you have an account before this one?-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: No, this is my first account. As that was my first edit I had no idea what I was doing, I accidentally deleted the table and didn't know what to do. So, I thought I had to create the whole table again. But now I'm getting the hang of it. Moreover, I would like to know how my editing is disruptive. Even in my first edit I didn't change anything, I just ended up creating the whole table again.

Here are some sources that prove the existence of Colors Telugu.

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Icecreamland (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that you cannot understand why any of the following edits to the table in the article on Viacom18 were regarded as disruptive and were reverted by other editors?

1. [37] this was reverted by ClueBot NG
2. [38] this was reverted by AdhiOK
3. [39] eventually reverted by JalenFolf

Different people kept changing the article back to how it was before you edited and kept posting messages on your talk page. That told you nothing? It never occurred to you that they all thought you were messing up the table formatting? Competence is required! I am not sure which is worse: that you had no idea that your edits were disruptive and so kept on making them? Or, that you did not care that your edits were disruptive? -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: They reverted my edits, but i was never told for what reason they were reverted. They never mentioned what was disruptive in my edit, they only mentioned that it was disruptive. Moreover i didn't even know what a talk page was for the first few days, so i never checked them. Also, kindly check the sources which i attached.

Editing is new to me, so please try to encourage me rather than calling me and my editing WORSE. No offense Icecreamland (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of Colors Telugu - it is hard for other users to understand unless they read: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 4#Colors Telugu.
@Icecreamland: It would really help a lot if you would discuss your points on article talk pages. Try to explain (a) what changes you want to make, and (b) why you think other users should accept them. Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You need to be willing to listen to other editor's concerns. Make an effort to understand them. If there are wikilinks to policies, etc. in their posts, click on the wikilinks and read the policy and try to see how it is relevant to what they are saying. Also use edit summaries, and do not mark your edits as "minor edits" - you do not have the competence to know when your edit is a minor edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

If someone reverts an edit, and you do not understand why – post a message on the article talk page asking why. Do not repeat the edit until you understand why it was reverted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: I wanted to discuss regarding Colors Telugu but by the time i got to know, the discussion was closed. I requested them to reopen the discussion but they didn't. I asked Jalen Folf why he reverted my edits, he said that when a fellow editor reverts your edits you must try to rectify what's wrong with the article, but he never mentioned the reason in particular. Also AdhiOK never posted anything on my talk page and Cluebot is a robot. So, it was only Jalen Folf who kept reverting my edits. Icecreamland (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamland (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your first edits were on 25 August, and your contribution history shows that you were posting on both article talk pages and user talk pages on 27 August. Your responses here are in fluent English. So if you had wanted to, you could have asked why your edits were disruptive.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Toddy1: As i said, i asked Jalen Folf in what way they were disruptive, but he didn't mention what exactly was disruptive in my edit. Icecreamland (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland, where and when did you ask Jalen Folf about that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Martinevans123 and Toddy1, I did not have Icecreamland's Talk page on my watchlist so I was unable to see the messages until it was too late. Beginning around the closure of the Colors Telugu RFD, I had removed the TV Channels section in the article as the entire section had no sources describing the Colors channels' connections to the collective. There were a few things disruptive here: the first being that every time the section was restored, every editor, including Icecreamland, restored without the requested sources, hence why the page was protected in the first place. Second, and this includes the most recent attempt, was that every time Icecreamland would restore, they would also remove the protection template as well (a sign of manual revision reversion). I don't know if they were aware they were doing this while trying to restore.

As participants of the recent RFD that contributed to the redirect's deletion, I will also courtesy ping Susmuffin and Jay to this discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sources are needed to support our articles. This is what separates us from the massive sea of blogs that seems to stretch on forever. Since no reliable source has confirmed that Colors Telugu exists, this material should not be restored to the article. Furthermore, it is clear that the editor in question is aware of our policies. Their continued restoration of uncited material is disruptive. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Susmuffin: Are these sources not reliable enough to confirm the existence of Colors Telugu.

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Colors Telugu

Icecreamland (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the edits it appears to me that we are, in fact, dealing with a new editor that has jumped into editing with both feet, so to speak, and little knowledge or understanding of how deep it is. I want to caution my esteemed and experienced fellow editors to not bite them too hard while keeping them accountable for edits that may appear disruptive. I know it's frustrating. I know it's aggravating but a little kindness goes a long way. Icecreamland, please take some time and review others editing. Visit the Teahouse and see if questions you may have are already answered. Ask questions, ask questions, ask questions! I am sure there are some here who would let you see how they edit and it could offer you some guidance. Proper editing is one of the hardest and most important things you could do here next to article creation itself. Please take the time to learn the nuances and study all you can on editing here before continuing to do so. We are to assume good faith and I am doing that. If your intentions are to be disruptive you wont be here long. If it is just that you are new then please take the advice given. --ARoseWolf 15:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Colors Telugu (an RfD I participated in): I do not see much of a problem on this page where the additions and reverts happened across 4 days. Icecreamland did ask on his talk page on why his edits were being considered disruptive, but did not get a response from either Code Pending or JalenFolf (for which he has provided an explanation). After Liz suggested him to stop the following day and take his concerns to the teahouse, he did stop and asked for help at the teahouse which was promptly answered.

Viacom18: From Aug 25 to Sep 13, none of the editors (except for ClueBot!) who reverted Icecreamland, cautioned him on his talk page regarding his edits at Viacom18. Fault also lies with Icecreamland, who despite commenting on Talk:Viacom18#Colors Telugu initially, failed to acknowledge or question Jalen Folf's suggestion made there. Icecreamland enquired on the talk page of 101.109.205.14 on August 27, so he was familiar with talk pages from then on, but did not attempt to talk to other editors. I understand the teahouse response wasn't very helpful, but he could have clicked on disruptive editing link and tried to read this pretty simple and straightforward guideline. Jalen Folf is justified in listing the incident here because of Icecreamland's tone of reverse accusing Jalen Folf of destructive editing. As ARoseWolf has said above, hope Icecreamland takes time and starts with smaller edits, and reviews others. Jay ^(Talk) 20:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Jay, thank you for the added context. I think this is just another example that everyone can learn and grow from. I gain insight almost every time I read these discussions. --ARoseWolf 21:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all my fellow editors for believing in me and giving me a second chance. Icecreamland (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland, You're very welcome. Good luck editing, and please consider the advice we have given you. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

JalenFolf, I believe the sources which i attached confirm the existence of Colors Telugu. So, why am i not allowed to create a page for it. Icecreamland (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Icecreamland You're actually allowed to make the page for it. I gave you this advice already over at Rosguill's Talk page. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest this thread is now closed by any admin. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The user recreated Colors Telugu, which was tagged for deletion as an A7. I deleted the article. The user created Colors telugu, which itself has been created before, and the user came to my Talk page and told me to stop deleting "my page". I deleted it and blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE, which is a bit of an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Well I guess it can be closed now. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Username006 closing own page move discussion & general competence issues

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

---

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 [[40]] 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 [41]. 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)
• Support ban on moves, just to formalize my above cmt. Meters (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a ban on moves....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support a ban on moves. I wasn't aware before now the BKS move request was anything other than an isolated incident, but closing a move request you initiated is very rarely appropriate and never when consensus is anything less than unquestionably obvious. I'm involved in that discussion, but the only plausible outcomes I can see are either no consensus or consensus against the proposal so to close it and move because the outcome is "obviously" in favour of the move is egregiously wrong in every respect. Combined with the rest of the evidence here, a ban on moving pages is unfortunately needed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I've restored this from the archive, as this needs closure and either action or formal no action at this point depending on what an uninvolved admin reads as the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Moved from my talk page

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

---

Courtesy ping @Hotwiki and WayKurat:

• Russel641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP report from my talk page

A high-threat vandal user named Russel641 has been disruptively damaging all the Wiki articles related to Philippine television (including all the drama series and TV programs aired on ABS-CBN, GMA, and TV5), as well as editing IBC shows too. The user Russel641 is stealth active since late April 2021. Russel is refactoring (editing) talk page comments and warning contents, as well as ignoring all the warning messages from several admins and other users. Currently, I also see that all the articles of ABS-CBN dramas have been edited by Russel641 by adding the "and was replaced by (*name of program*)" signs. I can't instantly revert all of over 150+ edit contributions of Russel641, so I hope that someone would report that user with perfection and extreme caution. -136.158.42.180 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to look into this properly; (nor do I figure why the IP picked 3 non-admins to report this to); but taking a sample look stuff like [42], beyond the unnecessary WP:NOTBROKEN changes to links, there also appears to be the addition of unsourced information such as reported by the IP. There's a litany of talk page warnings, however the user seems quite adept at not getting noticed too much so likely somebody needs to get the mop on this and give them a block; and rollback their edits if I miss something. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum': on the other hand, most of those TV shows likely are not notable judging by what the articles look like so I've abandoned the rollback project and moved on to something else. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Based on a brief run through their contribs I would say a block may get their attention. If they are editing by mobile then they may not be getting notifications but there is no excuse for not checking your talk page, especially after your contribs are being reverted. You would think they would be curious though. --ARoseWolf 12:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Based occasionally using the mobile site, there's usually a bright red indicator at the top of any page that you have notifications, so it would take some dedicated tunnel vision to not notice them. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 12:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Narky Blert (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

When I first started on Wikipedia I only had a tablet and it used the mobile version and rarely received notifications. I quickly moved to our desktop and that was my preferred choice until I was admitted in the hospital. I knew I would need something more portable so I bought a laptop. That's my preferred option going forward. I would so get chastised by my parents for spending money "unnecessarily" rather than saving it. lol Anyway, I haven't used the mobile version in a long time so I can't say how its been improved but I know some people still complain about it. --ARoseWolf 13:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They check their talk page, they refactor comments left their by others and remove negative ones. My comment was not the only one refactored, they did it to Mcmatter as well see [43] and CruzRamiss2002 had to clean it up[44]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: just to let you know that there's one more to 122.53.222.9, see [45] (which I also clean it up). CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I came here to open an ANI for Russel, here is what I was going say: Russel641’s disruption in the filipino television space has become unmanageable and they are ignoring all warnings. The kicker for me is that they refactored a disruptive editing notice into “Please continue your disruptive editing. If you continue to add editing of all networks including ABS-CBN, PTV, TV5, GMA, RPN/CNN Philippines, A2Z, IBC, SBN/ETC, S+A (formerly Studio 23), Net 25, GTV (formerly GMA News TV), RJTV, BEAM TV, Light TV, CLTV, UNTV, SMNI and One Sports (formerly AksyonTV and 5 Plus), you may be not blocked from editing and removed redirect of Philippine television programming. Russel641 (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)”[46] The sheer volume of OR edits also make mechanical cleanup of their edits daunting so its time to show them the door. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• I will also note that Russell claims to be an admin "I also have an admin account that I seldom use. I do not use that account for normal editing due to security concerns, for privacy reasons and also to prevent any possibility of my using admin tools inappropriately on articles in which I may be considered to be involved. I have sent details of my alternate account to the Arbitration Committee. I am willing to provide details by mail to any admin who requests it.”[47] which seems far fetched but should be run down per AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• In light of the above I believe they are clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Regardless of any other account they may have this account is causing disruptions and refusing to heed repeated warnings even altering those warnings to apparently troll others. --ARoseWolf 15:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

• • In case anybody asks, given the above, I've gone ahead and rollbacked the massive and repetitive "replaced by"... OR. That's clearly ROLLBACKUSE no. 5; in case anybody objects. There might be a few false positives (such as some edits which merely altered links to go from one redirect to another - i.e. WP:NOTBROKEN, so not initially constructive edits but no real reason to waste time on them): it's of course much faster not to have to go through all of them; but in any case, if I've done anything silly, the ton of bricks can be shipped right to my talk page. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

51.6.138.48

51.6.138.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) had originally brought up DagosNavy at RFCN for having a potentially insulting username, which is fine, but much of the IP's behavior throughout the discussion has been very disruptive. Apart from bludgeoning the discussion, the IP:

• implied that all who interacted with DagosNavy without reporting their username were racists (and the choice of "as well" seems to be a personal attack by calling DagosNavy a racist)
• cried "personal attack" without substantiating the claims
• continued crying "personal attack" after I had requested them to substantiate their previous claim
• and again

I'm not going to pretend to be neutral to the discussion, but I think it's clear that 51.6.138.48's behavior has been nothing short of disruptive. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to disagree with my arguments on that page; plenty of people have, and that is not a problem, obviously. When a user calls me "disgusting", "dumb" and "manipulative", though, that is not acceptable. I certainly do consider that a personal attack. Meanwhile, this noticeboard is supposed to be for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". I don't think you had any valid reason to post about this here. What is your desired outcome, exactly? 51.6.138.48 (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Calling your actions "disgusting", "dumb", and "manipulative" is not the same thing as calling you those things. Those adjectives are describing actions, not a person. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason for my posting this here is your apparent failure or refusal to "get the point". - ZLEA _T\^C 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Reporting Disruptive user

InNeed95 (talk · contribs) Hi, this user was blocked by the admin @EdJohnston: for racist insults against Serb minority and againts other users[48]. He has since his founding violating 3RV rule, he constant provokes edit wars, vandalizing and POV Pushing. He is absurd disruptive and visibly reverses everything Serb(ian), and tries to Kosovarize/albanize articles that have nothing to do with it. He doesnt learn nothing with his previous block, he is a legit vandal. He spam wrong edits summary, etc. This user is a tyrant and stalker who goes out of his way to destroy any user who opposes his POV absurdity. His edits are unacceptable on wikipedia. He clearly is not here to contribute to wikipedia, gaming and impose his nationalistic bias. I request an administration to investigate this user's account of constant vandalism.

• • • Just look at this:
    • He removed an important church in kosovo (in UNESCO) in cristianity of kosovo just because its serbian orthodox. [49]. This is a absurd vandalism
    • [50] This user falsified the source, novak djokvic, a serbian tennis player, does not recognise kosovo, only the Kosovo and Metohia (An Serbian province under UN), and he removes without any explanation the Republika Srpska, a Serb Majority Federation in Bosnia, falsificating the source. This is high POV , Vandalism and violation of BLP policy
    • [51] The long disruptive and vandalism edits
    • [52] He revert me without any explanation, and he got reverted by another user.
    • [53] He revert me with a spam summary, and if he had read what he was reverting, he wouldn't revert me.
    • This user is hides the occupation of nazist albania renaming the name, in an article about a serb(ian) orthodox church[54], this is unnaceptable
    • [55] Another example of vandalism that resulted a block
    • [56] another POV
    • [57] Holy See doesn't recoginises the republic of kosovo(see Holy See–Serbia relations), and the user put POV and unsourced claim, literaly denyng Holy-See Position, a basis of article.
    • [58] this user blanks his talk page just to be unnoticed by the administrators.
    • [59] Here his block by admin.
    • [60]
    • [61]
    • [62]
    • [63]

He was notified about edit warring, but doesnt care [64]

Aquinasthomes1 (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked for two weeks for edit warring. I'm quite frankly so tired of the ongoing conflict between these two editors. At this point, I would highly recommend a two-way interaction ban. Curbon7 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Refactored, I guess... El_C 15:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting that I've now blocked the OP indef. See User_talk:Aquinasthomes1#Block_extended_indefinitely for details. El_C 17:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors adding Jo Johnson's honorofic title on Charlotte Johnson Wahl

User:Lydonnian has been edit warring to add Jo Johnson's honorific title "Baron Johnson of Marylebone" when MOS:HONORIFIC clearly prohibits using such titles in the article body except for certain exceptions, and certainly his mother's article doesn't qualify any of them. Lydonnian's addition of the title: [65], [66], [67].

And after Lydonnian stopped reverting me, User:Johnbod came to revert me instead on the same issue very shortly after for some reason. [68], [69].

And another fact is neither has cared to discuss the matter once and respect WP:STATUSQUO by not reverting after their additions are reverted, even after I contacted them.

I first asked Lydonnian to not revert again as it was against policy on honorifics and asked him to revert, warning him not to revert again as his actions wr against STATUSQUO. [70] As I thought that may have been too harsh on my part I asked him to not revert and discuss on the talk page while respecting WP:STATUSQUO [71]. But instead he didn't care and just reverted [72].

Reverting Lydonnian again I explained to him twice how MOS:HONORIFIC doesn't allow mentioning titles usually and why his edit doesn't meet the criteria for mentioning: [73], [74]. And in my comments to him on his talk page and summaries I didn't warn him, yet he ignored discussion.

Then Johnbod started reverting me, [75] and I asked him to not revert but discuss the issue on talk page while respecting STATUSQUO [76]. He reverted and told me not to edit war [77], despite reverting twice himself. And it doesn't require more than 3 reverts for it to be edit war. I don't intend to revert more, but Johnbod isn't innocent of what he accuses me of.

I requested Johnbod to self revert and stated that I'll complain of his behaviour [78]. All I got was a belittling and mocking reply in return [79].

Saying "Jo Johnson (now Baron Johnson of Marylebone)" sounds as if his name has been legally changed, unless you know about British titles. Not as a position and the title isn't the name of a position anyway.

Also just for reference of others, MOS:HONORIFIC particularly says In general, honorific prefixes—styles and honorifics in front of a name—in Wikipedia's own voice should not be included, but may be discussed in the article. In particular, this applies to:...

Except for the initial reference and infobox, do not add honorific titles to existing instances of a person's name where they are absent, because doing so implies that the existing version is incorrect (similar in spirit to the guideline on English spelling differences). Similarly, honorific titles should not be deleted when they are used throughout an article unless there is consensus.

Honorific titles used with forenames only (such as "Sir Elton", "Sir David", "Dame Judi") should be avoided unless this form is so heavily preferred in popular usage that the use of the surname alone would render the entire name unrecognizable.

Regardless of the content dispute, please ban these two editors from the article since they are not willing to engage at all. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is there no discussion about this at Talk:Charlotte Johnson Wahl? Schazjmd (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They won't start one so I contacted hem directly. Because I find it's a better way to encourage discussion. And they won't discuss there as well. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Your whole premise is incorrect. In the first place, a title is not an honorific. Honorifics are not allowed in the body of articles, but titles are. See MOS:SURNAME, which allows for their use alongside personal names. British peers are commonly known by their titles in their daily lives and in the media, and there is nothing untoward about indicating a person's title at any given point, given that their title is usually used as part of their name. While there may be specific reasons in a given case to use or not use a title in the body of an article, there simply is no such prohibition on their use. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure they are known by a title but people don't keep referring to them as such or refer to them as such for no reason. Also it's not a name but a title. We don't keep referring to them as Lord X of YZ or Lord X on articles outside lede or discussing their titles. And mentioning someone by their title as if it's a new name, on their mother's article, certainly does not fall into any exception. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You are very incorrect. See for example this recent BBC article about Lord Frost. As you will see, his title is used as a name, without any mention of his birth name. This is the customary usage in the UK. Once again, MOS:HONORIFIC does not apply, because a noble title is not an honorific. You must learn the difference. The relevant guidance is MOS:SURNAME, which allows for the use of titles in the body of articles, in line with customary usage. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all WP:NOTNEWS. Second of all it uses his name very rarely. Third I have this Guardian article saying his real name very clearly [80]. Fourth, look at Frost's Wikipedia article, Lord Frost isn't used much. Both these examples prove how wrong you are.

Lastly what we are discussing is not even Jo Johnson's article. But that of his mother Charlotte Johnson Wahl. There's no sensible reason for his peer title to be there. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Whether there is a sensible reason to use the title in that article can be discussed at the article talk page, as it is a content dispute. The only point I seek to clarify here is that you seem to have got it in your head that the use of titles in the article body is prohibited by the MoS. I am telling you as a third party that it is not, and that you might consider sitting down and having a discussion at the relevant talk page rather than attempting to get other editors sanctioned for a supposed 'violation' that does not actually exist. With this kind of attitude, I would not be surprised if you are in for a WP:BOOMERANG. RGloucester — ☎ 16:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Since the title was inserted by others it is they who must justify and not restore it after being reverted, as it wasn't there for a long time. WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD triumphs over thinking the title belongs there. You or anyone feeling it's correct is not a reason to break it. I'm ready to start a discussion and even contacted the people personally since they don't want to discuss even after being asked. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

If you're ready to start a discussion, please do so, at Talk:Charlotte Johnson Wahl. The place to start a discussion is on the article talk page, not on individual user talk pages, where other interested editors are unlikely to see it. I'm not sure why you're waiting for the other person(s) to open a talk page discussion when you yourself are free to do so. Also, attempting to communicate via edit summaries only leads to edit wars, so that's a bad way to try to communicate. — Diannaa (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I apologise if that is what it seems so, I thought it would be better to communicate directly since it would get a response. But it hasn't. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IP edit warring

An IP editor is edit warring at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It's believed to be the same editor that was blocked several months ago and has occasionally sought to IP-hop to reinstate changes to some specific sections of the page. A previous investigation identified a couple of the IPs and the article was protected. As there is now extensive edit warring can the IP address please be blocked: [81][82][83][84][85]. Another editor has requested page protection as the individual has hopped IPs a couple of times over the last few days. Cambial foliage❧ 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cambial and your likely meatpuppet FDW777 are the ones edit warring. I'm just adding to the article to improve. I would point admins to Cambial edits all reverts of anyone that disagrees with him which is everyone but his meatpuppet FDW777. If you can say what's factually wrong in what've I've added but ye probably can't wee fella as you just want the article to remain in stasis as if you own it.

Seems a bit wobbly grounds for a sockpuppet claim, just everyone they don't agree with they claim is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from aspersions of other editors. If you have concerns about Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry then file a claim against the one you suspect, provide evidence and let a CU and/or admins determine this. Claiming another editor is doing this is a very serious charge. Please use it sparingly. Please stop the edit warring and disruptive editing. According to WP:BRD if you add something and it is reverted the next step is to take it to the articles talk page to try and prove your position. Please do so and cease trying to re-add the edits. --ARoseWolf 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so hard to be kind to others and not immediately assume the worst. Try to exhaust every option of resolving the dispute before coming here. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. My protection summary reads: Per Roy, but for longer. Sock or not, too much WP:BATTLEGROUND from multiple unconfirmed accounts. Anyway, I remember this (vaguely). IP, I can personally attest that Cambial Yellowing and FDW777 are not MEAT editors, and that their contributions span far beyond this page or even general topic. El_C 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but all i've seen is them making the exact same revert of edits, there's no difference in approach, just wholesale reversion of any edit they haven't made. They seem like friends. When I saw Jimbo Wales talk about wikipedia he said every editor is treated equally and that everyone owns wikipedia and no one owns any article they for everyone to contribute to. Why keep supporting people who just gatekeep articles reverting any updates or changes. As you've locked us regular folk out. you should update the page to include more recent analysis I was planning to do it tonight. Lots of good stuff in there fella. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/uk-internal-market.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

IP, I'm not going to do that. This isn't a subject with which I am familiar or even that interested in. In any case, it's best to be straight forward: WP:ASPERSIONS are unwelcome and are, in fact, prohibited. In a broader sense, content dispute are expected to be resolved on a respective article's talk page. If that effort reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests (like a Request for comment), that one could avail themselves of. Not sure there's really much to add to this explanation; straying from this crux seems kind of pointless, tbh. El_C 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding request for comment or similar, we had Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020#Structured lead moderation where the current lead was agreed. In fact, the key fact regarding the lead (that the only way the act can prevent internal trade barriers is by restricting the power of the devolved governments to create them in the first place) was never refuted. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion. I'm sure this can be resolved on the article talk page and if there are changes they can be added at the end of the protection phase. I left a welcome message and some helpful hints for the IP and they have been instructed of the proper way to resolve disputes without edit warring. Not sure there is much more needed at this time. Thank you for the quick action, El_C. Happy editing everyone! --ARoseWolf 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C I'm didn't start throw aspersion around now did I? Has FDW777 made any constructive edits to the article or have they just done the exact same reverts Cambial has? look at the article history page fella, its clear FDW777 has literally continued edit warring by reverting the article yet again. If you are not interested in the article why lock it so only FDW777 and Cambial can edit it? and isn't that unhelpful since they never update the article or correct its problems and even delete tags others place to help in the improvement effort. Seems a bit one sided fella, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments, IP. I've been doing it for you for a while now, so maybe it's your turn to account for your own comments...? Otherwise, I'm finding you to be unresponsive and evasive and I am not inclined to repeat myself again, sorry. El_C 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, the aspersion was calling a fellow editor a "wee fella". I understand that may be a cultural thing where you are as you have continually used "fella" to refer to many other editors, myself included, but its important to note that not everyone comes from the same location or has the same experiences in life. For me it was not necessarily the fact you called them this but the way in which you used it that made it an aspersion. You were talking down to them when all they were doing was upholding Wikipedia policy. You may not like it but WP:BRD is non-negotiable with the only exceptions being noted in the policy. You MUST take the edits you want to include or remove to the article's talk page as you were the one that initiated the changes to a stable article according to the history. --ARoseWolf 11:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this is PlainAndSimpleTailor (eg previous IP: 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs)) and this is block evasion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Whomever indeffed PlainAndSimpleTailor, they are not to be trusted! El_C 12:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Refusal to drop the stick by Manwë986 - second time

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

---

After being blocked once for edit warring, and going against consensus at Talk:Lee_Kuan_Yew#Main_photo_of_Lee_Kuan_Yew, Manwë986 reinstated their preferred version of their edits again.

It's obvious Manwë986 is refusing to listen and adhere to consensus. As they have actively gone against consensus numerous times in the last six months, I am requesting for further administrative sanctions to be imposed upon the user. Seloloving (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Haldir Marchwarden

Haldir Marchwarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is heavily violating WP:OR, ignoring various reliable sources and a whole article to push his opinion in Sogdia. Not agreeing with him (or in his own words 'failing to understand' [86]) results in personal attacks. [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]

He has already recently (as in a few days ago) been topic banned in Balkan-related topics [92] for something seemingly not much different than he is doing now, looking at his ANI report. [93]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran (response against claims)

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

I have tried to be calm with User:HistoryofIran, even when they turned a comment into a vote half an hour after making the comment, later trying to explain to them why they might misunderstand something abut the article Sogdia and the list "Notable people from Sogdia" (the discussion can be read here).

They published a warning against edit warring on my talk page while I was starting a discussion at the article's talk page. In that case, we were both writing at the same time, and, truth be told, I should've started with the talk page before reverting their deletion of material in the first place. Because me and "History of Iran" disagreed about what to include in the article Sogdia, I asked for another opinion. They saw my rfc later, apparently, and, apparently, didn't think it was necessary. As the discussion at the talk page progressed, they started to make fake claims (including also: you’re yet to show a source for your claims, including the one about Antiochius, a Greek king based in Western Asia, being Sogdian when said claim has been introduced many years ago) and gradually grew slightly uncivil, up to the point of making threats and personal attacks. In addition to this, they left the discussion at the talk page and reported me at the Administrators' noticeboard because I disagree with them. At this point, I am myself asking for supervision from an administrator, as per, at least, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:WikiBullying.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• The content issue is rather clear-cut to my previously uninvolved eyes. As for the conduct, nobody looks exactly innocent. People must remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You have tried to be calm with me? What is this then? [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] You were accusing me of vandalism, nitpicking, jeering and whatnot right off the bat. Also, I'm not sure what's wrong with me voting.. that's what an RFC is for, which you requested. Moreover, I didn't make any false claims. You were trying add several notable figures as 'Sogdians' even though literally not a single source stated that they were one - I'd advise anyone reading this take a look at the citations he posted. Also, that was not a personal attack, I simply told you to refrain from attacking me, otherwise I would you report you, hence why we are here now (again, anyone can see that clicking the link). This users edits/comments in ethnic-related articles, is the same reason why he was topicbanned just a few days ago. Also, do note that two veteran users have already disagreed and reverted him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That you are nitpicky in that respect is true. I accused you of "vandalism" after you removed material. Vandalism was not the right word and I should've never reverted but started with the talk page first, as I have already admitted. If it offended you, then I'm sorry. However, I never made personal attacks, differently from you, who did make threats and personal attacks. I didn't say you shouldn't vote, I merely pointed out you changed the first comment into a vote after other comments were added below. So if you wanted to vote, you should've added the vote at the bottom. Please, don't try and bring the matter here. What is the focus of my compliant is your personal attacks and unwarranted request for adminship. Now you say anyone can see that clicking the link). This users edits/comments in ethnic-related articles, is the same reason why he was topicbanned just a few days ago. This is another personal attack and lack of good faith. I advise you against such behavior.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I rest my case. The admins can take it from here. HistoryofIran (talk)

Hopefully they will. P.S. please, do use they /them for people you don't even know.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTVAND is rather clear, FWIW. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have already apologized (twice) for my misuse of words. I also said that I should've used the talk page in the first place (third time). This doesn't undo their threat and multiple personal attacks, nor does it warrant their request for adminship against me as discussion went on at the talk page.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm baffled to be honest. User:Haldir Marchwarden received an indefinite topic ban less than two weeks ago[99] in relation to WP:BALKANS, and now finds himself yet again at ANI for making problematic edits within another contentious topic area. Lets call a spade a spade; no one gets a topic ban without reason on Wikipedia. At Sogdia (incl. its talk page), I find his edits to be rather problematic as well. Just because one source considers Avicenna to be Sogdian, it doesn't provide a free pass to add him to the Sogdia article, as the utter majority of the sources, including those listed at the Avicenna page, consider him Persian. Thats called violating WP:UNDUE weight and constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I do believe his approach vis. User:HistoryofIran at the Sogdia page was a violation of WP:BATTLE and WP:CRUSH too.
• "Deleting because I'm sick of this hypocrisy ."[100]
• "(...) so wait before vandalising the page again, please (...)"[101]
• "(...) to appease your nitpicking (...)"[102]
• "I even changed the section's title to appease your nitpicking (...)[103]
• "It is not "pure WP:OR" (if you really want to nitpick so much) (...) We are not "done" here, though perhaps that is what you wish.[104]

- LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I am baffled as well tbh. LouisAragon was involved in the discussion at Sogdia from the very beginning, in fact they were the first to intervene in support of History of Iran, posting a very long list of sources.

What does my previous case have to do with this? Because I was topic banned I deserve less respect and deserve to be personally attacked, or my opinion matters less? Further, all LouisAragon posted has been already addressed: I used an incorrect wording (vandalising), for which I apologized. My revert of "History of Iran"'s warning at my talk page is due to the fact we were both writing at the same moment (they publishing a warning, me trying to discuss at the talk page). Yes, the user is nitpicking as regards Sogdia. I said I would appease what I perceived as pedantic (because in good faith I don't know how to explain it otherwise) by changing the section's title (a list about people from ancient Sogdia. History of Iran avers the article Sogdia is about an ethnic group, and argues scholars Corbin, Caselli, and Ferro are unreliable, or that what they say isn't what they say).

Yes, if an editor, after denouncing me to the administrators while discussion is going on, tells me "We are done here", I tell them we aren't, because it is true, and "probably is what you want", based on the whole discussion. I apologized. Now I want excuses, or an explanation, for the threat and personal attacks linked above, and for the request of adminiship against me. Was it reasonable? P.S. LouisAragon, I respect your ways, but please use they/them and not he/his. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Haldir Marchwarden, if you feel strongly about which pronouns are used to refer to you, you might consider updating your profile preferences so this usage is displayed to other users, or putting a note on your userpage as to your preference. It's easier than one-at-a-time corrections, both for you and for other editors. Grandpallama (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right Grandpallama. I already planned to redo my talk page also adding other cool boxes, but I always forget or have other stuff to do. I will do that tho, thanks for the advice.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

50-edit edit war at Amanda Stoker

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

---

• Amanda Stoker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CatCafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Honestyisbest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's an edit war on Amanda Stoker so far past 3RR I'm not going to count it, going back the last 50 edits. Both editors have continued reverting after I warned them (and another user joined in for a single revert). No reply at RFPP for 16 hours and it's urgent since the edit war is continuing after the report. I'd recommend blocks for both CatCafe and Honestyisbest, otherwise what's to stop them continuing to act like this? Full page protection or partial blocks are other solutions. — Bilorv (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv. I did not edit-war as you say after your warning - I took that warning very seriously. What I did was put back some content, that was originally in dispute, but when it was returned had eventually gained consensus in a modified form. I believed things had improved now other editors are involved in getting consensus on the page. CatCafe (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And the reason you violated 3RR is? — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but the edit-war is not continuing from what I can tell, especially since other editors joined in and had input. You would agree that the more eyes on the talkpage making concensus the better. CatCafe (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It has continued as the edits have been restored without first gaining consensus as per policy, modified or not. Being on the way to consensus does not mean it is okay to re-add the edits. @Bilrov is correct that both of you have engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring on the article. Content can be discussed on the article talk page, this is about behavior. --ARoseWolf 13:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The two warring editors, CatCafe and Honestyisbest have both been blocked by User:Ymblanter for 31 hours. In the case of CatCafe, it is not their first block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, EdJohnston, and thank you for handling the situation, Ymblanter. --ARoseWolf 18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

MisbaulLaskar7788

MisbaulLaskar7788 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has constantly caused disruption in South Asia-related articles across Wikipedia. Every time a user warns him in his talk page, he clears his talk page to make it look like he has a clean sheet. Some of his disruption includes blatant Hinduphobia in articles like Bengalis, Sylhetis and list of people from Sylhet where he removes any mention of Hindus and weirdly claims that only a Muslim can be a member of these groups. I don't think that I need to even justify why he is incorrect, especially when millions of Bengali/Sylheti Hindus roam round the planet. Cc @Austronesier: UserNumber (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed his contributions to our articles and engagement with other editors, I am inclined to support an indefinite block. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mysterious tagging by anonymous user as I was noting a problem in an article

When I accessed the page for "Mark Hertling" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hertling)

I saw a comment relating to a recently revealed action by a third party, General Mark Milley:

"...analyst for CNN, in which role he gave General Mark Milley "high marks" for treasonously and illegally contacting a Chinese general to assure him that General Milley would provide advance warning of any attack against China."

Some strange entry was noted at the time I made my report, supposedly from this address:

"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/107.133.140.198"

A check at Virus Total's scan page indicated a possible malicious url.

I assure you l did not provide the questionable content, and am concerned it might be associated with me. That is not the case, it was on the page when I first accessed it.

Please check on your end in case some kind of malware or hacking is involved. Sparkyland3r5 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that to me at all. The edit was from an IP, which I reverted as well. You are fine, no need to worry about your account or hacking or anything such as that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Communication issue with 51412techno

51412techno never explains his edits and has no contribution in any talk pages. His talk page is also full of warnings and I see no hope if this user will comply with WP:COMMUNICATE. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The latest 400 edits of the user do not have a single edit summary. The edit summary usage of 0.7% is the lowest I have ever seen. This, despite multiple warnings from me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton

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

---

Calton started off by reverting one of my previous edits on 2021 and reinstating Michael K. Williams in spite of the fact there was no consensus in favour of his inclusion - and he did so with an edit summary inappropriately referring to myself as "Mr. Gatekeeper"[105]. Then today he went on Talk:2021 and engaged in the thread started by PeaceInOurTime2021 regarding Norm Macdonald in an extremely hostile and patronising manner laced with personal attacks directed exclusively towards me, of which you can openly see for yourself on the Talk page[106].

I called him out on his attitude both on the thread as well as on a message in his personal Talk page saying that I didn't think his conduct was appropriate and that we are perfectly entitled to agree and disagree without resorting to personal attacks[107]. He completely ignored my message on his Talk page and continued to double down on the Talk:2021 page - as well as outright singling me out and painting me as the only person questioning Macdonald's inclusion, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I also note as well looking through his personal Talk page that he has a history of extremely unpleasant behaviour towards other users. Hopefully this can be swiftly resolved. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton♂ An extended confirmed user, 16 years 10 months old, with 78,371 edits. I don't think that was his first contribution. Anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year, as is standard practice and standing consensus for inclusion in lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, what I mean is that it was his first contribution to the 2021 page in recent days, and one that was problematic right from the outset. I'm aware that this user has been around for a long time haha. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current situation, it is not true that "anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year", we have more than 10,000 pages on people who died in 2020 alone: including them all on the main "2020" page would be impossible, so some editorial discretion on who to include and who to exclude is necessary. Everyone can be included in their respective month list though, e.g. Deaths in January 2021. Fram (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Conceded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Would be best for Calton to open a discussion at the article-in-question & seek consensus for who he wishes to include. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean like at Talk:2021#Norm Macdonald, where he's engaged in exactly such a discussion? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This report isn't over a disagreement in a discussion. It's entirely to do with the personal conduct and behaviour of the person in question, and his refusal to engage without hostility or resorting to personal attacks (i.e. "Mr. Gatekeeper"). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you're being accused of ownership of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

He has made constant accusations of gatekeeping towards me, yes - and without properly going through the history of the Talk page discussions and how several users (not just myself) have voiced that we need to be stricter on who should be included in general, with politicians, sports figures and entertainment figures being categories that have been singled out. I find that and his overall uncivil attitude toxic, and an issue that has the potential of alienating anyone who might otherwise want to contribute. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just asking and not saying anything about the behavior of the individual but is there a clear consensus that is described and defined somewhere? I had a similar issue come up on one of these lists where it was specifically declining and reverting any mention of tribal affiliation of Indigenous people where nationality was okay to be included. So if a person that dies was Cherokee you could not put Cherokee American, only American, in the description. Even putting that they were a chief of said tribe was reverted. Examples aren't needed because I'm not complaining now as it was explained thoroughly to me why. I may not agree with that but if it is consensus then it should be followed. I just can see an example of where someone is trying to add a name and being told no because consensus says no but no one has specifically pointed them to said consensus where it can be easily viewed and defined. Not at all saying that isn't the case and not at all saying aspersions and attacks are justified. We should remain civil at all times, especially when we feel challenged or are angry about something. Just a curiosity. --ARoseWolf 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Williams? There was an attempt by one IP user to add him multiple times (and was also problematic in terms of behaviour as well, as seen in a previous report here), but besides that there was little discussion on him. He ended up being bunched in with Sarah Harding on the Talk page (again, due to the IP user essentially saying Harding and Williams should be included more than Mikis Theodorakis or Jean-Paul Belmondo, whose inclusions were never in dispute), but there was little comment beyond myself and Jim Michael agreeing that he does not warrant inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It does seem that WP:NPA is being breached here—Calton may disagree with individual reverts but the onus in the BRD cycle is always to discuss the merit of your change, not to attack the reverting editor. "Mr Gatekeeper" may not be the most cutting of insults but it does belie an attitude to editing that's entirely at odds with BRD. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Calton is being too confrontational in the discussion and edit summaries. It's entirely possible to disagree without the hostility. Levivich 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just how Calton edits. If you've ever had a different viewpoint than him on an article you've probably experienced it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A longstanding WP:BATTLEGROUND exemption from the gods? No one can explain the riddle behind these mysterious powers! El_C 18:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is “just how Carlton edits”, then how has this been tolerated for so long? Clearly it’s very problematic and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and the fact that he gets away with it seems to make him think that this conduct is at all acceptable. No user should be above these basic guidelines. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you. Levivich 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thus spoke Levivich the terrible WP:UNBLOCKABLE! El_C 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help much that Calton is correct. That's when he can be most annoying. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The end justifies the meanie, as it were. El_C 02:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Except Calton had absolutely no right to constantly attack me and accuse me of gatekeeping because I held a difference of opinion on Macdonald’s inclusion, and a lot of his attacks came on the basis of unfounded grounds such as the inclusion of Olympians (which had already been discussed previously on the Talk page where there was agreement on including gold medalists), and outright saying I’m the only one questioning Macdonald’s inclusion (hell, I didn’t even start the discussion thread questioning his inclusion). I don’t believe the way he went about everything (“Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw? And you know about Macdonald's significance outside the U.S. and Canada, how? And this is important, why?”, among other examples of his hostile and patronising attitude) is at all acceptable, and I sincerely hope that this isn’t dismissed and that something can be done, on the grounds of WP:NPA and WP:CIV - even if it’s just to have all the personal comments targeting me removed and/or to have him edit his comments so that he can make his argument without referencing me or attacking me. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This wholesale removal of comments by Calton was quite inappropriate, Thescrubbythug. That action is more aggressive than anything Calton said. Please self-revert right now. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Calton's entire conduct and behaviour towards me was completely inappropriate and aggressive, and there seemed to be a reluctance here by anyone to do anything about it in spite of blatant violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. According to WP:RUC, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor". Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, aggressive or unfriendly comments are not inherently personal attacks and would not merit automatic removal that invokes WP:RPA. El_C 11:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How is "Mr. Gatekeeper" not a personal attack, or comments such as "The BBC News reference seems to have escaped you. I skipped over a Guardian reference because I thought it was overkill, but apparently not. Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw?", "Since gatekeeping is what you're doing -- and looking at your editing history on this page, have been doing -- "gatekeeping" is what I'll call it", "Thescrubbythug is familiar with these shows, right?", or "Why yes, yes you can, your unwillingness to do so notwithstanding. Certainly the rest of us editors can" that are blatantly derogatory, accusatory, and designed to insinuate that I'm an idiot for disagreeing with him. Why do we have "Be polite and avoid personal attacks" as a rule for talk pages if they're not going to be enforced and when they are clearly violated, they are dismissed with an "I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you" and nothing is done. How is his standard of behaviour at all acceptable? Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, while that's uncivil, it isn't a personal attack outright. You are conflating impoliteness with personal attacks. As an aside, that is how Calton had been getting away with it for all these years. They only rarely cross the line from incivility to personal attacks, and they tend to be right on the content. So, if a personal attack = 1, any disparate incident would usually be at, say, 0.5. That, even though in total it's on the high end. It's a bit of a perennial problem on the project which is far from limited to Calton, though they embody it well, I think. El_C 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted back, though I still maintain that all of his comments personally targeting me rather than choosing to comment just on the topic at hand is very problematic. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A personal attack is more like, "El C, I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!" whereas incivility is just "El C, you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How dare you question farcical revered aquatic ceremonies! El_C 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

'ELP! 'ELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! Now you see the violence inherent in the system! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm Holy Hand Grenade'ing this silliness! El_C 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Calton speaks

Well, that was fast. I go away and come back to this. But thanks to the people who stepped up to speak for me, especially Bishonen. My two iron rules of Wikipedia are "Rule 1) Bishonen is always right. Rule 2) If Bishonen is wrong, step back and see where you went wrong, then go back to Rule 1."

Well, I have a few things I'd like say, namely that this whole circus is WP:BOOMERANG-worthy. In a nutshell -- because it's Saturday and I'm heading out of the house right after I type this, while it's still daylight -- the reason I talked about Thescrubbythug in Talk:2021 as part of a content dispute is because HE is part of the content dispute, as it were. In sum -- diffs later -- he has made judgments without research, in favor of his own subjective opinion of what is important and what is not; has made false -- or at least highly bad-faith -- statements; ignored arguments; shifted goalposts; and has done his best to weaponize behavior policies to take ownership of the page. I mean, the paragraph above that begins with Except Calton had absolutely no right... encapsulates a whole lot of what I think is wrong here.

I will say more later, when I get back and when I can condense it to less-than-mind-numbing detail. It's harder to write short than it is to write long. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you are accusing me of “ownership of the page” and of “weaponising” behaviour policies when it is perfectly obvious that I would have taken absolutely zero offence or issue with you had you simply made your argument in favour of Macdonald and not gone out of your way to attack me and make personalised accusations towards me, in spite of the fact that I didn’t even start the original thread and that I was not the only person questioning Macdonald’s inclusion. To now accuse me of filing this report when I made it absolutely clear that it had nothing to do with agreement or disagreement on the Macdonald topic, and everything to do with the way that you acted towards me is honestly disgusting and deeply problematic. “Shifting goalpost” is a ridiculous assertion, especially considering that you’ve obviously not followed the history of the Talk:2021 page and the discussions by multiple regular contributors about the need to be more selective about who to add onto the page, and by which criteria (especially with politicians, sports figures, and entertainment figures) would be most appropriate. It has been an overarching, ongoing issue over the last half year or so, and to specifically target and attack one user (myself) over this without even attempting to learn about the background context of these debates is inappropriate. In any case, I’ve already made clear that the issue isn’t agreement or disagreement over Macdonald; the issue is you and and your violations of WP:CIV (which the other admins here agreed was problematic), as well as referring to me as “Mr. Gatekeeper” in the most petty way possible. Don’t try and make this about anything other than that. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Target of Overzealous Editor

I have had issues with Mztourist in the past. Starting earlier this year when he nominated numerous AfD. At the time I was unaware of the rules and will admit revenge AfDing back, but only articles I felt were questionable and worth discussing. Mztourist has continued to AfD my articles on a regular basis some being deleted, some merged, some staying in place. One article was AfDd last year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination), and as he did not get the response he wanted, he recently AfDd it again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination). I ran across an article that had a single source for the entire article, which happened to be one of Mztourist and accidentally PRODed the article when I meant to AfD it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr.. I was immediately accused of REVENGE, and was told I didn't know what I was talking about and in general handled very rudely. I tried to explain, but was simply accused again. I would have discussed the matter further, but was "banned" from his talk page. The discussion continued on the AfD for Carney. I was looking over other AfDd articles, and added two Bibliography entries to Mac Ross, attempting to improve the secondary sources to unsure notability. This happened to be another article Mztourist is AfDing, my two book bibliography entries were immediately deleted by Mztourist claiming "They are not yet referenced in the page," however bibliography entries do not need to be referenced in the page so I undid the edit, and replied "Stop reverting my edits, I am contributing to the bibliography and providing secondary sources." Mztourist then commented in the Talk:Mac_Ross. He immediately accused me of edit warring, which is what he was doing. To be honest, I am tired of being disrespected, belittled, and harassed by Mztourist. I would like requested an interaction ban for the both of us, because I do not believe anything else will resolve the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If anyone should be making a complaint here it is me. I have previously complained about Jamesallain85 here in June: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85. Jamesallain85 was warned about REVENGE AFDs as a result of that discussion. I AFD'ed Jack C. Titus on 19 August: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack C. Titus. Jamesallain85 was temporarily blocked for WP:SHARE in that debate, the page was merged. I then AFDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) a page that I had AFDed over a year ago, but which was kept on a misinterpretation of the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER. As you will see there is currently a vigorous debate on the sourcing showing that it was a legitimate nomination. Jamesallain85 then sought REVENGE just as he did with previously with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Jacobson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby previously, by PRODing Robert B. Carney Jr.. I dePRODed the page with an explanation and Jamesallain85 then came to my Talk Page: User talk:Mztourist#Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr.. Jamesallain85 PRODed the page again. I banned him from my UP as I'm entitled to do and he then AFDed Robert B. Carney Jr. and you can read that discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr. particularly comments such as "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page.". Jamesallain85 has also !voted on a number of other current AFDs in which I have been active. In relation to Mac Ross he added books to the bibliography which are not referred to in the page and I deleted them with an explanation and he reinstated and I deleted them again, he reinstated them and I opened a discussion about his edit warring on Talk:Mac_Ross. Jamesallain85 claims that I have "disrespected, belittled, and harassed" him, but I contend that is what he has done to me. I have AFDed his pages because I believe that many of them are poorly sourced with tenuous to non-existent notability. Rather than addressing this he has continued to pursue REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of this as of yet but AfD is "not for article clean-up". We shouldn't be submitting articles to AfD because we feel they need to be properly sourced or cleaned up. If anyone wants to bring attention to a poorly sourced article you can post it on the article talk page or post a link on a relevant wiki-project. You can even ask a question about it on the Teahouse if you want to know where to bring it up. An article being poorly sourced is not a reason for deletion. If you feel it is not notable that is a different thing altogether. Regardless, content discussion is for somewhere else. --ARoseWolf 16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I AfDd an article that had zero evidence of notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On that same note, why is Mztourist AfDing articles and then trying to undo any improvements which would help keep the article. The article I AfDd and article with a single obituary as the only source for an entire article. There was nothing in the obituary which in itself that was notable. There have been many discussions on this topic, being a General is not automatic as Mztourist has stated several times. There were no notable awards, the highest being the Legion of Merit, something else Mztourist has stated. There was no evidence with what was on the page to speak of its notability other than it was printed in the Washington Post, which again by itself isn't notable. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You AfD page after page you claim are poorly sourced, and if I AfD one page of yours which contains a single source for SIGCOV I am REVENGE targeting you? I tagged another page of yours that didn't contain a singe source, do you understand the irony in your statement? I would like to point out some of your statements which point to your hostility: "You clearly don't understand SIGCOV and I can't be bothered engaging with you" "you're banned from my Talk Page now" "I have a habit of not continuing with pointless discussions with someone who can't tell whether or not a topic is notable." "I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you." " this page is being kept, better luck next time" Mztourist has repeatedly engaged in belittling, hostile, and unprofessional dialogue. If you don't see things from his point of view you are pushed down and mocked until he gets his way. He is quick to AfD article after article, but cannot take any criticism concerning his own. He simply denies it claiming the other is at fault because they just don't know and it is a waste of his time to discuss or explain it. He has engaged in edit warring unto the limit only to turn around and try to blame me for edit warring him, for adding sources to an article he is trying to AfD. I am beginning to question what Mztourist motives are on this platform. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Jamesallain85, it gets very confusing. Your nomination says "Fails WP:GNG even with added references." as a reason for why you put it up for deletion and then you lay out your case for why. That's perfectly fine as far as a reason and a plausible explanation. But then you later say "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page. The only person that gets enjoyment of deleting pages and reverting around here is you.", the you being Mztourist I suppose. Is it because it fails GNG and you are seeking deletion or is it that you are not seeking deletion and only wanting to draw attention to the fact you believe it is poorly sourced? --ARoseWolf 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's true, and frustrating, that people often participate in AfD debates without doing reasonable diligence (i.e. WP:BEFORE), but this seems like kind of a silly AN/I thread. It doesn't look like there are diffs here to support the claim that Mztourist is engaging in bad faith at AfD: if they are indeed nominating a bunch of your articles for deletion on spurious grounds, surely there is a big list (rather than the couple you've mentioned here)? For what it's worth, they do not seem to be making ludicrously bad nominations — about 36% of their nominations have closed "keep", "speedy keep" or "no consensus", which is roughly in line with aggregate AfD statistics (around 25% of all AfDs have closed as "keep", "speedy keep", or "no consensus" since 2014). jp×g 08:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pitzzaboy

This user has continued to disrupt Wikipedia through copyright violations and disruptive editing. Pitzzaboy has been warned countless times by other users, such as Bonadea, HurricaneEdgar, LightandDark2000 and Chlod, for copying within Wikipedia without attribution ([108], [109], [110]). Most recently, they have created Draft:Tropical Storm Ana, which was a blatant copy-paste from 2021 Atlantic hurricane season without attribution. Pitzzaboy has also edit warred recently on the Typhoon Chanthu (2021) article, while claiming that his article should not be deleted because it was his work and his work alone. This comes after at least one warning regarding edit warring. Finally, Pitzzaboy's talk page contains of nearly one dozen warnings spanning from August 2021 to the present. At least one ANI report has existed in the past month, as well as one 3RR report. Enough is enough, and this warrants an indefinite block. Destroyer (Alternate account) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Based on reading their contribs and their user talk page I tend to agree with @Destroyer. It may be that they don't understand how to be a constructive editor here but they also don't seem to be willing to or are unable to learn from past mistakes even to the point of doubling down on them. I would hope that they could accept constructive criticism and guidance but history says otherwise. If anyone sees how this could be remedied without a block I would be in favor of that. The disruption can not continue. --ARoseWolf 16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ARoseWolf: An alternative is mentoring, but I honestly don't that that that will help based on this user's responses as well as their actions on my talk page (partially blocked from editing it). Destroyer (Alternate account) 16:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) It may be worth directing them to WP:REUSE which seems to be the most pertinent policy here; if they have any trouble with it then CIR applies but it's worth giving them a fair shake at seeing the difference between public domain and our licensing on contributions. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

    • Excellent idea Grapple X. Thank you! --ARoseWolf 16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Gave the editor a final warning. Will not hesitate to indef as he clearly did not learn from the prior block. Star Mississippi 20:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

COI or hoax at John L. Georgiou

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

---

John L. Georgiou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

This page appears to be a hoax, with no sources anywhere that the article subject or his show ever existed. It has been edited almost exclusively by two SPAs. In this version many, if not all, of the images have been photoshopped or manipulated to show a link to the show, or in the case of this image to actually add the person to an existing image. This image has a clearly fake CBS logo added to a shirt, and most of the other images have fake show logos photoshopped into the background. I've brought the article up for AFD and removed some cruft from another article, and Orangemike has removed the subject from two alumni list articles. The two hoax accounts, and also possibly User:IreneGeorgiou, should probably be blocked. Even if this is somehow not a hoax they're all undeclared COI editors. As for the radio show that was referred to in the article, the only mention of the "internationally syndicated" radio program is a Facebook page with 20 or so likes and no content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally hoax. There's a John L. Georgiou in Pennsylvania who runs a financial services company, it is apparently this same guy. He was touting fake achievements and fake praise on his website radiotaxshow.com, claiming to be the "Longest Running Tax Program on the air today" which cannot be believed. Many of the photos are blatant manipulated nonsense. All of this should be deleted with warnings delivered to the perps. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Rogue Admin?

Bishonen has unilaterally and inappropriately blocked me from accessing my own user talk page without warning or rationale.

This attack, this revert where you prevent Valjean from fixing their own typo, and this revert + baseless claim of an insult, repeated here, all here on your own talkpage, are unbelievably petty, separately and together. Please note that Wikipedia including this very page are supposed to be for collaboration, not an opportunity for frustrating and abusing others. You have been blocked from this talkpage for 12 hours. If you wish to request unblock, I suggest either WP:ANI or WP:UTRS or appealing directly to me. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing. As such, I cannot contact him on his talk page. No policy was cited. No warning was given. Just, bam, a block for removing content from my own talk page.

WP:REMOVED clearly states "Policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages...", which is what I did. I am not obligated to keep snide/disparaging remarks on my own user talk page. It was under this criteria I did so despite hounding from another editor who wants to interject his commentary.

Had a conversation ensued, perhaps we could have talked about it and/or resolved it. Blocks should not be given out in this manner.

I am asking for the block to be overturned and editing privileges restored. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing." How did you leave this post then? Also, you're required to notify Bishonen on her user talk page when you file a complaint here, even if it is ungrounded. Cabayi (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, I can post here on ANI. I cannot post on his talk page or anywhere else on WP (otherwise I would have talked with him there). That's why I tagged him/pinged him above; it's the best I can possibly do. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  What happens when you to try to post to Bishonen's Talk page (Bishonen is a she)? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Your block log shows that your own talk page is the only page from which you are blocked. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  (EC x bazillion) It appears to be working now and I was about to post and instead got an EC (thanks TNT for the notification). Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a big difference between just removing someone else's comment from your talkpage and doing that while leaving a personal attack behind, which is the reason Bishonen blocked you from your talkpage temporarily. Isabelle ^🔔 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I find "User of unreliable sources" to be quite insulting and, if we're being this loose with the definitions, a personal attack. At a bare minimum, that's subjective and I'm entitled to my own opinion on the matter. I do not have to keep disparaging remarks on my talk page. I don't need to keep whatever headings and remarks people put on my talk page, especially someone who is gaslighting me. Even if you find that such a remark is (inexpicably) acceptable, a warning would be MUCH more in line than a block. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × a million) Buffs, long time. Rogue admin? That nomenclature brings me back! But in fairness, you can't just do whatever you want on your talk page (i.e. if it is to expressly berate someone). So, while it is unconventional (new to me), I don't see an issue with the action itself if it is meant to prevent further disruption. As for block weirdness, that partial block targets your talk page only, so I'm at a loss as to why it would affect any other page. BTW, I've internalized your point (from years ago) about keeping detailed WP:ECP protection summaries (despite my dumb, reflexive protestations at the time), you'd be pleased to hear. El_C 18:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is clearly the easiest way to gain adminship. A lot easier than running the gauntlet of RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  El_C, Is that little snide remark really needed? Indeed, you did go rogue and your block of me was overturned...feels like a continuing grudge... Buffs (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, I'm not sure what you mean. Snide how? Complimenting you? Being friendly? Me not hearing the term Rogue admin in literally years? Not sure I know how to phrase any of that better. Also, I unblocked you myself, that block was not overturned (I think you mean at AE, where indeed, my non-block sanction of you was overturned, overwhelmingly, and embarrassingly so, for me). But, back to the now, you trying to clutch onto a faux typo of great offence, well, that's a major hmm from me. Self awareness and all. El_C 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, right, me as the rogue admin in relation to you. Of course and indeed. But, no, I meant that nobody uses the term Rogue admin anymore, it's very old school. Nowadays, it's just admin abuse — I know, boring and plain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, point taken. We'll just go our separate ways with a shrug and a simple fist bump. Later. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Dig it! El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × many) The last few edits before the block are remarkably petty, and it is decidedly disruptive to prevent another editor from copy-editing their own post, so a block from a single talk page for 12 hours is actually quite reasonable. I double checked the block log, and I'm not seeing anything there prevent Buffs from editing anything besides User Talk:Buffs. The justification of their edits based on WP:REMOVED is also quite silly, and entirely contrary to the basic spirit of WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. If Buffs would recognize that they were being a bit much, I'd be willing to unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  As stated above, if this isn't allowed, I'll just delete it. It wasn't just copyediting their post, it was changing the meaning entirely from "this is how WP treats unreliable sources" to "you are a user of unreliable resources". And yes, he indeed is gaslighting the situation by pretending I'm somehow reverting in violation of WP:BRD when, in fact, he was the one who reverted. These comments are my opinions/assessments of the matter; they are no more personal attacks than his. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 I'll take you up on that. My intent at this point is to just delete it. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, that's not going to fly, sorry. this was clearly a typo, but even if you're not extending that level of good faith, you reverted in the content containing the disputed source. Describing it as post-hoc revisionism isn't reasonable. You can challenge Valjean's characterization of the situation if you like, but your response was utterly disproportionate. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps we have some wires crossed here. My assessment of his actions of gaslighting/WRT WP:BRD is in response to his OTHER edits, not those on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe, but the other conduct is irrelevant; your conduct on your talk page is why you were blocked, and your refusal to address it is why you remain blocked. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've stated both above and below that I will simply delete such remarks from anyone in the future as is directed by WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Likewise, I'm not going to respond to Valjean. I'm completely disengaged from him from this point. The block no longer serves a purpose. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)^7 Based on the diffs you've provided, you didn't simply "remove comments", though. If someone tries to fix their own typo to ensure they communicated what they intended, reverting that person's typo fix out of spite (I'm struggling to find a good faith alternative) doesn't fall under simply "removing comments". There's also the message you used when redacting, accusing Valjean of "gaslighting" and characterizing as "insults" things that don't really look like insults to me. That said, I think we usually give users a lot of latitude to, for example, redact comments (as long as it's clear they've done so) and vent on their own usertalk, so a block without warning seems a bit much IMO (and FWIW I'm not someone who typically says "but there was no warning!" for long-time editors who should know better -- it's my impression that this isn't all that far outside what many people expect to be able to do with their own talk page, so a warning seems like a good idea here). It's also not excessive enough (12 hour partial block amid disruption) to really object much either, though. PS: {{pronoun}} is your friend. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Rhododendrites. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Block review

• Endorse block Perhaps OP should read WP:NPA Twelve whole hours? Talk pages are not our own. They are the project's and are to be used within such policies as WP:CIVIL. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  A block without warning is excessive. "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking." Buffs (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• non-admin comment I would like to basically state what Deepfriedokra said about talk pages above but in my own words (That might be easier to understand). The Wikipedia project is the only thing that owns any talk page. They are simply letting us use user talk pages as a way to communicate with other editors on the account of us not violating any policies on them. If we violate a policy on a user talk page, the project can get rid of our ability to use it for any amount of time because they are the only ones who own talk pages. Technically, not even the founder of Wikipedia owns their own talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block The policy against personal attacks applies everywhere, and the brief and lenient block prevents Buffs from engaging in personal attacks on the page where the attacks were taking place, and we can all hope that the attacks will not resume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, so when I find something insulting or someone is gaslighting a situation, what exactly am I supposed to do? Do I just leave it there? Or is this a one-way street. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Not engage and definitely do not do the same thing back. Try and remain calm and take a break if you feel like you're getting mad. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Simply removing their message(s) and asking them not to message you again is perfectly fine. Such removal is even explicitly exempt from the edit-warring policy. Persistent messaging towards a user who has made such a request is usually treated as harassment when reported at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  So, I could hat the conversation, delete the conversation, but removing it and saying I find this insulting isn't acceptable? Buffs (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block per above.--Berig (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Endorse block per above. It's only 12 hours, why do you have to accuse Bishonen of being rouge? dudhhr_Contribs 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I reacted to that as well.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Drama, drama. The section is gone, the block is endorsed by enough others to be kept until automatic expiry, Valjean should probably avoid messaging Buffs again and that's it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• If Buffs had appealed the block to me (which was one of my suggestions) with something halfway decent such as "I was angry with Valjean, but I'm over it; I promise to use my talkpage in a collaborative manner", I would have happily unblocked. (Note that I do not by any means suggest they apologize, or admit they did anything wrong. No forced apologies for me.) As I would also have done, for that matter, if they had posted a decent unblock request here on ANI. But in response to this doubling down, no, I will not. I will say, though, that if any other admin feels like unblocking, they should feel free to do so without consulting me, or waiting for anything else. The block is so short that an unblock would need to be pretty quick to be meaningful, so just unblock if you want to. Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  As stated to the top of this page, I was unable to do so, or I would have talked to you personally first; I don't go to ANI. I suspect a transient system issue. Explaining what I did is hardly "doubling down", just giving my perspective on the subject. If it makes a difference, I found Valjean's comments to be offensive and gaslighting, but he isn't replying and I don't intend to use my talkpage for anything other than collaboration. In the future, I'll just delete remarks without commentary. Buffs (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Buffs way of communicating isn't ideal, but I'm not sure it warrants a (partial) block. At any rate, I think Bishonen should have warned Buffs first. If a warning would be ignored that could be followed up with a block, potentially for more than 12 hours in that case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Claiming @Bishonen to be a possible rogue admin is a bit over the top similar to some of the nuances surrounding the talk page edits. It is wholly unnecessary to categorize them in this way whether you agree with the block or not. She acted out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved. If both editors would remember that civility is not just a request but is policy and there is an expected etiquette when dealing with user talk pages then this wouldn't have been necessary. While all articles and pages here belong to Wikipedia and not the subjects or editors for which they represent, we do make allowances, such as if an editor requests that someone not comment on their user talk page or blanking a user talk page. I would hope that @Buffs would realize that the petty responses and small digs they are making at fellow editors is not really the way we want to approach building a collaborative encyclopedia. Likewise, I would expect that @Valjean will realize that @Buffs didn't take kindly to their remarks left and will refrain from doing so going forward. Even if they are justified in leaving remarks on the user talk page it has clearly been disruptive to the point that we are here discussing it over a 12 hour talk page block. This is just a genuine reminder to remain civil and show a little kindness and understanding towards each other, that's all. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  (repeat remarks as to address the correct person...) I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive and/or a warning would have been more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I read most of your interactions with @Valjean including the comments on other user talk pages besides your own. You both have been taking shots at each other. It was reasonable for Bishonen to conclude it may continue. I am not them so I can't speak for them and I may have acted differently or I may have acted the same. "Claiming" or "questioning" whether she has gone rogue when you at least had some understanding that wasn't the case by their response to you is just more of the continued goading and taking shots that has been going on here. Its not an effective way to collaborate and it is disruptive. Of course there are some that are going to disagree with the block. If there are a thousand human beings in a room you will get a thousand and one opinions. Everyone can have their opinion and they are all valid. All I am doing is reminding everyone to remain civil and show a little kindness. --ARoseWolf 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Most importantly, we've found something El C and I can agree on. "Rogue/rouge admin" takes me back, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I also don't agree with "a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". As far as I can see, Valjean was civil throughout, and Buff's nonsense about Valjean "gaslighting" him is IMO just that: nonsense. Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  Are you serious Bishonen? Valjean is being "civil"? Let's look at just his most recent remarks about me here at ANI:

  • "I have encountered skunks many times."
  • "so unpleasant"
  • "most unpleasant editors I have met here"
  • "leaving a misleading situation"
  • "This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work."
  • "Unpleasant [person] who push[es] fringe and unreliable sources" (NOTHING I posted wasn't verifiable from other sources. NOTHING I put down was a "fringe" view in the slightest)

  Right...and I'm the one being blocked for removing insults from my talk page. And Valjean doesn't even get a warning for calling me names (in this case a skunk..among others. This seems appropriate/civil to you? Buffs (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh... you think when I described, above, the interchange on your talkpage and Valjean's civility in it, I should have taken into account the comment Valjean would post here on ANI, below, eight minutes after my description? Really? I'll acknowledge that no, I don't think it was appropriately civil of him to mention skunks in the way he did; in fact, I wish he hadn't thought it necessary to post here at all. But that has little to do with what I said above. No, you didn't remove insults from your talkpage. That remains nonsense. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

• Why are you arguing with me? I didn't say you claimed anything. Indeed, I'm not contributing productively to the actual discussion at all. While I'm here, though, I'd like to officially announce that "gaslighting" has joined "stalked" and "harassed" as words that no longer mean anything on Wikipedia, due to extreme overuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm arguing with you because I missed the spacing...arg...my bad. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to ToBeFree for pinging me. This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work. Unpleasant people who push fringe and unreliable sources tend to get blocked for any one of many possible faults.

This all comes down to honesty and AGF, something Buffs repeatedly failed to do. They deleted my comment, leaving a misleading situation for later readers to see me in a bad light. I also made a typo in the heading of my comment and didn't notice it until later. When I tried to fix it, Buffs refused to allow me to fix it, which was another serious failure to AGF. AGF is a very basic and important policy, and admins should hand out more blocks for its violation.

I have encountered skunks many times. Once one sprayed our dog in the face right in our open bedroom door in the middle of the night, whereupon the dog ran through the house desperately trying to rub off the thick yellow dripping spray on everything! We couldn't sleep in the house for two months and stayed in our travel trailer. I have also encountered porcupines in the High Sierras not far from Mount Whitney and stepped on a sea urchin at Brindisi. I now stay away from skunks, porcupines, and sea urchins. My point? When I encounter an editor who is so unpleasant and aggressive that I sense they are too emotionally inflamed to be worth approaching, at least not until later, I tend to back off and cease engagement. I wanted to apologize for misunderstandings about the BRD issue, a point I obliquely conceded ("It appears that the point is moot now, as the unreliable source has been deleted again."), but I could see that any attempt would just be rebuffed with more personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, so I stayed silent.

That's where we are right now. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie. I can survive without engaging with Buffs anymore. I can place them easily within the top ten most unpleasant editors I have met here since 2003 when I started here. Talk pages are for communication, preferably collaborative and explanatory discussion, but that quickly became impossible because of Buff's insistence on portraying me, and what they allowed to be seen on the talk page, in the worst possible light. That form of dishonesty and uncollegiality I can do without. -- Valjean (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, You can't tell me that you telling them they should not only not use the source they were using but also that they shouldn't read the source they were using wasn't going to be viewed as ill intended. That doesn't foster collaboration. If you want to say that the source isn't reliable then that's fine. That's based on policy. It's the extra stuff that is unnecessary and seems unkind. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Like calling me a skunk? Analogous also to porcupines and sea urchins? Will someone at least put a warning on his talk page? (note that I'm NOT advocating for a block) I'd happily do that, but I don't want to be accused of any more ill-tempered acts. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like this; these are unacceptable personal attacks. I've blocked Valjean for 12 hours; when writing the block notification, I stumbled upon their editnotice, which currently includes the text "This talk page is my territory and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more accurately." I'm not sure if there's anything left to be said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't endorse this block of Valjean. I'm not here to go tit-for-tat. I think a warning is sufficient. As stated below, I'm not going to engage with Valjean, but I also think a warning is warranted prior to a block (unless he's been warned prior and I missed it) and what's good for the goose... Buffs (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Warned prior... blocked prior, that is. I understand that this action doesn't make you happy either, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The block has been resolved amicably; to avoid further fuel on the fire, I have recommended Valjean to sleep a night over the whole situation before addressing it in hindsight. This is explicitly not enforced in any way, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Point of clarity I'm not going to engage with Valjean from this point forward. I ask that Valjean do the same by mutual agreement. A block from my own talk page serves no purpose at this time. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Buffs says they're going to change their way of dealing with things they don't like on their talk page, and isn't going to engage with Valjean anymore, so I suppose there's some benefit to lifting the block before it expires, even if they aren't letting go of the "I was gaslighted" approach. I admit to admiration of the sheer out-of-normal-process-ness of the block, and note it does have support here, but it seems to have worked to some extent, Buffs seems to have learned what the community thinks of the behavior that led to the block, and seems to be getting increasingly annoyed that it is still in place. I doubt any further epiphanies are going to happen in the next 6 hours. Since most admins are scared of Bishzilla, I suppose I'll be the brave one and undo Bishonen's block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Bishzilla? Isn't that a PA? Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, FYI: Floq was talking about the terror that is Bishzilla. El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this party, but I put a post (below yours). This spat about Buffs' user talk page is only the tip of the iceberg on what has gone on in the last 24-48 hours. It all started when I was editing articles to remove dailywire.com citations (GUNREL), and Buffs took offense to some of them. Valjean noticed the edits (how or why, I don't know) and Buffs started to attack Valjean. He tried to attack me and I just doubled-down on documenting why I removed the dailywire edits. Other editors also discovered and reverted Buffs edits. Buffs escalated his aggressions and I wanted to write something up (to where or whom, I didn't yet know) when I discovered this ANI. So there you have it. Can of worms opened. See all the shenanigans. And stop focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page. Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Oops, forgot to ping Floquenbeam. Platonk (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: For some reason the ping didn't work, but I saw this anyway. I'm "focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page" because that's what was presented in this thread. I can't consider stuff you've posted after I've unblocked. If this has calmed down - it sort of seems it has - then I don't know if further ANI action is useful. If it flares back up, then make a separate report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block and recommend BOOMERANG for repeated disruptive editing, edit warring, personal attacks, and deliberately and defiantly ignoring reliable source guidelines. For the last 24-48 hours, Buffs has been engaged in edit warring on these articles: Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, David Horowitz, Scooter Libby, and Trump administration family separation policy. He has fought with Valjean on V's and Buffs' user talk pages, as well as on my user talk page. Despite several editors (including me) reverting his edits and pointing out to him the guidelines about unreliable sources, he has continued to remove reliable sources and replaced them with unreliable and marginal ones on the WP:RSP list. In addition to the fighting on user talk pages, he has been aggressive through edit summaries such as:
  • "accurate article does not need to be removed" (referring to a Daily Wire citation Buffs reinserted after I removed it)
  • "If someone publishes a statement using an "unreliable source" it is still viable as a source to corroborate that statement" (as Buffs reverted my edit where I had removed a GUNREL Daily Wire citation, and content that had already been covered elsewhere in the article)
  • "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as Buffs reinserted 3 dailywire and 1 NY Post citation I had removed)
  • "Undid ... (suppression) by Valjean ... you showed your intent is suppression ... Repression of Joy Behar's insanely ignorant remarks are particularly galling/widely panned as idiocy/advocating random lethal violence." (as Buffs re-reinserted the same content Valjean had removed, while adding 10 more citations, OVERCITE)
  • "it's important to include how detached from reality her opinions are." (as Buffs changes my well-chosen citation-replacements and re-re-replaces his CITEBOMB)

Several other editors also discovered Buffs' reverts to be off-policy, and reverted them. I'm pleased Bishonen discovered some of Buffs' shenanigans. I would definitely vote for a BOOMERANG on Buffs. Platonk (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• If it had just been sources that were removed, you'd have a point. However, it was also content that was removed. My intent on dropping so many sources was to simple give a list to pick from; clearly it was taken as something hostile or stubborn... not my intent and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. In hindsight and with corrections since then, we have an article with the same text and better/more rounded sourcing (sourcing from ALL sides). If this result is to your satisfaction, then we're good. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, "we" are not good. The place to discuss 'options' on citations is the article's talk page, not repeatedly reverting good faith edits and slamming in 10 citations into an article "so I could pick". See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And the point of NPOV is not to offer the reader 10 citations à la "primary source, left source, right source, and primary occupation source", but for the Wikipedia editors to present a NPOV wiki article based on what coverage is out there, appropriately balanced/weighted. Your alleged correction of the article is still wrong; I just haven't gotten around to documenting it on the article's talk page. You have already wasted a horrendous amount of my time over what seems to be your POV-pushing. Platonk (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, please take it down a notch. I think everyone is pretty spent with all the animosity. Throwing more petrol on the embers isn't the way to go. Rather, what's called for is de-escalation. El_C 23:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Don't patronize me! So let's see if I got this straight. Buffs goes on a two day edit war rant, repeatedly reverts a bunch of edits, refuses to follow wiki guidelines, posts "fighting words" over and over and over again, provokes Valjean and me and others, until Bishonen sees something and gives Buffs a slap on the wrist. Then Buffs escalates his tirade into this ridiculous ANI, tells his own side of the story, all of you others participate in an "lively discussion" where in the end Valjean is again provoked and revictimized, and at no point was the underlying issue discovered or mentioned... until I found this ANI... but because you're spent you want me to... to... what? I can't believe you wrote that dismissive utterance. Comments like that are why efforts to stamp out wikibullying never make any headway. Platonk (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, the intent wasn't to patronize you, that is your reading of it, which is in error. What I tried to do was to gently caution you exactly against continuing in this way. Everyone else seem to be disengaging, so why not you? I'll be more blunt, then: I, myself, am not spent, but my sense is that many here are. And, if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough? El_C 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for the community to endorse a block that's going to expire that would have expired in a few hours anyway? Mlb96 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Which block? One was reversed hours ago on one editor while another was imposed on another editor. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs's block would have expired a few hours after this section was created, it seems kind of pointless. Mlb96 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Both editors are now unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mlb96, if the community refuses to endorse a block it's a sign for the blocking admin that they should handle similar situations in the future differently. In really bad cases (which this wasn't), it could be grounds for a desysop procedure. For those things it doesn't really matter if the block will expire soon or even if it has already expired. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Late to the drama as they are already unblocked, but the block seemed excessive, a stern warning would have sufficed, kind of like the one above - if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough?. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Considering the number of early ECs, if nothing else, I guess writing an ‘enticing’ section title like “Rogue Admin” is a good way to get participation at ANI, regardless of merits. So that’s good to know, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's the Wikipedia version of clickbait. Mlb96 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Strange edits by Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D

Wikipedia Wonderful 698-D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to make some good edits. But then they also make edits such as at Battle of Salamis where they add a distinguish hatnote to frot (probably NSFW), and similarly at Battle of Salamis (disambiguation) where they add a "See also" section with links to the aforementioned "frotting" as well as penis fencing. FDW777 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It looks like, going through their edits, those two were the only "joke" edits I could find. Also, they haven't edited in almost a month. A warning for the edits would be fine, however this was months ago as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Editor uploading copyrighted images

I was performing new page patrol and happened upon a new article created by Mint69 (talk · contribs). The mugshot in the infobox File:Arohn_Kee_(serial_killer).png was also uploaded by the editor, who tagged it with the Mugshot template and provided a news site as the source. The source URL clearly stated All Rights Reserved at the bottom, furthermore, the NYPD doesn't automatically release their mugshots into the public domain. After looking at the editors other uploads, I saw File:Bruce_Lindahl.png, an obvious police mugshot which he has tagged indicating he himself is the copyright holder. Many other of his uploads have been deleted and a lot of others are tagged as being in the PD due to some kind of legal understanding in California. The latter inages may be ok, but given his other problematic uploads, not to mention the obvious false ownership of one of them, I think someone ought to have a look through these. I asked him on his talk page to stop uploading images altogether, but it may need further scrutiny/enforcement. ♟♙ (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've deleted File:Arohn_Kee_(serial_killer).png and File:Westside rapist.png. I've not reviewed other uploads of this editor yet (no time at the moment). But, it's clear this editor doesn't fully understand how we handle copyright and images here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Hammersoft I took a quick pass through the rest of their uploads, and the bulk look to be OK, falling under the California public domain rule. I tagged one more to FFD. Also, EnPassant, if you start a discussion about someone at ANI, you must notify them on their talk page. I've done that for you.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I notified him right after I posted here, BubbaJoe [111]. ♟♙ (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't see it there. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, the user has posted at Hammersoft's talk page, and on his own userpage (I copied that to his talk page), saying: "I'm addressing the current issues going on with my credibility. I would like to continue making and editing pages, but I will from now on stop uploading images that I have no right to use. I have a history of using images in articles but ignoring the copyright. Just want everyone to know that I'm not an "intentional" image thief, I'm not that low ok. I'm completely just an Idiot" BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Death threat

Could any admin throw this one into the bin? Thanks![112] - LouisAragon (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Editor blocked, threat revdel'd. IMHO WP:EMERGENCY wouldn't be appropriate, but if another admin wants to, I won't argue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

IP with nothing better to do

Hi administrators, I would like to request your to block this four IP (211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62, and 220.121.35.39). All four points to Incheon, South Korea when checked with GeoLocate feature. These four IP has been going around articles such as My Little Old Boy (majority) and List of My Little Old Boy episodes (partially), and other articles such as Start-Up (South Korean TV series) and changing wikilink linking to correct article to disambiguation page or to the wrong article. These has been happening for months, in which 211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62 has been blocked before for the same thing. Below are a partial list of diff I have compiled.

211.198.20.71[113][114][115][116][117][118]

220.121.35.39 [119][120][121][122][123][124]

211.198.20.145[125][126][127][128]

220.121.35.62[129][130][131][132]

If possible please help to block the whole range, as they already spawn 4 IP, hence it is highly possible, the same person behind these 4 IP will keep coming back. Thanks and regards — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Non admin Comment Comment 2 separate range blocks would have to be imposed because 220.121.35.0/32 and 211.198.20.0/32 aren't part of the same range. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 01:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Blaze The Wolf Yup need to block two seperate range. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Sidhari and probable UPE/COI editing issue

Sidhari has made under eighty edits to Wikipedia since 2014. Since then, the editor appears to have engaged in a number of problematic editing relating to articles that they have created. Nearly half of their edits have been deleted and, being that I am not an admin, I can only comment on what I can see through their talk page and public edit history.

In the past, the user apparently engaged in the repeated removal of AfD tags from the now-deleted Mayur Shekhar Jha and created a sockpuppet to assist them after they received a warning. This led to a 24-hour block. (They have changed their name since.)

Despite having been warned about the requirement to disclose a conflict of interest, they appear to have continued to edit in areas that they have a conflict of interest in. The user created Gaurie Dwivedi, which was subsequently deleted at an AfD, with OP suggesting the potential of undisclosed paid editing. I believe that this may be the caseSidhari uploaded a picture a picture of Gaurie Dwivedi to Wikimedia Commons, saying it was their own work. Seeing as the photograph is highly retouched, it does not appear that this could be true without there being some coordination between the editor and the photograph subject. And, in the case that the photograph is not actually their own work, we've got a copyright violation problem.

What's more, the user has recreated the article extremely recently after it was deleted by Czar. While I can't see the deleted edits, this really feels like a persistent UPE/COI editor. In light of this, I believe that the editor should be topic-banned from creation and deletion, and I would not be opposed to an indef. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note - the recreated article was deleted again by admin Liz with reference to the result of that previous AFD. Liz might be able to help here too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely due to these multiple problems that span years (albeit in a trickle) yet continue to be repeated to this day. El_C 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:David M Medlar

• David M Medlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• User talk:David M Medlar
• User talk:FlightTime#whats up
• User talk:FlightTime#speculation vs. statistic vs. law
• User talk:FlightTime#Being didactic

I had undone the worst one. I tried to explain to David that they should assume good faith and how one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. In return they called me pedantic. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Warned. But I have a bad feeling about this one. Well, hopefully, I'm wrong. El_C 11:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Me too. User has not edited since this thread was opened. I offered a few sage words of counsel. (Please feel free to ping El_C if problems resume. ) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra and El C: The subject of this thread is harassing me on my talk page, see Special:Diff/1044893468 and Special:Diff/1044894683. Could one of you up the page protection. (I have a secondary talk page) Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by El C who is faster than I --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

And... gone. El_C 16:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Who Has Seen The Wind? I'm serious, I can't find a free version of this incredible Leroy Vinnegar track (with Geoff Lee on piano). Anyway, maybe you'll get some Kant quotes at WP:UTRS, DFO. That would be fun-in-the-sun. El_C 17:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, the Joy of Duty I Kant wait. Fiat justitia, pereat mundus --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I've always felt that an all-or-nothing approach to the teleological-deontological divide is kinda pointless, but granted, my background is... El_C 17:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait. That's utility. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Like. Haha, you got me! What a Carlin move. Respect. El_C 20:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

The IP user 77.247.95.99, who has already been reprimanded multiple times for adding unsourced material to articles, removed the deletion template on an article before the discussion was over and whined about the AfD in the edit summary. Dronebogus (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Whined, really? El_C 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Edit summary:

“This article should not be deleted, please I call all administrator and user of Wikipedia to save this page and to exit this warning. This is an importan articles with a lot of information and sources. I beg you all, help!!!“

• Diff: [133] Dronebogus (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I've seen that and had already warned the user about that (User_talk:77.247.95.99#Warning). Still, please refrain from diminishing/berating someone's objections, even when these seem less than well thought out. See WP:BITE — wait, am I doing that with you right here? I think I should win an irony prize. El_C 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Funny, but no, I’m not a newbie— I’ve been here for over a year and made over a thousand contributions. Dronebogus (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Everything's relative, I suppose. 17 years→ El_C 12:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Any admins fancy blocking some people? AIV has a backlog and one editor Kingdrog has been going at it for around half an hour now. It's getting BORING. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

MOS issue by Clipred

Moved from AIV ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 14:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Clipred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can we block this guy already? The guy goes to edit pages insisting on using his style despite other editors telling him about WP:MOS. And if you fix his edits, he goes on to ruin the articles, but hides them using flowery edit summaries. There's a pattern here. Same thing he did last time as MaccWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--he has changed his name since the last incident. He pretends to fix the article but actually he is ruining it. I even reported the guy as a sock, the last time he insisted on adding -- Nic Juddha Cartagena and other derivates of Nic Cartagena -- on the article Juddha Paolo. I reverted his edits, knowing the name was incorrect, he went and mess up the page. I don't know why he got away with it, the name he insisted on adding, is the what the socks of Nic.cartagena12 (talk · contribs) keeps adding. Why would this guy keep adding that name? It's not like it was something he just picked up somewhere. Carl Francis (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't ruin anything on that article, if you want to remove something on my contributions at that page or any page that I've edited, you should tell me at edit summary the reason why you removed them, but you didn't. And one more thing, please look at my revision first and see if there is a mistakes, and if there is a mistakes, tell me first, in that case I will know my mistakes, but you didn't, and you warned me immediately. I change my username because i didn't like it. Again, i never use multiple accounts. My issue on that Sockpuppetry is cleared already. clipred (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Clipred (previously editing as User:MaccWiki) and User:Carl Francis were at WP:AN3 a few days ago due to a dispute about Juddha Paolo. At that time I warned both of them for edit warring and told them to get consensus before reverting that article again. Since my closure of that complaint, neither party has made any edits to the talk page at Talk:Juddha Paolo. The usual steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of them but have not been taken. I recommend that ANI take no action unless they first follow the advice previously given to them. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz block

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Blocking admin. Sandstein

It appears that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was blocked by Sandstein for WP:PA and/or incivility. Multiple editors have posted reservations about the block: Aquegg, Bungle, 331dot, Wugapodes, and Stalwart111 all appear to have concerns about the block [134]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has posted an unblock request. Those involved can provide the details. Perhaps this is something the community can resolve. I will notify Sandstein and HW now. — Ched (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As blocking administrator, I remain of the view that the block is appropriate. As I wrote on the user's talk page:

On 22 February 2021, Wugapodes blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that the civility restriction (contested by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) was and is in fact in force, as described in the ANI closure.

About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" ([135]), and of "sloth" ([136]). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.

In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Wikipedia's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct.

In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Wikipedia. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Wikipedia process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct as AfD closer. Sandstein 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock statement:

First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.

Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.

Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (copied from talk by — Ched (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC))

My goodness. Can we please get'em to shorten his signature? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess "filth" would be longer than "dirt". But, as for Hong Kong, that ship has already sailed, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good block - those were clear personal attacks from an editor who has a history of being blocked for personal attacks. Others should stop excusing the behavior. Levivich 14:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Decline unblock Does not address the reason for the block. And this is unfortunate, as I had hoped to unblock. We are all under a civility restriction. I'm afraid appellant needs a clearer understanding of WP:NPA. One can disagree with another editor without proposing character flaws as the reason another has done something one disagrees with. Appellant might wish to review the WP:GAB. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn Reading the AFD comments in light of it being an AFD (and in light of the 2016 incident that led to the restriction), I'm having a hard time seeing the comments by HW as being directed towards the person of the nominator rather than the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator, which is something that can be discussed and dissected in that manner. HW's concern is not about the editor themselves, but the broader factors of how WP policy impacts articles related to women (which is fully valid). That said, in terms of HW's comment above, I don't think its right to dismiss the 2016 civility warning as "never imposed". It is logged on that page, part of the closer's statement and is supported in a few of the !supports in the original discussion stressing the need for civility. --Masem (t) 15:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Since when is it acceptable to comment in an AFD on the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator? Levivich 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    I've seen cases when it's appropriate to say: "malicious nomination", "revenge", etc. (Please don't read it as support for unblock!) — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    If it were the case that the nominator was a user HW had a previous known and ongoing tussle with, I would agree that these specific comments in the indicated AFD (like "institutional misogyny") could be read as personal attacks. I just don't see clear evidence that there was any interaction issues that had existed previously to make that judgement call. It's definitely borderline in how it could be read, but I'm finding it really hard to find that the intent of HW's comments were meant directly at the specific editor and more a general frustration at AFD and sloppy nominations. --Masem (t) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    The fact a restriction exists should make it clear and obvious to HW that coming remotely close to any civility line is likely going to get him blocked. "It's borderline" isn't a good enough defense in such a case. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good block Per Levivich's comments and the apparent history of HW. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could yas get'em to shorten his signature signing? We're talking WP:SEAOFBLUE, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  He was brought here a LONG time ago for that reason, ended up being closed with either no consensus, or, consensus that he did not need to change it.I think. If someone else wants to find the report that would be nice. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  But it was without the Hong Kong part then! — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  It breaks no rules? Can't actually yet be seen from space? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I want to reinforce something that came up here. It's been argued that there was no "stir" after the alleged personal attacks, and nobody complained, thus there was no need for action. I want to strongly reject that idea. It doesn't take working with many new users to find one that stops editing a page, is scared off of editing it to begin with, or quits Wikipedia because of tolerated open hostility/aggression (from someone who is so aggrieved that they wear their anger in their signature, in this case). I say "new users" because it's relatively common in my experience, but I also know seasoned contributors who would feel extremely uneasy when confronted with that level of hostility. No, we should not require people to stand up to people acting inappropriately in order to identify inappropriate behavior. That said, we have a policy against personal attacks, not hostility and aggression...
  Bringing accusations of misogyny into the argument was a bit much (it wouldn't be an issue IMO to make a point about systemic bias and even institutionalized misogyny on Wikipedia, but it was directly aimed at the nominator/nomination), and it's there that I think some sanction may be within admin discretion. But most of that style of !vote, which goes after the nominator in this way, is not unusual. We have an entire project whose members do this routinely, with little or no sanctions over the course of years.
  So I find myself torn. It was a bit over the top, but one could be forgiven for thinking we typically allow nominator-focused comments at AfD. Perhaps a reduction (without calling it a bad block). What I'd like to see from Sandstein, who I think as a rule exhibits excellent judgment at AfD, is a clear statement that this approach won't be tolerated anymore, perhaps even at WT:AFD, so we can avoid this ... confusion? in the future? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Because I partly contributed to that argument you reject, I think it's worth clarifying my intent. I agree that in general we don't need to look to how a comment is received in order to evaluate whether it crosses the line. I brought it up because it struck me as strange that it sat for two weeks collecting dust with no one saying anything about it. That just doesn't feel like the situation where blocking on-sight is the ideal solution. I'm not saying we need to stick our heads in the sand and pretend HW is any random AfD contributor who gets a little overzealous, but given the lag between comment and admin action it's worth looking at the statement in context, and (lack of) response is part of that context. Like any part of context, it's hard to generalize, and in plenty of cases it may well be useless for various reasons. Ultimately, I think we reach the same conclusion by different means, and I strongly agree with your last paragraph. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block I agree with Levivich. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment- The distinction between "the nominator is sexist" and "the nomination is sexist" is pedantic, a distinction without a difference, particularly since there's nothing in the nomination to suggest there actually was any sexism. I agree with Sandstein: I'm seeing more and more attacks against the character and motivations of the nominator- the goal isn't to discuss the merits of the article but to make people feel bad and guilty for even thinking of nominating at AfD. And I respectfully disagree with part of Rhododendrites's conclusion: just because the community has historically permitted insults and smears provided they're prefaced by the word "keep" doesn't mean we're required to keep doing so. This would be a good opportunity to draw a big red line through this odious practice and say that there'll be no more of it. Reyk _YO! 16:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. If this was a one-time thing, maybe we could cut him some slack. But HW has a tendency to dance around the line between civil and uncivil comments at AFD somewhat regularly by commenting on the nominator, not the content, in contravention of WP:NPA. [137] [138] [139] [140] -- Calidum 16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I am with Sandstein and Deepfriedokra that this appears to be a good block and to decline the unblock. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, and I was tempted to raise the fact that HW almost immediately violated his civility restriction when he returned from the most recent block here, where I found his behavior egregiously in violation of it and WP:NPA in general. Grandpallama (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The more I learn about this, the more I move towards the idea that the block was correct. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the block. I was one of editors heavily bullied by HW a few years ago and wholeheartedly supported his 2016 ban. (Do I remember the year correctly?) It is still obvious that HW sometimes struggles to behave politely and avoid showing his contempt to fellow editors. But the incident in question was of such a negligible gravity – this type of comments are a standard (an unfortunate one, but still) at AfD forums – that I have hard time finding any rational justification for such a heavy-handed sanction. Even further: I fully agree with Stalwart111 (talk · contribs) [141] who reminded that HW's words, even if not overly polite, were directed at an editor causing significant disruption to Wikipedia. Overall, thus, I view the block as unjustified. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. As a non-admin I am not sure if I can vote here, but I too oppose this block under these circumstances. The comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette were precipitated by Boleyn making rapid nominations of many articles at AFD without enough time in between nominations to indicate any sort of WP:BEFORE could have been done. The accusations made at the AFD were largely justified in my opinion; although they could have been expressed more calmly and kindly. Further, these sort of comments are routinely ignored and accepted AFD, so singling out Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for behavior we normally tolerate in others (no warnings, etc.) seems to be hypocritical on the part of the community.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am somewhat sharing the sentiments expressed by 4meter4 above as I did on HW's talk page. While I can see why Sandstein took issue with the comments, I don't know if a 6 month block so soon after the last is proportionate. Some of the phrases and tone is inappropriate, or at best, ill-conceived and it's perhaps touching the line of incivility rather than incontrovertibly crossing it. I don't think a 6 month block is going to achieve much, frankly and it feels more like dusting something under the carpet to deal with later than actually considering a resolution. I am not an advocate of HW and I do not really feel strongly enough to forcibly oppose the disproportionate sanction, but I do wonder whether the considerations should be based around a long-term resolution even if, when factoring in wider concerns beyond this AfD, that leads to something indefinite, but not irreversible. If just expressing a view on the comments in the AfD alone, then I couldn't express support for the sanction imposed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I don't want to throw in a bolded opinion here but it's worth noting for those who feel that the comments were perhaps mild or not enough to warrant action, this comes after editing restrictions have already been put in place and subsequently breached prior to this. Surely once bitten, twice shy—or, several time bitten, even more times shy—should really be the approach for an editor who's already been sanctioned for this before without us needing to debate where the line is every time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 17:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the block was clearly within administrator discretion given the previous restriction. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Are editing restrictions only imposed by ArbCom or community consensus? Because I'm not seeing a community consensus for the original editing restriction; out of the 14 editors who gave support for sanctions in the original 2016 ANI discussion, I only see two editors suggesting such a thing. I'm struggling to see how nobody protesting the close comment equates to community consensus in favour of it. – ².O.^Boxing 18:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse due to the accusation/personal attack made in the AfD. Number 57 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block. A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made? Nope, sorry, regardless of any edit restriction. Purely punitive after that amount of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Even if one concludes that the comments were not a personal attack on the nominator they go against the pillar of civility we are all expected to edit under. Civility covers much more than comments obviously considered direct personal attacks. The fact is that one could get their point across without resorting to saying the things that were said. The comments were unkind and divisive. They weren't meant to be instructional or helpful. They were meant to ridicule and tear the nominator down. I am a woman. I believe women are misrepresented. I see it. I believe women do face body shaming and are judged based on appearances and appeal in some cases. I've experienced it. But tearing into a fellow human being on this encyclopedia isn't going to change that. The fact is that the comments directed at this nominator of this AfD did no woman any favor anywhere in the world. It only created an unkind, uncivil and toxic situation that was extremely unfortunate and does not represent the type of collaboration I believe we want as a community. --ARoseWolf 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not thrilled with the previous 6 month block and this one is also questionable IMO. But yes, for sure HW has serious civility problems and seems unable to keep them under control. A claim of misogyny had damn well better be clearly documented otherwise it's going to be purely a personal attack. Given the prior 6 month block, I can't really claim the duration is crazy. Still, I think one week or one month might be more appropriate. I don't know that it will result in change, but it's easy enough to block again. As I note, I rather like HW and largely agree with them on nearly every issue. So maybe that colors my view. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I also don't think the basis for the block, a community consensus for an editing restriction, is really in existence per SCB. Wrt Black Kite, I think this is more a pattern of problems and this AfD was just one. I would normally agree that 16 days is far too long, but I've seen similar problems from HW in the last month, so I'm more open to the latency than I normally would be. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hobit, can you really look at this discussion (and the previous ANI discussion) and assert that it would be "easy" to block this particular user again? If blocking them generates this amount of drama, better we have it every six months instead of every six days. Sandstein 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get it. But part of the uproar is that 6 months is a long time. Overall they have a very light block log (much shorter than I'd have expected honestly). Last block was at least a community discussion (though I don't agree with how it was closed). This one seems out of proportion for the offense. Better to have another community discussion than a single admin blocking for 6 months. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block - if the lad hasn't been vandalising articles, edit-warring or socking. As for WP:CIVIL, NPA, etc? I'm not one who supports enforcing them. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose block - whether it's a personal attack or not is questionable, but two weeks and change after the fact? How is this not punitive? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Jauerback, it is not punitive because it does prevent further personal attacks in AfDs for six months. These would otherwise be very likely, given the lack of recognition of the problem in the unblock request, and similar recent comments by the same user, e.g. "you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away (...) sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia" ([142]). What would be punitive would be to block or to keep the user blocked after they recognized their error and promised not to repeat it. That is still an option open to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but the fact that they have not chosen to take it confirms that the block remains a preventive necessity even at this time.

  As an aside, there's also this: "The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense." ([143]) So, given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is of the view that AfD comments to which they object are bannable offenses, and that sanctions should double in length each time, I should maybe have blocked for 12 months instead of 6... Sandstein 20:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's incredibly disingenuous under the circumstances. I think you know full well what HW meant there and the overly clever sarcasm is unbecoming. Everyone should object to disruptive AFD nominations that intentionally misinterpret or misrepresent policy and guidelines. And editors who do so repeatedly (and to make a point) should absolutely be blocked. Calling that bahaviour out should be the stuff of barnstars, not blocks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block if you want to change someone's behaviour, modeling the desired behaviour is more effective than sanctions. Sanctions at this point just prove that aggression will be met with retaliation. Is that the behaviour that we want people to learn from observing how other editors behave? Of course not. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse and their response is also an endorsement. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Given my comment on the unblock request, it's worth noting that my thinking has changed somewhat since Sandstein's reply to me. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I endorse the block, I certainly view it as within the realm of admin discretion. I agree with Rhododendrites above that reducing the duration might be worthwhile, but I do not believe this was a "bad block" per se. I also don't buy into the wikilawyering about "community sanction"; WP:CIVIL applies to everyone and we shouldn't need to hold someone's hand through that. As practical matter, every editor is under a "civility restriction", we just list it as an editing restriction because some people seem to forget that the policy applies to them. So even if we removed the line, it's not some technicality that allows HW to evade consequences. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block - A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made, purely punative, as per Black Kite. Bit sorry to comment really as there are users that have said that they would vote against anything I supported but this block is excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I don't want to seem like I'm singling your response out but it's just the latest of a few to mention the time frame. The block was clearly issued by an admin who saw the comment when they were closing an AFD two days ago, there seems to be no sense of deliberately waiting to act. We seem swift to lose sight of AGF in that regard yet are happy to assume it in spades for an editor who has clearly already been made well aware that they need to watch their civility and are not even close to their first infraction related to it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks, I accept your point but it is also true that no one had complained about the comment for sixteen days. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect people don't complain about personal attacks at AfD because, although "user:suchandsuch is motivated by misogyny" would be considered a personal attack, experience has shown that commentary like "keep- nominator is motivated by misogyny" is exempt from WP:NPA. When I've raised objections to ad hominems at AfD I've been ignored by the closing administrator probably 90% of the time. So I wonder if complaining about such comments would do any good or whether I should even bother. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block while the comments were a bit aggressive they were also a bit misplaced as I don't think he realised he was accusing a female editor of mysogyny and he probably meant tabloid coverage should not be needed for female artists which is a valid point. Perhaps a warning to avoid adhom comments which if broken could be followed by a topic ban from AfDs is a way forward, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block per my comments on HW's talk page. I made my comments there (partly) in the hope that the blocking admin would reconsider, resolve the issue there, and that would be the end of it. C'est la vie. I said, there, that the more I looked the stranger it seemed. We're talking about a block two weeks after the infraction, with no suggestion of the sort of disruption this block is supposed to prevent in the intervening period. The comments themselves were (in part or in whole, including by me) endorsed by other editors within the AFD itself. I actually went back to check if that disruptive nomination had been closed and instead found struck comments and notes about HW having been blocked. To be clear, the "institutional misogyny" was apparent to me too, regardless of the gender of the nominator. We're talking about an easily notable band with a female lead singer, but the article was described as being "promotional" despite clearly not being so. The reality is that the nominator in question has an absolutely terrible track record of drive-by nominations, zero regard for WP:BEFORE, and incredibly lazy nominations that rarely accurately reference policy (in fact, a full 30% of their deletion nominations are closed as Keep). But nobody seems interested in addressing that. I commented in another AFD that every one of their nominations should be met with a wall of copy-pasted "Keep per WP:BEFORE" until they finally got the message or were blocked. Instead, those who call out and openly oppose their disruption are blocked. That's some pretty misdirected mopping. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• oppose block purely because it came too long after the offending comments - if it had been done sooner then I would fully support. Given HW's history, I suggest we make it clear that any further personal attacks, whenever they are made, will result in indef. Also get them to shorten the signature before we unblock. GiantSnowman 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Community ban request for Maile66

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

---

Community ban request for:

• Maile66 (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

As Maile66 forces in, it saw a lot of contributions and logs that they made seriously inside to discuss our problems. In some of these cases, Maile66 will be banned from the English Wikipedia. My message is about Maile66 because they reverted all edits so it is a serious situation that other vandalism can lead to a community ban, as formed in Special:Log/Maile66. Pinging admins @Bishonen, @El C, @User:Johnuniq and @Sandstein. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talk • contribs • email) 14:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Diegopeter2013: You must notify the subject of the report. Additionally, this report is nearly incomprehensible. dudhhr_Contribs 14:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Dudhhr: I'm just requesting a report for community ban of Maile66. They just reverted all edits and logs as vandalism, WP:VANDAL, if it is taken off seriously by the community. That isn't incomprehensible. Thank you. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talk • contribs • email) 14:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's pretty incomprehensible. Please define all edits and logs, and supply some of the diffs of the behavior. Looking at their recent edit history it looks like they're just creating content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? What edits/logs are you posting about? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Are you requesting a user be banned? And if so, what actual specific instances of ban-worthy behaviour do you wish this to be based upon? Please provide diffs of specific instances you have in mind. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 15:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) Just commenting, Maile66 is an admin hence if you refer those deletion in the logs then it is perfectly normal. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, what? Requesting a CBAN for an admin in good standing would need a lot of very strong evidence of misconduct; and I'm not seeing any evidence at all here. Which edits did Maile66 even revert? Not any of your recent ones, certainly. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Diegopeter2013: as I type this I find that you have been editing for 3 months and have 497 edits. There are several alternatives to a ban available but you have yet to present evidence that any of them are needed. MarnetteD|Talk 15:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Paper9oll and @MarnetteD Thank you for this problem. We'll reply as well as possible. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talk • contribs • email) 15:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Maile66 is accused for the DYK administrator. It was repeatedly deleted some articles (like pages and draft articles), created mass of pages, blocks, protected pages and reverted all edits—this would lead to vandalism and disruptive editing, a DYK administrator Maile66 will be banned from the English Wikipedia if this continues for a second time. We'll ping @Valereee instead. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talk • contribs • email) 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy nope - this request is a mess, no specific evidence has been provided. As the reported is a very new editor, I don't expect that they would know how to properly submit a CBAN request, but I also don't expect they would know anything about our dispute resolution processes. Barring an update with some very specific examples of problems, this should be put aside - perhaps directing the requester to some essays or help pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps too—this is very accusing with others. –Diegopeter2013 (he/him • talk • contribs • email) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Uhhh ... I just now got back online and saw this, and it seems this user was a sock and now blocked. One of those random mysteries in the universe, I guess. Any admin's logs are going to be confusing to non admins who've never seen user logs before. — Maile (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Somebody should give Maile66 a barnstar for their deciphering abilities. I'm impressed, because I'm still confused. – ².O.^Boxing 18:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: assuming you're not joking about being confused ... every editor on Wikipedia has a running page on their edits. On my skin (and perhaps others), you go to the top of a user page and see "Contributions". Click on that, and you see a running list. If you click on the option "logs" you can see more details, in an admin's case, it would be every admin edit. Lots of red links if pages are moved or deleted, with explanatory edit summaries. But if you're just a drive-by sock with no clue what an admin role is, it's possible to think, "Oh, my gawd ... this admin has gone nuts". Or something like that. This is my best guess at what the above sock was alarmed about. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The sock-master, wasn't very creative with sock names. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotional editing and disruptive behaviour by BoardOfEd

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

(Note: I originally took this to AIV but it was suggested that it was a more complex matter and needed to be raised here.)

BoardOfEd uses his account almost solely to promote his own YouTube channel and website. (He acknowledges that they are his on his User page.) This has been going on since December 2019 when he was aggressively linkspamming his previous YouTube channel (which got terminated for reasons I know nothing about beyond what it says here). Since then he has slowed down and concentrated his efforts at Wimshurst machine (and, to a lesser extent, Tesla coil) but not stopped completely.

Warnings, including a final warning, have been been largely unavailing. All they have elicited are angry, incoherent and completely off-topic rants alleging harassment, antisemitism and far left bias (e.g. User_talk:BoardOfEd#FAR_LEFT_BIAS_ON_WIKIPEDIA). His content is about electrostatic generators so I am at a complete loss to understand where the claims of antisemitism and political bias come in. He also misuses the minor edit tag (which could be accidental) and makes personal attacks in edit summaries.

I feel that this is a clear WP:NOTHERE case with no realistic hope for improvement after all this time. He is also ranting and alleging defamation over on the Commons here so maybe a cross-site block is required? --DanielRigal (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, BoardOfEd edits are indeed promotional as their edits on article pages are either adding a link from their youtube or adding www.misterbonetti.com. The account is being used for promotional use only and should be blocked. Jerm (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contribution history, the account appears to exist for the sole purpose of self-promotion. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• A rather colorful user. I've indeffed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editors emptying categories

Before either 157.25.19.100 or I start an edit war I'm just going to start an ANI discussion. On Talk:IM L7 me and DeFacto discussed Category:Cars introduced in 2022 and how the name is past tense. This led to the creation of other categories such as Category:Upcoming car models scheduled for 2021. However, IP user 157.25.19.100 is repeatedly emptying these categories and thinks "your mum" is a valid edit summary for doing so. The final straw of reverting their disruptive changes was when Liz tagged the category for CSD in good faith due to it being empty, and I instantly knew it was because of the IP user persisting on emptying it. There was a discussion for this but the user insists on emptying it with vague and joke summaries and it's getting out of hand and I think action should be taken because I'm in the middle of creating an article right now and I don't want to start an edit war. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also going to point out that 83.8.53.39 was involved too and doing the exact same thing in a slightly less disruptive manner. Waddles 🗩 🖉 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) The ES by '39 '"it is already introduced and upcoming as well in terms of market availability" is less than self-explanatory. Narky Blert (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Marcjordam is a promotional account

Marcjordam is an account used for promoting "Northern Transit Interlocal", a transit company in Montana. The user has repeatedly added promotional content to the articles Cut Bank, Montana, Kalispell, Montana, Great Falls, Montana, Conrad, Montana, and Shelby, Montana and also even tried creating their own article. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Threats to "put a police case against those"

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

---

• MarathaKurmi (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

MarathaKurmi stated [...] don't write Kudmi as a tribal. Otherwise I put a police complain against those. here on Talk:Kudumi Mahato. I warned MarathaKurmi here on Talk:Kudumi Mahato & here on User talk:MarathaKurmi. {{MarathaKurmi's response was this on Talk:Kudumi Mahato:If you provide anything false information then I sure put a police case against those.

I believe this is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Peaceray (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked at almost the exact instant you were saving this (based on a report at WP:ANI 2.0). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

History of Iran

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

History of Iran kept on using he/his pronouns 1 after I openly stated 2, in a discussion involving History of Iran, that I prefer they/them pronouns after History of Iran had already used he/his pronouns addressing somebody they don't even know several times, including on this page.3. After said discussion, I also put it as a preference on my talk page. Further, although they once 4 corrected themselves later on, History of Iran has remained aggressive with me, even after a heated discussion took place and administrators were involved. If they don't want to say sorry, I would like if they were at least less aggressive, stayed civil *and of course called me the way I asked to be called.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting tiring now. @El C:, sorry for bothering you again, but you seem to know this user, could you look into all this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran in Wikipedia there seems to be a pursuit of justice, and it is not a bar were you call your friends to help you against someone. The fact you "know" El C or are more experienced than me doesn't give you more rights, either. I think you have to understand that not everybody can always agree with you, and that not all who disagree are "vandals" or "against democracy".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. No diffs or anything of the behavior being complained about? Just one instance of HistoryofIran correcting themself and the ANI thread they started earlier as evidence of aggression? This looks like wp:BATTLEGROUND to me and probably deserves a WP:BOOMERANG.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I did provide diffs. Or you can call males females and females males in Wikipedia? I mean, is that etiquette?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You provided only one diff of HistoryofIran misgendering you, and also added an ANI thread where it has already been discussed. The only other diff is HistoryofIran correcting themselves. You have now claimed History of Iran has remained aggressive with me despite providing no evidence of this. One diff of being misgendered is not enough to bring a case to ANI, and evinces a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially when considering you are already under a topic ban for personalizing disputes in another area.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally link #3 above is for an edit that happened before you stated a preference on pronouns. I agree that no one should assume anyone's gender, and that's something a lot of editors are trying to learn so I cannot apologise for them,. That being said most editors would likely assume a user with the name of Haldir is male, since it's a male name. However using a link from the day before you indicated a preference doesn't support anything. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran: Don't use he/him as a default. It used to be acceptable in English, but it has stopped being okay in recent times (for good reason).
  @Haldir Marchwarden: Don't assume bad faith. Some users make genuine mistakes, and it is better to talk it out with them before opening an AN/I thread about the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Re to Ermenrich: I forgot to provide the most recent diff (showing the misconduct) in my first post [1], so I don't get you. I added the link to the thread to show that a)they used he/his pronouns and b) I asked them not to do so. The diff that I had forgotten show they did it again, after I asked them not to. There is no WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I'm seemingly not able to get History of Iran to be less aggressive and cooperate, and the lest time I tried to talk with them they reported me here (I guess that was reasonable?), so I came here.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors have no gender. Humans behind the wiki-accounts do have gender. If it really bothers somebody about having a certain pronoun used on them? Then merely request that you be 'always' addressed by your user-name. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail well, technically. But yes, I get it. Okay User:MJL, got it. Thanks for the intervention and sorry to have disturbed you all for this.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

To all: this, again, is the forgotten diff [1] User:GoodDay that'd be just fine, the fact is I asked to be (always) addressed a certain way and also published my preference to be (always) addressed as such on my account and it was ignored. I shouldn't have given up on discussing it with them and shouldn't have come here this quick.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Man (man?), I'm glad I missed this one. It almost certainly would have been unpleasant (again). El_C 10:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hahahhah, El C... Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What has become of Wikipedia? Incredible, discussion was closed. You "missed" this one, yes. I used the sentence "No man," which is what we call a "frase fatta" in Italian. Or maybe I don't understand English that well? Because I heard several times women say "hello guys" and "No, man" to other women and to men in English. Regardless, I asked History of Iran, and all others, to use specific pronouns, and they failed to do so.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. El_C 11:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's all fun to you, always joking even in edit summaries. But (I don't know how, when, who) you are an administrator, and it should be no fun. It's something very important.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Anything else? El_C 11:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: why you wish to discuss so much? For example, this matter was closed, and you could've intervened earlier, just as you could intervene in the above incident involving same users. But you "missed" all this. I don't see the point of coming when it's all done and reopening discussion when it was closed.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not closed. Closed = {{atop}}/{{abot}}. And you, as the OP, are pretty much excepted from determining such closure, in any event. El_C 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? Cool, also elsewhere? If so, please tell Iran as well. If the discussion wasn't closed, then you shouldn't have made "fun" and ambiguously throw a stone (criticism/provocation) and walk away. You should've taken a formal position, and explained it.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather tell you something, Haldir Marchwarden: don't go out of your way to be unpleasant to folks and there'll probably be less ANI threads which feature you in some way or another (though my sense is that there's probably still WP:TE conduct accompanying this, never a good mix). El_C 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El_C, I already told you, I think, that I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice. How is my editing tendentious? And what it has to do with History of Iran using wrong pronouns after being asked not to do that? Am I in the wrong section?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk)

I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice + Am I in the wrong section? Wait, are you or are you not asking for my advise? I'm getting conflicting signals. El_C 11:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Haldir is legit reverting me for the sake of reverting me now. Is anyone watching this? [144] [145] [146] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, pretty much textbook WP:HOUNDING, even if singular (?). El_C 11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not for the "sake of reverting". Please, do keep good faith. I disagree with your POV and your additions. You reverted me as well at the same article and I immediately used the talk page. Why you can't just do the same? Also, this has nothing to do with this section.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not. I wish that you steered away from me. But if you are to get involved with me and intervene in matters like this, when your friends call you up, no less, thus apparently hurting yourself as well (we sharing the same feelings) at least do it properly. You had avoided to get involved so far. Then you came for a dig after other editors/admins had their say and the thing was pretty much settled.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I'm exposed. And it also looks like this in response to "I do not care for your advice" indent above. In any case, for a user whose response to me suggesting they acquaint themselves with "the basics" was: I am not able to study them now and in the future, you sure have a lot of advise for others. And are edit warring. And WP:HOUNDING your content opponents, and otherwise trying to get them in trouble (this thread). Your propensity to escalate for naught may not have been picked up by some participants above, I suspect, though. El_C 12:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING? I'm watching that page, there is a discuss going on, user edits after their POV, I disagree, and I am WP:HOUNDING? But Iran was right in following me to Avicenna from Sogdia and disagreeing [1], right? You are using two weights and two measures. And why you are making this personal against me? "No user is innocent" and whatnot, but you have not once addressed the matter at hand. What is it you want to do here?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

More projection from the individual who responded to me above with Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What can I say? It sort of speaks for itself. El_C 12:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now blocked, didn't see that when writing the above. Anyway, while Che obviously isn't a pronoun, on 11:50, 7 September 2021, I told Haldir Marchwarden that: the C in El_C does not stand for Che (indeed, easy mistake to make, kind of like the name "Haldir"). They acknowledge this on 11:57, 7 September 2021, writing: sorry for the misunderstanding, then. But then, on 20:15, 8 September 2021, they write: I just hope Wikipedia is in good hands. Or at least not in Cheguevara's and Ahmed's hands. Again, it rather speaks for itself. El_C 12:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have strong assumptions about their political (reactionary) views if they are not hesitating to bring those views into this discussion. Whatever your beliefs are regarding Che or anything else related to politics, this isn't the place to express them @Haldir Marchwarden. maybe you should focus on the ANI case instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, Haldir Marchwarden has been blocked, so they are unable to respond here. El_C 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

El C I didn't notice the block, my bad. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential topic ban violation

I recently have come across Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, which Light show created and has been the primary contributor of. The user received an topic ban from biography articles in 2017 (which never got lifted) and was warned last February that continuing to violate it could lead to an indefinite block after already getting multiple blocks for doing so. Does this creation count as a violation of that ban? If so, then perhaps it would be appropriate to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine with a speedy deletion of the list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Light Show's tban was reiterated to them on this noticeboard not even two weeks ago, let alone February. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a year. They can't stay away from bios. Feel free to reduce or lengthen as desired. And I deleted the page and closed the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 137.27.65.235 - Behaviour issue

I need to report this IP editor, as I think their behaviour has not improved since I last reported them. I just discovered that they have put up a list of faults that they have with some edits I made on the article for America's Got Talent (season 16), stating they intend to put them forward into a future ANI against me, adding I never discussed with them or another editor about a matter in the article's Talk Page. The thing is, we had a lengthy discussion, which went off topic with the subject we discussed, but during it they produced a rather unacceptable behaviour that, even for someone saying they were innocent, was not acceptable for a civil discussion; they even went so far as to try to argue against my opinions with unrelated matters (related to me, unrelated to subject). They never returned to making any further input with either the article or talk page since the end of July, until recently today, and what I read was wholly unacceptable.

I feel upset and angry, because I feel like they are mentioning it there, hoping to catch my attention and say "This is what I will do if you don't revert your edits right now!", which is wholly unacceptable. They never chose to discuss the matter with me further, nor did I know of the other editor's input until today. I would have thought someone like them would also have noted the first thing listed in their five sort of "Wiki commandments" on their talk page about disruptions to prove a point...

I don't know what can be done, but I would really like an admin to have a few words with them. It's disheartening to have someone act like that over an issue that I would say is pretty small, but which they wish to make "mountains out of molehills" of. GUtt01 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Second time this user has reported me because they interpret my dispute as "bad behavior" or "uncivil" as if they do not want to bend at all with an IP. Please see first ANI. GUtt01 is ignoring the consensus to 1. include Nightbirde in the article and 2. stop reverting anyone changing it to Nightbirde which is how she is notable as. Therefore i had to include GUtt01's prior edits showing they ignored other editor's input. This user is ignoring that Nightbirde's article was not changed to her birth name. They are "not listening" to others input to mention her. GUtt01 left it for awhile then slowly removed her via "amendments" which is code for revert. As you can see on GUtt01's talk page, they are guilty of edit-warring on a regular basis. Then i list GUtt01's history in an effort to avoid ANI and this editor reports me because they seem to be unable to handle any criticism at all or anyone else (especially an IP) contributing to an article they apparently want control of. I also pointed out the paragraph-long sentences they write and keep undoing when someone else changes/fixes them. Even after another editor cleaned it up, GUtt01 went back to undo it with "amendments" so that it's his/her way. After awhile, how can you not be irritated with this? Then i state i would go to ANI in an effort to help resolve the issue and i'm accused of making a threat? This person is disruptive with reverting/removing other editor's contributions then quickly accuses me of doing the wrong thing by going to the talk page? I feel bullied. Unlike GUtt01, i take days/weeks before responding and i consider everyone's input. GUtt01 has already been reported for being problematic. You can see everything listed on the AGT Season 16 edit history and talk page i conveniently included that he/she tried to delete/hide. I only wanted to make it official after the season ended so i came back to be sure she was properly mentioned per sources i provided. And GUtt01 replied on the talk page since User:Ssilvers comments and edits (August 26th) yet claims to not see it till today after i made a contribution?

Thank you for your time and i apologize in advance that this had to come here because GUtt01 seems to not want to have a conversation. I regret GUtt01 is uncomfortable once again. I'm taking another break today for the record. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not about including this person into the article; it was about which name to use!! The IP is continuing to blow this out of proportions. Hardly anyone is discussing the name or saying it should be changed back, other than this IP editor. They then list my history of relevant edits on the talk page as if to make me a pariah on Wikipedia, saying I'm acting like a bully, when I have not done anything of the sort here. If they wanted to discuss this, I would have thought they would have the decency, after such a long absence from the article, to talk to me or ping me to the talk page for further discussion, rather than just try to act in this manner. Also, how would they think an ANI would help exactly? This just inflamed the situation further - I was accused of accusing them of failing to heed WP:NOTBROKEN, when another editor was the one saying that - even one of the edits they put up was related to that editor, someone they could have easily accused of causing them trouble. This IP editor hasn't perhaps done much editing, contrary to their edit history (since the IP may be being used by someone else than who originally used it), but they are trying to act out all innocent when they continued to act in a manner that doesn't appear civil. They also think the name is important to mention in an article, where there is a question of justifying this - the person's BIO article is already questioned over notability at present, per WP:MUSICBIO. This IP editor clearly has not done anything to engage me in discussing and talking about this - to actually say they would enter an ANI about this, without even talking to me, is ridiculous. I feel like an Admin needs to have a few words with this person, because I clearly feel hurt by this, especially as I haven't done anything wrong or warranted this action and response when civil discussion could have resolved this. GUtt01 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You took this to ANI (first) not me. Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time. I'm not the only one who has changed her legal name to Nightbirde on AGT 16 and the AGT template articles. You know that. And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles. So you accusing me of acting a certain way is your perception. You're projecting. I'm doing what Wiki requests. Take it to the talk page. Don't edit war. Don't revert. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved. You accused me of having a bad attitude again yet it's you being hostile and aggressive to me just because i disagree and do not like that you revert people's comments/edits/contributions. I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself. I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem. Regardless, do not assume things you don't have evidence of about me &/or my contributions/IP, etc. Your previous comments here are not factual. I'm not trying to cause trouble. You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined. Your recidivism of edit-warring and disruptive vandalism i've observed is why we are here. I'll again take a long break because i'm not wanting it my way. I just want it right. This is why i avoided even making changes until now. P.s. I was civil but you're upset that i called you out on you slowly removing her name from the article per your edit history on the talk page... 137.27.65.235 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A few things I disagree with:

• "Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time" - that's no excuse for not trying to discuss this with me first, rather than threaten to take it to ANI.
• "And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles" - the discussion was on the name, not her inclusion in the article, which is what you are trying to force into the issue. Her inclusion, if needed discussing, should have been a separate matter from that, something you should have tried to do.
• "I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself" - Why am I ignoring this? I am not disputing her name for the moment.
• "I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem" - The situation was begun by you trying to push your point in this matter, without being calm and civil and trying to discuss this normally. We could have settled this matter better, but you insisted in acting in a manner that was very upsetting to me.
• "You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined" - No, I would prefer to discuss, because some people have made me see things differently when I originally disagreed to something in an article.
• "I'm doing what Wiki requests. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved." - Wikipedia would recommend only doing ANI when there is evidence of a dispute. A dispute over something trivial would first require that you conducted a discussion on it with the relevant party involved; you didn't. I had no discussion with you, because you didn't bother to engage me at all - just went in, say you're going to call me out on ANI, and not bother with doing any discussions.

Quite frankly, those comments don't exonerate you. While I may have acted badly at times, whether misunderstandings or emotions caused the issue, I am trying to be better. And I would have discussed this with the IP editor, if they had tried to engage me in one, rather than suddenly thinking to force an ANI on the matter.... GUtt01 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, this is the last edit summary on America's Got Talent (season 16), regarding the issue: "if you continue to omit her or "amend" after multiple talk page discussions and edit summaries by others including consensus with sources confirming she performs and is addressed as Nightbirde on the show itself - then you will be reported for disruption/reverting/edit-warring not to mention you're constantly writing paragraph long sentences that are confusing so please stop changing this just to have it your way after you've been notified not to exclude her from the season". Notified? I was not notified at all about this. And I pointed out that the discussion in the talk page was about her name, not her inclusion. The IP editor didn't seem to bother to think things through on this matter - furthermore, if someone's being disruptive badly, one would be better off going to that user's talk page and sending a warning to them; it's been done by myself and others to those who acted irresponsibly, rather than in edit summaries (because that way, we notify them of their actions). GUtt01 (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So. Lots of text that is just you two bickering back and forth. Absolutely no links to differences showing the problems. Nobody wants to spend time searching for what the problems are. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Okay, to allow you to see the issue, here is what the IP put up in the talk page for the article. Note how they begun this though:

": This message is to Ssilvers (talk) only... Please see the following vandalism by GUtt01 before i report it to ANI (amendments = reverts):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1044645647&oldid=1044638960

(after this talk page discussion GUTT01 included Nightbirde then removed it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(removed Nightbirde to refuse linking)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1038760618

(removed her all together even though she was mentioned and appeared in future episodes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1031615690

(her full name comes from alternate sources not the show itself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035809664

(ANI complaint about GUtt01)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035656769

(wasn't blocked for similar behavior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nightbirde

(article unchanged to legal name and inconsistent with other AGT performers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabayi&diff=prev&oldid=1035816046

("i really hope i can improve and do better")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036232917

(user Magitroopa changed back to my edit)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036261756

(keeps writing long complicated sentences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772089

(made a decision to end discussion even though Nightbirde appeared again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036773100

(sources/show & judges/host all called her Nightbirde)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772726

(included Nightbirde yet doesn't link it only her legal name then later deletes it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(clearly intentional/deliberate agenda not to have Nighbirde's name in article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)#Jane/Nightbirde

(suppression of consensus for her notable contribution in show)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1040702074&oldid=1040701962

(did not acknowledge nor respond)

18:06, 17 September 2021 diff hist +21‎ America's Got Talent (season 16) ‎ Rving edits - Possible WP:DE current Tag: Undo

(has the nerve to say i'm disruptive?)"

GUtt01 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I got an edit reverted with the tag removed by FobTown (talk · contribs) with no explanation or discussion. I don't feel like getting in another edit war here.

You should know this user already has been blocked once in this page. Not to mention all his previous behavior warnings.

He hasn't attempted to make any discussion in the talk page and we can see the history that he is rather insistent on putting his views in the article.

Also I question his neutrality as per this link, where he accuses others of being government shill when one of them is trying to open a discussion to get consensus.

Would be grateful to have the admins look into this.

-210.6.154.28 (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

AceUofT - refspam and copyright problems

In June, AceUofT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was cautioned about WP:SELFCITE [147], warned about copyvio's [148], warned about WP:REFSPAM [149] [150] [151], and eventually brought to ANI (thread). However, they were eventually rather blocked for sockpuppetry (SPI). Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, they were unblocked by BDD on 19 August.

Since they resumed editing on 9 September, they have been engaging in the exact same behavior that got them to ANI in June. Being an 'ace' on the UofT or the University of Toronto, all 16 of their edits since being unblocked add bits of information sourced to a work by University of Toronto professor Shafique Virani.

Like before, some of these edits are good, but many of them are also clear violations of WP:SELFCITE in that they are putting undue emphasis on Virani's work and research interests. It's not always clear if it's relevant, and taken together, they're certainly excessive (cf. some of my revert rationales [152] [153] [154]).

Moreover, they also engaged again in a blatant copyright violation.

One of the problems is that they're not communicative: the only edit they ever made to their talk page was blanking a warning message. I think we need an indefinite block, if only to get them talking. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: to be fair, if it is their own work it isn't a copyright violation (they simply need to release it via the proper channels). However, their behavior looks to be disruptive - not saying they're WP:NOTHERE as I could see why they're doing what they're doing to try to improve the encyclopedia (goodness knows we could use more actual experts) - but it seems like a block is necessary if they refuse to communicate (though I wouldn't support any permanent sanctions as long as they address the concerns raised). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Yes, I'm largely with you: they're not exactly NOTHERE, and the most important thing is that they address the concerns. Two things, however: 1. I don't think they're Shafique Virani himself (the quality of their edits just isn't up to par), but rather some kind of 'fan'. 2. Even if they were Virani, he has already handed over the copyrights to the publisher: except in open access and the like, academics generally don't hold the copyrights anymore over their own published works. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Sgweirdo's constant removal of contents without an edit summary

User_talk:Sgweirdo has racked up a large amounts of warnings regarding the removal of contents without an edit summary. The user has thus far refused to communicate, and is yet clearly aware of their talk page. They have previously been blocked for similar behavior.

I left a final warning on 16 September 2021, and yet the behavior persists, such as here and here in the removal of content while cleaning up pages.

While I am not requesting an outright block just yet as it's not strictly vandalism, I am hoping this report spurs them to begin to communicate with other users per WP:CIR. Seloloving (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this guy again, I've warned him before in the past, I do find his edits irritating, he has been around awhile, but originally when he first turned up I thought it was a continuation of a banned/blocked user but didn't know who. Govvy (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, could you give diffs for a few edits that are actually bad? I'm seeing some that are perhaps questionable, and a lot that are entirely beneficial and within policy (such as the removal of an interminable number of "Mr"s from lists of names). this edit is probably mistaken (but see WP:INDICSCRIPT), but I'm not entirely sure that it justified an only warning. And yes, the lack of an edit summary is frustrating. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for checking up on the matter. I am aware that the user was cleaning up the articles in this editing spurt and had acknowledged that in my original report. That was why I was hoping that this report would spur Sgweirdo to respond to concerns rather than incur another ban.

As for WP:INDICSCRIPT, I was not aware of the policy but had issued it in good faith following the escalation of warnings by other editors, especially since many country pages do feature the official names, though perhaps in Romanised form instead of native script.

These are yet more examples of unexplained removal of content, which 1, 2, 3, 4. My original report had two same links, this was meant to be the second. 5 Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The "only warning" is not due to a single diff, it is entirely appropriate escalation following months of persistent non-communication. There have been numerous other notifications and warnings. Edit summaries are one thing, this editor has not made a single edit to a talkpage, ever. This is despite having been blocked once before. Collaboration is required. CMD (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:81.177.3.8

Is this IP a continuation of a banned/blocked user? I noticed on IP talk page log, [155] the other IP of User:49.228.168.149 running the same edit back and forth between the two IPs which for some reason made me think it's the same person for some reason. (Made me think of a user editing from a phone IP and home-wifi IP at the same time!) It's first edit was back in July too WP:AN in contrib, talking like an experienced user! Then coming back in September on the contrib, does it not feel fishy (WP:DUCK) to anyone else? Govvy (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: apparently you did not read the big red notice that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, maybe try to follow the clearly spelled out instructions, anyway I'm not new and I was reverting 49.228.168.14 which happens to be an lta, maybe check a few diffs before wasting everyone's time with an ani next time. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA back at Peter McNally article

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Editor adding "inside information"

At the Paddy McNally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article there has been a long history of single purpose accounts claiming he was born in December 1937 in Gravesend, Kent, yet not being able to provide a single reference. Sockpuppetry case on the latest three (two accounts and an IP) filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toadforthe7, but SPI is backlogged and they've been up to their usual disruption for several days now. FDW777 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Very likely a sock account of the previous disrupter of this article. I've indef blocked. -- Longhair\^talk 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. As detailed in the most recent SPI (linked above), the claim of a December 1937 birthdate in Kent has been a hobbyhorse of numerous accounts over the last couple of years. There was also Alfredf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the same argument on my talk page, since that message occurred shortly after my revert of 2A01:4C8:F8:101B:5408:82A6:9B8B:4A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) they would appear to be one and the same, and quite probably also the same person as Peter.mcnally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: The SPI will hopefully weed them out once the backlog catches up to your request. I'll add the article to my watchlist to keep an eye out for their return. -- Longhair\^talk 10:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editing at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy

Would someone familiar with LTA Mikemikev please take a look at recent IP editing on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy and do whatever might be appropriate? Long term target Talk:Race and intelligence is 500/30 protected now, so it seems to me that spillover to other articles is happening. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)